Abstract
It is generally believed that classroom learning experiences very much influence students’ academic development. However, relatively little is known about whether classroom learning experiences have much effect on students’ affective and social development. In this study, we argued for the importance of learning experiences on students’ affective and social development. From research on Accelerated Schools Project and active learning, we conceptualised Positive Learning Experiences, Teacher Support in Learning, and Active Learning Experiences as three components of learning experiences and developed relevant measures to tap these learning experiences. Using research data from a large-scale student survey in Hong Kong (N = 19,477), we examined the construct validity of learning experiences and quality of school life. Confirmatory factor analysis provided very strong support for the measures and the underlying constructs that they tap. In two-way analysis of variance, the effects of gender and school level (secondary versus primary) on learning experiences and quality of school life were examined. Significant gender and school-level main effects, as well as gender by school-level interaction effects, were found for students’ ratings of their learning experiences and quality of school life. Female students gave more favourable ratings than male students, and primary students gave more favourable ratings than secondary students. In addition, gender differences in these ratings in secondary schools were relatively smaller than in primary schools. In subsequent multilevel modelling, learning experiences were strong predictors of quality of school life after controlling for the effects of gender, school level and average school achievement. These findings provide strong empirical support for the significance of classroom learning experiences for students’ social and affective development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In Hong Kong, schooling up to Grade 9 is compulsory and free. At the end of Grade 6, secondary school places for Grade 7 are allocated according to parental choice in the order of merit of students’ internal school examination results moderated by public examination performance. Students are largely free to choose any high school in Hong Kong; schools select students largely on the basis of merit; and schools that attract better students are those with better examination results, higher university-admission rates, a history of positive results and a good reputation among parents, as well as other desirable characteristics (e.g. proximity to home). Admission into the most prestigious high schools is highly valued and, because this selection mechanism is based primarily on academic merit, the Hong Kong secondary school system is one of the most highly achievement-segregated ones in the world (Lo et al. 1997). At the time when Pang’s study was conducted, Grade 6 students were classified into five bands according to their academic achievement: the top 20% was classified as Band 1; the second best 20% as Band 2; and the bottom 20% as Band 5. Secondary school places for Grade 7 were allocated in the order of merit of students’ academic achievement from Band 1 to Band 5. As a result of this highly achievement-segregated system, the highly prestigious secondary schools exclusively attract almost all Band 1 (top 20%) students, leaving behind the least prestigious secondary schools with almost all Band 5 (bottom 20%) students. As a quick reference to these different ‘classes’ of secondary schools in Hong Kong, parents and teachers refer to those schools that primarily attract the best students (top 20%) as ‘Band 1 secondary schools’ and to those schools that receive the least capable students (bottom 20%) as ‘Band 5 secondary schools’. Since 2000, there has been a shift in policy to slightly reduce achievement-segregation in Grade 7 in Hong Kong by reducing the number of bands from five to three (Education Commission 2000). Currently, three broad bands are applied: Band 1 (top 33.3%), Band 2 (middle 33.3%) and Band 3 (bottom 33.3%).
References
Ainley, J., Batten, M., Collins, C., & Withers, G. (1998). Schools and the social development of young Australians. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Ainley, J., Goldman, J., & Reed, R. (1990). Primary schooling in Victoria: A study of students’ attitude and achievements in Years 5 and 6 of government primary schools (ACER Monograph No. 37). Hawthorn, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Ainley, J., Reed, R., & Miller, H. (1986). School organization and the quality of schooling: A study of Victorian government secondary schools (ACER Monograph No. 29). Hawthorn, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Brandt, R. (1998). Powerful learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Chiu, C. S. (2002). Quality schools project: Resource guide. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong (In Chinese) .
Chiu, C. S., Chan, H. Y., Lee, Y. Y., & Wong, K. S. (2002). Powerful learning: Theory and practice. In C. S. Chiu (Ed.), Quality schools project: Resource guide (pp. 118–124). Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong (In Chinese).
Education Commission. (2000). Learning for life learning through life: Reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.
Education and Man Power Bureau (2003a). Users’ and training manual for measuring primary students’ performance in affective and social domains. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.
Education and Man Power Bureau (2003b). Users’ and training manual for measuring secondary students’ performance in affective and social domains. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.
Eidson, C. B., & Hillhouse, E. D. (1998). The accelerated high school: A step-by-step guide for administrators and teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Epstein, J. L., & Mcpartland J. M. (1976). The concept and measurement of the quality of school life. American Educational Research Journal, 13, 15–30.
Finnan, C., McCarthy, J., St. John, E., & Slovacek, S. (1996). Accelerated schools in action: Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Finnan, C., & Swanson, J. D. (2000). Accelerating the learning of all students: Cultivating culture change in schools, classroom, and individuals. Boulder, CO: West View Press.
Hopfenberg, W. S., Levin, H. M., & Associates. (1993). The accelerated schools resource guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Johnson, W. L., & Johnson, A. M. (1993). Validity of the quality of school life scale: A primary and second-order factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 145–153.
Karatzias, A., Power, K. G., Flemming, J., Lennan, F., & Swanson, V. (2002). The role of demographics, personality variables and school stress on predicting school satisfaction/dissatisfaction: Review of the literature and research findings. Educational Psychology, 22, 33–50.
Karatzias, A., Power, K. G., & Swanson, V. (2001). Quality of school life: Development and preliminary standardisation of an instrument based on performance indicators in Scottish secondary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12, 265–284.
Lo, L. N. K., Tsang, W. K., Chung, Y. P., Cheng, Y. C., Sze, P. M. M., Ho, E. S. C., & Ho, M. K. (1997). A survey of the effectiveness of Hong Kong secondary school systems. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Malin, A., & Linnakyla, P. (2001). Multilevel modeling in repeated measures of the quality of Finnish school life. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 145–166.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 315–353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mok, M. M. C., & Flynn, M. (2002). Determinants of students’ quality of school life: A path model. Learning Environments Research, 5, 275–300.
Mok, M. M. C., & McDonald, R. P. (1994). Quality of school life: A scale to measure student experience or school climate? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 483–495.
Pang, N. S. K. (1999a). Students’ perceptions of quality of school life in Hong Kong primary schools. Educational Research Journal, 14, 49–71.
Pang, N. S. K. (1999b). Students’ quality of school life in band 5 schools. Asian Journal of Counselling, 6, 79–106.
Simons, P. R. J. (1997). Definitions and theories of active learning. In D. Stern & G. Huber (Eds.), Active learning for students and teachers: Reports from eight countries (pp. 19–39). New York: Peter Lang.
Sivan, A., Leung, R. W., Woon, C. C., & Kember, D. (2000). An implementation of active learning and its effect on the quality of student learning. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37, 381–389.
Stern, D., & Huber, G. (1997). Active learning for students and teachers: Reports from eight countries. New York: Peter Lang.
Williams, T., & Batten, M. (1981). The quality of school life (ACER Monograph No. 12). Hawthorn, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Wilson, M. (1988). Internal construct validity and reliability of a quality of school life instrument across nationality and school level. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 995–1009.
Wolf, F. M., Chandler, T. A., & Spies, C. J. (1981). A cross-lagged panel analysis of quality of school life and achievement responsibility. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 363–368.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kong, CK. Classroom learning experiences and students’ perceptions of quality of school life. Learning Environ Res 11, 111–129 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-008-9040-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-008-9040-9