4.1 Article

Children's experiences of their learning environment: Psychometric properties of a questionnaire evaluating classroom environment, activities and interactions

期刊

CHILD LANGUAGE TEACHING & THERAPY
卷 38, 期 1, 页码 59-77

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/02656590211050868

关键词

Reverberation; noise; multilingualism; classroom; communication

资金

  1. Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Foundation [2015.0087]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study developed a questionnaire to evaluate children's experiences in the physical classroom environment, activities, and interactions. Psychometric properties of the questionnaire were found to be good, but could be enhanced by reducing the number of items. Acoustical characteristics of classrooms and student characteristics did not predict questionnaire outcomes, suggesting the need for a focus on communication fostering support.
The present study reports on the development of a questionnaire that evaluates children's experiences of their physical classroom environment, activities and interactions. It also explores the psychometric properties of the questionnaire and how acoustical characteristics of the classroom, class size and student characteristics (age, sex and Swedish as a second language) influence the self-reported outcomes. After development, the questionnaire name should read Activities and Interactions in the Classroom were administered to 101 students (7.9-10.7 years old). Demographic information about the students was collected from parents. The psychometric properties including test-retest reliability are good but can be improved by reducing the number of items. Acoustical characteristics of the classrooms and student characteristics did not predict questionnaire outcomes. As the acoustical conditions in students' classrooms were close to optimal, communication fostering support should be in focus. The present questionnaire can be used to assess young students' experiences of their classroom environment and learning situations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据