Abstract The study determined how students assess the

various components of their science laboratory environ-

ment. It also identified how the laboratory environment
affects students’ learning outcomes. The modified ex-post
facto design was used. A sample of 328 randomly selected
students was taken from a population of all Senior Sec-
ondary School chemistry students in a state in Nigeria. The
research instrument, Science Laboratory Environment
Inventory (SLEI) designed and validated by Fraser et al.
(Sci Educ 77:1–24, 1993) was administered on the selected
students. Data analysis was done using descriptive statistics
and Product Moment Correlation. Findings revealed that
students could assess the five components (Student cohe-
siveness, Open-endedness, Integration, Rule clarity, and
Material Environment) of the laboratory environment.
Student cohesiveness has the highest assessment while
material environment has the least. The results also showed
that the five components of the science laboratory envi-
ronment are positively correlated with students’ academic
performance. The findings are discussed with a view to
improving the quality of the laboratory environment, sub-
sequent academic performance in science and ultimately
the enrolment and retaining of learners in science.
Keywords Environment Integration Rule clarity
Material environment Open-endedness
Student cohesiveness
Introduction
Instructional science laboratories are widely regarded as
key component of science instruction because most sci-
ences are activity-based explorations into the natural world
(American Association of Advancement of Science 1993;
Bajah 1983). It is widely accepted that science is better
taught using the discovery method (guided or unguided
inquiry) or the experimental approach. For example Piaget
(1969) encouraged children to discover for themselves
through spontaneous interaction with the environment.
The use of this method is based on student participation
and involves amongst others identifying problems, posing
relevant questions, performing efficient and effective
experiments, and making judgments on alternative
hypotheses and interpretation of data (Aladejana 2006;
Adelson 2004; Mayer 2003; Hung and Chin 1988). Stu-
dents therefore learn to discover, learn from discovery and
learn by discovery. This method requires a high level of
interaction between the learner, the teacher, the area of
study, available resources, and the learning environment.
Major benefits of this activity-based learning are that it
makes the subject matter more comprehensible, minimizes
forgetting, and is more likely to lead to transfer of
knowledge and to acquire favorable attitudes toward a
particular subject and toward learning in general. Also, it
makes it easier for the student to progress from elementary
to advanced knowledge. Thus, students are likely to be
highly motivated, score higher on all types of test, gain
critical insight and participate in out of class study (Burton
and Stanley 1968; Combs and Snugg 1995; Bigge 1993). It
has been found that achievement and skills improved when
students were taught science in an activity-based curricu-
lum (Turpin and Cage 2004; Welch and Walberg 1972;
Fraser 1986; Bredderman 1983).
F. Aladejana (&)
Institute of Education, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife,
Nigeria
e-mails: faladeja@oauife.edu.ng; faladeja@yahoo.com
O. Aderibigbe
Department of Special Education and Curriculum Studies,
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
123
J Sci Educ Technol (2007) 16:500–506
DOI 10.1007/s10956-007-9072-4

