1 / 22

The C L E Q (Waldrip & Fisher, 2000)

The C L E Q (Waldrip & Fisher, 2000). Cultural Learning Environment Questionnaire To assess culturally sensitive factors of the classroom learning environment (in Australia).

trung
Download Presentation

The C L E Q (Waldrip & Fisher, 2000)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The C L E Q (Waldrip & Fisher, 2000) • Cultural Learning Environment Questionnaire • To assess culturally sensitive factors of the classroom learning environment (in Australia). • Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (individualism, masculinity-femininity, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance)

  2. The C L E Q (Waldrip & Fisher, 2000) • 7 subscales (gender equity, collaboration, deference, competition, teacher authority, modeling, congruence) • 5 items for each subscale (altogether 35 items) • A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1(disagree) to 5 (agree)

  3. Examples of the CLEQ Items • Gender equity: “I feel that male students are just as capable as female students in all class activities.” • Collaboration: “I like working in groups.” • Deference: “I try to say what I think the teacher wants rather than give my own opinion.” • Competition: “I like to compete against the other students.”

  4. Examples of the CLEQ Items • Teacher Authority: “It is OK for me to argue with teachers.” • Modeling: “I like teachers to show me what to do.” • Congruence: “What I learn in school helps me to do things at home.”

  5. Aims of the study • To examinecross-cultural factorial validityof the CLEQ. • To propose tentativeculture-specific sets of subscalefor further usage.

  6. Participants • 4 cultures:Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Australia. • 230 year-9 and year-10 secondary students from each culture - Altogether 920 subjects. • Male and female were equally represented in each sample.

  7. Participants Compositions of ethnic backgrounds • Singapore : 230 (100%) Chinese. • Philippines : 230 (100%) Filipinos. • Indonesia: - 204 (88.70%) Native Indonesians - 26 (11.30%) Chinese Indonesians. • Australia: - 162 (70.43%) European Australians - 68 (29.57%) Others.

  8. Data Analysis - 1 • Confirmatory Factor Analysisor CFA was first used to test the measurement model of the CLEQ (7 factor oblique model). • The goodness-of-fit indices (AGFIand SRMR) were evaluated for each cultural measurement model.

  9. Measurement Model 7 factor oblique model

  10. Result of CFA Measurement Model (7 factor oblique model)

  11. Data Analysis - 2 • Two primary types ofExploratory Factor Analysisor EFA- Principal Component Analysis and Maximum Likelihood - were then performed for each cultural data set. • Promax (oblique) rotational method was chosen and7 factorswere extracted.

  12. Result of PCA - Singapore

  13. Result of PCA -Indonesia

  14. Result of PCA –Philippines

  15. Result of PCA -Australia

  16. Cronbach  Internal Consistency

  17. Summary of the findings • Item def-24 - “It is important that I am able to answer all the questions teachers ask me.” • Item def-31 - “It is important to me that I give the right answers to questions in class.” • Both loaded together with the competition items in all cultures.

  18. Summary of the findings • Deference and Modeling items intermixed. • Singapore and Indonesia: 2 factors -teacher -conformityand classmate- conformity. • Philippines: 2 factors –teacher-conformityand class members-conformity. • Australia: a single factor –class members conformity.

  19. Summary of the findings • Item col-23 - “It is important for me to be involved in class discussion.” - is problematic across cultures. • Indonesia: Gender Equity items split into 2 factors teacher-gender equity and classmate- gender equity.

  20. Tentative new sets of subscales • Items def-24 and def-31may be included in the competition subscale (5 or 7 items). • Deference and modeling subscales are substituted by - teacher- and classmate- conformity subscales (4 items each) for Singapore and Indonesia, - teacher-conformity (3 items) and class member-conformitysubscale (4 items) for the Philippines, and - class members-conformity (8 items) for Australia.

  21. Tentative new sets of subscales • Teacher Authority subscale (5 items) and Congruence subscale (5 items) remain the same. • Item col-23 removed from the collaboration subscale. • Gender equity subscale (5 items) remain the same, except for Indonesia – teacher- (3 items) and classmate-gender equity (2 items).

More Related