The learning environment and its determinants play a

major role in improving activity-based teaching and learn-
ing in primary, secondary and higher education. According
to Wong and Fraser (1996), an important determinant of
student learning is the classroom-learning environment.
Fraser (1986) reviewed over 60 studies in which the effects
of classroom environment on science students’ outcomes
were investigated and the findings suggested that students’
outcomes can be improved by creating classroom environ-
ments, which are conducive to learning. Also, some
researches on classroom environment have indicated posi-
tive associations between the nature of the class
environment and pupils’ attitudinal and academic achieve-
ment outcomes (McRobbie and Fraser 1993; Goh et al.
1995; Wong and Fraser 1996; Chin et al. 2004). Factors
related to teaching styles, classroom design, and the learn-
ing environment interact to influence students’ satisfaction
with learning (Zandvliet and Buker 2003; Dorman 1995).
The classroom environment is more than just the phys-
ical space; it is the entire setting for learning. It
encompasses the variety of tools and information resour-
ces, the interactions, the relationships between and among
students and teachers, as well as the expectations and
norms for learning and behavior. Positive classroom envi-
ronments are associated with a range of important
outcomes for students. The laboratory is a major part of the
setting for learning and most science activities designed for
learning take place in it. Hence, the laboratory classroom
environment is also very important for effective learning.
The laboratory classroom environment is a subtle
concept that can be better understood in terms of its
components, which can either be physical or abstract.
The physical laboratory climate includes the location, the
amount of light that gets into it, the furniture and the
arrangement of the furniture. The science equipment and
materials available for laboratory teaching, the construc-
tion and the ventilation of the laboratory also constitute
part of the physical climate. The abstract climate has to do
with the non-physical structure in the laboratory which
includes the teachers’ personality, the student–teacher
relationship, how the teacher can effectively manage the
laboratory class, noise control and the population of the
students in the class (Silberman 1973; Wilson 1996).
According to Instructional Philosophy (2004), a pro-
ductive laboratory environment is a learner-centered
classroom, which is comfortable and open exchange is
promoted by treating all members of the class and their
ideas with respect and thoughtful consideration and where
tasks and activities should be selected to support specific
learning goals. A good laboratory environment promotes
student curiosity, rewards creativity, encourages a spirit of
healthy questioning, avoids dogmatism, and promotes
meaningful understanding, where wait-time is essential in
prompting thoughtful responses and dialogue. Thus, a good
science classroom welcomes all students and strives to
enable all motivated students to be successful.
Five different dimensions of classroom environment
have been identified. These are: Student cohesiveness, SC
(degree to which students know, help and are supportive of
one another); Open-endedness, OE (degree to which the
laboratory activities emphasis an open-ended divergent
approach to experimentation); Integration, IN (degree to
which the laboratory activities are integrated with non-labo-
ratory and theory classes); Rule Clarity, RC (degree to which
behavior in the laboratory is guided by formal rules) and
Material Environment, ME (degree to which the laboratory
equipment and materials are adequate (Quek et al. 1998).
In most Nigerian secondary schools, a lot of students
show little interest in science education because most of
them fail science subjects and some others perceive science
education to be difficult. According to Owokade (2006),
the average performance at credit level in the West African
School Certificate Examinations (WASCE) between 2001
and 2005 in mathematics, electronics, biology, and build-
ing construction was 30% credit pass.Also, enrolment in
WASCE science was generally low, apart from mathe-
matics and biology, which is compulsory for all students,
enrolment in physics and chemistry between 2001 and
2006 was an average of 30% and 1% in technical subjects.
The state of science and technology education in
Nigerian schools and universities is a matter for consider-
able concern, for while there is an increase in the study of
some ‘soft’ science subjects, such as economics and psy-
chology in schools, the enrolments for ‘hard’ science
subjects such as physics and chemistry continue to decline
(Owokade 2006). There are similar concerns about enrol-
ments and staffing provisions in basic science subjects.
Therefore, some positive actions need to be taken to halt
this serious decline by encouraging brightest young people
to choose science-based study and careers.
The main purpose of this study therefore is to assess the
existing science laboratory environment, and consequently
determine the relationship that exists between the science
laboratory environment and academic performance of stu-
dents in scientific tasks. The specific objectives of the study
are to:
1. determine how students assess the various components
of their science laboratory environment,
2. identify how the laboratory environment affects
students’ learning outcome by analyzing the correla-
tion between the two factors.
The study is predicated on the theoretical framework of
constructivism, a philosophy of learning founded on the
premise that by reflecting on our experiences, we construct
our own understanding of the world we live in. According
J Sci Educ Technol (2007) 16:500–506 501
123

to the constructivist view, meaningful learning is a cogni-

tive process in which individuals make sense of the world
in relation to the knowledge, which they already have
constructed (Wilson 1996).
According to Hanley (1994), meaning is intimately
connected with experience. Inferences, elaborations and
relationships between old perceptions and new ideas must
be personally drawn by the student in order for the new
idea to become an integrated and useful part of his/her
memory. Windschitl (2002) identified some features of the
constructivist classroom setting to include carrying out
challenging experiments, engaging in meaningful problem-
based work and working collaboratively with each other
such that the learner can construct knowledge and skills
through his/her own experience. The laboratory setting is
one major avenue for the learner to actively carry out such
experiments and construct new information onto his/her
existing mental framework for meaningful learning to
occur (Huitt 2003; Sherman 1995).
Research Methodology
The ex-post-facto design was used for the study. According
to Watson (2000), this design is aimed at identifying the
possible causes of a behavior by comparing study partici-
pants in whom the behavior is present with similar
participants in whom it is absent after the independent
variable has occurred. For the purpose of this study, this
method was used with the independent variable (classroom
environment) of study investigated for possible relationship
to and effect on the dependent variable (performance). This
design is used instead of the experimental method, as it
is impossible to introduce the treatment of exposing stu-
dents to laboratory classes for at least 2 years.
The population for the study consisted of students at the
Senior Secondary School two (SSS II) who offered
Chemistry in Ife Central Local government area of Osun
state, Nigeria. This class is selected because it is expected
that the students have had adequate exposure to laboratory
classes to enable them to assess the climate of their labo-
ratory classes. The sample of 328 students consisted of 82
students who were randomly selected from each of the four
purposively selected schools based on the presence of a
laboratory for science teaching.
The research instrument is a questionnaire designed
especially for assessing the environment of science class-
room classes in upper secondary and higher education
levels by Fraser et al. (1993). The instrument, the Science
Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI) consists of 35
items measuring the five different dimensions of the
classroom environment—Student Cohesiveness, Open-
endedness, Integration, Rule Clarity and Material
Environment. All the items are structured statements. The
response alternatives for each item are: Almost Never,
Seldom, Sometimes, Often, and Very Often. They have
summated rating scale ranging from 5, 4, 3, 2, to 1. The items
are arranged in cyclic order and in blocks of five to enable
ready hand scoring. The first item in each block assesses
Student Cohesiveness (SC), the second item assesses Open-
endedness (OE); the third item assesses Integration (I); the
fourth item assesses Rule Clarity (RC); and the last item in
each block assesses Material Environment (ME).
Thus, the seven items measuring each of the scales are:
Student cohesiveness 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, 31
Open-endedness 2, 7, 12, 17, 22, 27, 32
Integration 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28, 33
Rule Clarity 4, 9, 14, 19, 24, 29, 34
Material Environment 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35
The validated final form recommended by Fraser et al.
(1993), for use by science teachers to assess environments
of their laboratory classrooms was used in the study. The
reliability of the instrument determined using the split-half
reliability method gave the reliability coefficient of 0.86 for
the complete instrument, and for the items assessing each
of the dimensions, r values of 0.70 for OE, 0.72 for IN,
0.79 for ME, 0.81 for RC and 0.84 for SC were obtained.
In carrying out the data analysis, the positive items had
the responses: Almost Never, Seldom, Sometimes, Often,
and Very Often are given the scores of 1, 2, 3, 4, and
5, respectively. Items scored this way are 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35.
Reverse scoring was used for the remaining items, which are
designated as negative, where 5 is given for Almost Never,
and 1 for Very Often. Omitted or incorrectly answered items
are given a score of 3. The total score for each of the scales
(Student Cohesiveness SC, Open-endedness OE, Integrated
IN, Rule Clarity RC and Material Environment ME) was
obtained by adding the score for the seven items belonging
to the scales. The students’ achievement scores were
obtained from the schools’ record for examinations.
Data analysis was carried out using descriptive statistics
and Product Moment Correlation.
Results
To Determine how Students Assess the Various
Components of their Science Laboratory Environment
The results showed that students assessed student cohe-
siveness, the degree to which students know, help and are
502 J Sci Educ Technol (2007) 16:500–506
123

supportive of one another highest with a mean score of

129.14. This indicates that about 73.79% of the students
agreed that they relate well with other students in the
laboratory class, get help from and can depend on
members of the laboratory class, get to know other stu-
dents well and work cooperatively during the laboratory
class.
The second highest assessed component is Rule Clarity,
degree to which behavior in the laboratory is guided by
formal rules with a mean score of 121.32. With this score,
69.33% of the students agreed that there are clear rules to
guide laboratory activities, the class is formal with many
rules imposed for learners to follow and that the teacher
outlines safety precautions at the beginning of the practical
classes.
The third rated component is Integration, the degree
to which the laboratory activities are integrated with
non-laboratory and theory classes with a mean score of
86.75. This result indicates that only 49.58% of the
students agreed that what their laboratory work is quite
related to their regular science classes and that what is
learnt in the theory classes is useful in the practical
classes. The remaining half of the respondents feel that
laboratory work and regular theory class are unrelated
and that the practicals do not help to understand the
regular science.
The fourth rated is the open-endedness component,
which is the degree to which the laboratory activities
emphasize an open-ended divergent approach to experi-
ment with a mean score of 71.09. Thus, only 40.62% of the
students agreed that there is an opportunity to pursue their
science interests in the laboratory class, and that they can
be required to design experiments to solve given problems,
gather data, allowed to go beyond regular science class
sessions, and decide the best ways to proceed in an
experiment. Most of the students, (59.38%) feel that
teachers decide the best away to proceed during laboratory
activities and that all students are likely to be carrying out
the same experiments.
The least rated is the Material Environment, the degree
to which the laboratory equipment and materials are
adequate with a mean score of 68.05. Only 38.89% of
the students assessed that the equipment and materials
needed for laboratory activities are really adequate. Most
of the students (61.11%) agreed that the laboratory is
often crowded, that they are ashamed of the appearance of
the laboratory, that the available equipment are not in
working order and the laboratory is not attractive. On the
whole the students assessed their laboratory environment
just a little above average with a mean score of 95.27.
About 50% of the students feel that the total environment
is not adequate with one form of lapses or another
(Table 1; Fig. 1).
The Science Laboratory Environment has a Significant
Effect on the Students’ Academic Performance
For data analysis, paired sample correlations was carried
out between the students’ performance scores in the pro-
motion examination and the students’ scores in each of the
five dimensions as well as the total score in the SLEI for
their laboratory environment. The results of the analysis
showed that there is a significant correlation between the
type of science laboratory environment and students aca-
demic performance. The simple correlation values rhave
significant values for all the five dimensions (IN = 0.83;
ME = 0.77; SC = 0.71; OE = 0.59; RC = 0.55) and the
total environment, TE = 0.65, (Table 2). In particular,
Integration, Material Environment, and Student Cohesive-
ness were strong correlates of achievement.
Discussion
The study has been able to revalidate the SLEI in Nigeria
as it was found to have high validity as an instrument for
assessing the total laboratory environment as well for
Table 1 Students’ assessment of the components of their science
laboratory environment
S/N Environment dimensions X SD Mean %
1 Student Cohesiveness SC 129.14 3.01 73.79
2 Open-endedness OE 71.09 1.40 40.62
3 Integration IN 86.75 2.10 49.58
4 Rule Clarity RC 121.32 2.25 69.33
5 Material Environment ME 68.05 3.73 38.89
6. Total Environment TE 95.27 2.76 54.44
Maximum assessment score = 175
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Open End. OE
Student Coh. SC
Integration IN
Rule Clarity RC
Material Env. ME
Total Env. TE
Students' Assessment
Mean X
Fig. 1 Students’ assessment of laboratory environment
J Sci Educ Technol (2007) 16:500–506 503
123
assessing the five components of the environment. This is
contrary to findings of Chin et al. (2004) who found low
reliability for items assessing OE and RC in Singapore. The
study has also confirmed that it is possible for the teacher to
assess the laboratory environment. This is especially
important as it will be possible for the teacher to correct
any lapses in the quality of the environment, improve upon
it, and by such enhance the students’ performance.
The highest assessment for SC indicates a high level of
cooperation, help and support among the students. It also
indicates a high level of interaction between the learners.
RC, which was assessed second highest shows that there
are clear cut rules that learners must follow in the labora-
tory classes amongst which are precautions rules. However
it must be noted that the laboratory classes need not be too
formal as it can detract from the quality of interaction
between learners and between learners and teachers.
The study has revealed that there is no adequate inte-
gration of laboratory activities with non-laboratory and
theory classes. Thus, the students find that what they do
in the laboratory are usually unrelated to the theory, and that
their regular science is not integrated with laboratory
activities. What they do in the laboratory quite often does
not help them to understand the theory covered in the reg-
ular science class. They most likely see practicals as new
concepts to be learnt. In this way, students are likely not to
be adequately interested in their laboratory activities nor be
able to understand them well. This defeats the purposes of
such activities. The laboratory classes should emanate from
theory classes such that students can actually see science as
one to be learnt by activity and discovery and not by
memorizing notes of the theory classes. The laboratory
classes are not just to be entrenched in the theories learnt but
must reveal productivity and usefulness in solving societal/
environmental problems where necessary.
Most of the students see themselves as just carrying out
whatever activities are designed by the teacher. Thus, in
this type of laboratory environment, all students are
carrying out the same experiments and cannot go beyond
what is stipulated by the teacher. The students are not
likely to use their initiative to do any activity and inno-
vations are not likely to come up. This type of laboratory
environment is just a replica of the typical theory class-
room setting where the teacher is in control and presents
him/herself as the repertoire of knowledge. The lab envi-
ronment must move away from this setting to one of freer
open-endedness where learners can take initiative.
The least rating of material environment confirms the
fact that equipment and materials needed for laboratory
activities are generally inadequate that the laboratories are
crowded, and the appearance unattractive. The quality of
this dimension can affect the quality of the other dimen-
sions, for example when the ME is poor, students cannot
even have facilities to try out their initiatives. Equipping
the laboratories have been a major problem for schools and
this might not be unconnected with factors such as funding
and lack of commitment by government. On the whole,
many of the students did not assess the laboratory envi-
ronment well as it was assessed just above average. This is
a clear indication that there is the need for a lot of
improvement on the various dimensions.
This study found that the quality of the science labora-
tory environment and the way learners perceive it have a
significant effect on the performance of the learners and
agrees with Chin et al. (2004), Combs and Snugg (1995),
Fraser and O’Brien (1985) and Wong and Fraser (1996)
that the quality of the environment determines the type of
understanding and memory of the subject that a child
develops. The investigatory or inquiry method, which is the
method of science, is carried out largely in the laboratory
and requires the student to work in a conducive environ-
ment in order to develop the right attitudes. The science
laboratory environment is where the student develops the
skills of observation, inquiry, accurate reporting, creativity,
generalization and the need for safety and caution; all of
these determine performance in science.
Table 2 Correlation analysis of performance against assessment of environment
S/N Students’ assessment of dimensions Performance P
XSDXSDr
1 Student Cohesiveness SC 129.14 4.01 97.86 4.04 0.71 *\0.05
2 Open-endedness OE 71.09 1.40 140.91 1.37 0.59 *\0.05
3 Integration IN 86.75 2.10 121.17 2.33 0.83 *\0.05
4 Rule Clarity RC 121.32 2.25 158.23 1.88 0.55 *\0.05
5 Material Environment ME 68.05 3.73 88.76 4.11 0.77 *\0.05
6 Total Environment 95.27 2.76 121.39 2.41 0.65 *\0.05
Maximum assessment score = 175
Maximum performance score = 200
*Significant
504 J Sci Educ Technol (2007) 16:500–506
123

There is a strong positive correlation found between

pupils’ perception of integration and the material envi-
ronment with achievement. The strong positive correlation
found between pupils perception of the material environ-
ment with performance also reiterated the importance of
the material environment in the learning of science.
The results also reiterate the importance of the appropriate
integration of laboratory activities with theory and the
availability of adequate equipment and resources in helping
pupils in the learning of science. Science laboratory classes
that integrate knowledge learnt from science lessons and
provide conducive material environment may ultimately
have a positive impact on how pupils learn, pupils’ attitude
towards science and their achievement in science.
Conclusion
The study has revalidated the SLEI in Nigeria and con-
firmed that teachers can assess their students’ perception
of the science laboratory environment using a standard
instrument. The knowledge of this can enable them to
identify inadequacies in the quality of the environment.
The science laboratory environment is an important
determining factor of the academic performance of stu-
dents in science as it has been found that there is a high
positive correlation between the quality of the various
dimensions of the environment and students’ academic
performance. It is hoped that improved science laboratory
environment will improve science instruction and
learning.
Based on these findings it is recommended that there is
the need to improve on the quality of the laboratory envi-
ronment to enhance students’ academic performance.
Students should be given better opportunity to know each
other closely and to work cooperatively with each other in
the laboratory. They should be provided with the required
equipment and materials needed for the laboratory activi-
ties and encouraged to be creative by allowing them
occasionally to purse their own science interests and
designing their own experiments. Laboratory classes
should be less formal to allow for better interaction of the
pupils, however safety rules and code of conduct are
essential in a laboratory setting.
References
Adelson R (2004) Instruction versus exploration in science learning.
PsychNet, American Psychological Association 35(6):34–47.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/instruct.html
Aladejana FO (2006) Concept of teaching. In: Ehindero OJ,
Aladejana FO (eds) Introduction to the teaching profession.
Literamed Publications Ltd, Lagos, pp 12–19
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) Bench-
marks for science literacy. Oxford University Press, New York
Bajah T (1983) Teaching integrated science creatively. Ibadan
University Press, Ibadan, pp 51–59
Bigge O (1993) Learning to teach in secondary school, 2nd edn.
Susan Capel & Co., London and New York
Bredderman T (1983) The effects of activity-based elementary
science programme on students’ outcomes and classroom
practices. Rev Educ Res 53(4):499–518
Burton RR, Stanley E (1968) The psychology of learning. Robert
Bordger and A.E.M. Seaborne Penguin Books, pp 40–45
Chin TY, Wong FL, Angela (2004) Pupils classroom environment
perceptions, attitude and achievement in science at the upper
primary level. J Curriculum Leadersh 40(2):34
Combs AW, Snugg D (1995) Psychology applied to teaching, Biehler,
2nd edn. Houghton Mifflin Company, GA, USA, pp 23–67
Dorman JP (1995) Associations between school-level environment
and science classroom learning environment in secondary
schools. Res Sci Educ 25(3):333–351
Fraser BJ (1986) Classroom Environment. Croom–Helm, London
Fraser BJ, O’Brien P (1985) Student and teacher perceptions of the
environment of elementary school classrooms. Elem School J
85:567–580
Fraser BJ, Giddings GJ, McRobbie CJ (1993) Development and cross-
national validation of a laboratory classroom environment
instrument for senior high school science. Sci Educ 77:1–24
Goh SC, Young DJ, Fraser BJ (1995) Psychosocial climate and
student outcomes in elementary mathematics classrooms: a
multilevel analysis. J Exp Educ 64:29–40
Hanley S (1994) On constructivism. Maryland collaborative for
teacher preparation http://www.inform.umd.edu/UMS+State/
UMD-projects/MCTP/Essays/Constructivism.txt
Huitt W (2003) Constructivism. Educational psychology interactive.
Valdosta State University, Valdosta. http://chiron.valdosta.edu/
whuitt/col/cogsys/construct.html
Hung FU, Chin AK (1988) Sharing of experiences-application of
discovery method to teaching. Educ J 16(1):85–96
Instructional Philosophy (2004) Classroom Environment. http://www.
biologylessons.org/
Mayer RE (2003) Learning and instruction. Pearson Education, Inc,
Upper Saddle River, pp 287–288
McRobbie CJ, Fraser BJ (1993) Association between student
outcomes and psychosocial science environment. J Educ Res
87:78–85
Owokade OO (2006) Facilitating effective performance of students in
mathematics, science and technology in secondary schools.
Paper presented at the FGN-UNESCO Workshop for Inspectors,
University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria, Dec 2006
Piaget J (1969) The Mechanism of perception. Routledge and Kegan
Paul, London
Sherman LW (1995) A postmodern, constructivist and cooperative
pedagogy for teaching educational psychology, assisted by
computer mediated communications. In: Proceedings of
CSCL 95’ Conference. http://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/
Dhsiao/theories.html
Silberman CE (1973) The open classroom readers. Random Press,
New York
Turpin T, Cage BN (2004) The effects of an integrated activity-based
science curriculum on student achievement, science process
skills and science attitudes. Electron J Lit Sci 3:1–17
Watson J (2000) Research designs, RGS 6035 http://www.ecourse.
amberton.edu/grad/RGS6035E1/READ4.HTM
Welch WW, Walberg HJ (1972) A national experiment in curriculum
evaluation. Am Educ Res J 9:373–383
Wilson BG (1996) Introduction: what is a constructivist learning
environment? In: Wilson BG (ed) Constructivist learning
J Sci Educ Technol (2007) 16:500–506 505
123

environments. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood

Cliffs, pp 3–8
Windschitl M (2002) Framing constructivism in practice as the
negotiation of dilemmas: an analysis of the conceptual, peda-
gogical, cultural and political challenges facing teachers. Rev
Educ Res 72(2):131–175
Wong AFL, Fraser BJ (1996). Environment attitude associations in
the chemistry laboratory classroom. Res Sci Technol Educ
14:91–102
Quek CL, Wong AFL, Fraser BJ (1998, April). Teacher–student
interaction among gifted chemistry students in Singapore
secondary schools. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of
the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San
Diego
Zandvliet DV, Buker L (2003) The Internet in B.C. classrooms:
learning environments in new contexts. Int Electron J Leadersh
Learn 7(15). http://www.ucalgary.ca/*iejll/volume7/zandvliet.
htm
506 J Sci Educ Technol (2007) 16:500–506
123

Citations (21)Citations (21)

References (36)References (36)

 ... It means that Green Chemistry approach applied in the laboratory learning
environment could assist preservice teachers to achieve whole indicators well. This result
is line with the study conducted by Aladejana and Aderibigbe (2007) that science
laboratory learning environment is determinant factor of student's learning achievement
in the science learning, in terms of chemistry. Besides, the achievement of pre-service
teachers' cognitive aspect was also supported by the quality of evaluation tools used to
measure achievement of all indicators developed, that is, summative test. ...

THE EFFECT OF GREEN CHEMISTRY LABORATORY LEARNING ON PRE-

SERVICE CHEMISTRY TEACHERS' ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE ORIENTATIONS
AND CREATIVE THINKING SKILL

Article

Full-text available

o Nov 2015
o
 Arini Siti Wahyuningsih

o Sri Poedjiastoeti
o Suyono

View

Show abstract

 ... Science process skills are fundamental to science, allowing every category of learner to
conduct investigations and reach conclusions. A good laboratory environment, according
to Aladejana and Aderibigbe (2007), promotes curiosity in students, reward creativity,
encourages the spirit of healthy questioning, avoids dogmatism and also promotes
meaningful understanding. In line with the above, Metzenberg (2005) suggested that
students need to develop necessary social and learning skills so that they can collaborate
effectively, share, debate, defend their ideas and be able to work in groups. ...

Impact of Modified Laboratory Learning Environment on transformative Biology Process

Skills among Secondary School Students in Osun State, Nigeria

Article

o Sep 2015
o M. O. Salami

View

Show abstract

 ... These studies involved mainly students in science, mathematics and computer
sciences. It can be observed that very little researches in the area of vocational and
technical education and perhaps almost none has been conducted in the area of
automobile technology in the tertiary institutions in Nigeria (Ajuar, 2006; Aladejana and
Aderibigbe, 2007; Henderson and Fisher, 2008; Koopman, Teune and Beijard, 2011). It is
against this backdrop that this study aimed to investigate students' perception of the
learning environment as it affects their attitude in automobile technology in north-eastern
Nigeria tertiary

Science Laboratory Environment and Academic Performance (PDF Download Available).

Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225560294_Science_Laboratory_Environment_and_A
cademic_Performance [accessed Feb 22 2018].