Volume 26 Number 1
October 1986 

IN THE LAST TWO DECADES, researchers have examined many facets of the classroom learning environment. Much of this research has focused on students' perceptions of a variety of learning environments. Little research has been directed at examining the learning environment of North American Indians living in remote communities. Mahan (1984) reported that teachers working with American Indian students had most problems with motivating students to work and adapting teaching to fit the culture. These two problems appear to be interrelated; that is, in order to motivate Indian students, teachers would need to adopt a varied teaching style that took into account the specific culture as well as individual differences among students. 

Are teachers in American Indian schools establishing learning environments with a high possibility of accommodating low motivation, culture differences and other areas of exceptionality? To investigate this and other questions, the Assessment of Classroom Learning Environment (ACLE) instrument, developed by Maynard Reynolds (1978) at the University of Minnesota, was used by teachers of all Canadian federally-funded Indian schools in the Province of Manitoba. 

This study of classroom learning environment was distinctive in a number of ways. First, it involved the use of a classroom environment instrument, ACLE, which has had very limited use in previous research. Second, unlike most other classroom environment instruments which use school students' perceptions, the ACLE uses teacher perceptions. Third, learning environments were studied at all levels: kindergarten to high school. Fourth, the study examined all federally-funded Native classrooms from one province in Canada. 

A major meta-analysis involving 823 classes in eight subject areas in four nations was undertaken by Haertel, Walberg and Haertel in 1981. Many of the studies that were analyzed provided strong support for students' perceptions of classrooms in accounting for a large amount of learning outcome variance. The importance of a flexible, accommodating classroom was stressed. Moos (1979) studied the relationship between classroom environment and student satisfaction with the teacher. Using a sample of 241 classes, Moos found that classroom environment variable explained half the predictable variance in student satisfaction with the teacher. This study offered strong support for investigating classroom environment with instruments such as the ACLE. The Fraser and Fisher (1982) studies of differences between students' and teachers' perceptions of classroom environment showed that teachers tended to perceive the classroom environment more favorably than did students in the same classroom. Since classroom teachers' perceptions were used with the ACLE instrument, the Fraser and Fisher results imply that the teachers' ratings of classroom environments in this study may be more positive than if rated by students. 

Classrooms that can accommodate a high degree of exceptionality are needed for the "mainstreaming" approach that is presently used in a majority of North American schools. Wang, Peverly and Randolph (1984) evaluated the effects of a full-time mainstreaming program on a number of criteria including classroom outcomes and student, teacher and parent attitudes and assessments. Results supported the feasibility and efficacy of a full-time mainstreaming approach. More restrictive school placements such as "pullout" or "resource room" were restrictive and should be considered only after an accommodation of exceptionality has failed in the regular classroom. In short, the need to examine and enhance the environment of each classroom is vital, and teachers must be willing to make the appropriate classroom changes to help regular and exceptional students. 

In 1985, the ACLE opinionnaire was completed by 167 teachers working in federally-funded Native Indian schools in the Province of Manitoba, Canada. ACLE was explained to the teachers in six separate in-service days. Following this detailed explanation, teachers completed ACLE and handed the instrument to the present writers. 

The main purpose of ACLE is to assess the degree to which individual classrooms accommodate exceptionality through compliance with the principles of individualized education. The instrument is a simple, five-level rating scale made up of the following 16 sub-scales: 

  

1. Space and facility accommodation	9. Materials
2. Teaching-learning setting	10. Degree of structure
3. Social environment	11. Rate of learning and behaving
4. Control/responsibility	12. Evaluation
5. Classroom management	13. Affective education
6. Teaming arrangements	14. Recognizing cultural differences
7. Instructional methods	15. Child study process
8. Curriculum flexibility	16. Parent-teacher interaction

  

Each subscale contains five descriptors (numbered 1-5) which are sequentially ordered according to increasing desirability. At the five level, the subscales add up to a description of a classroom with a very high degree of power to accommodate exceptionality. 

In reporting the results of 167 teachers' perceptions of their classrooms on the sub-scales of the ACLE, we have, for each scale, presented a description of level 5, representing a classroom with a very high degree of power to accommodate exceptionality, followed by the median level that the teachers reported. 

1. Space and Facility Accommodations to Physical Impairments
Level 5 - The classroom is carpeted and/or otherwise treated effectively for sound control; access and entry present no problems for any student; storage, flexible partitioning possibilities, sound amplification, varied furniture, and like matters are provided adequately. 

Median reported level 2 (Mean 2.24) - At least four of the following seven limitations are characteristic of the classroom: a) is essentially untreated for sound; b) access creates difficult elevation and entry problems for students in wheelchairs; c) has no amplification devices; d) has no partitioned areas for small group work; e) movement to washrooms, lunch rooms, and other essential areas is difficult for orthopedically or visually impaired students; f) space is very limited - thus inflexible; and g) storage space is almost totally lacking. 2.

Teaching-Learning Settings 
Level 5 - Instructional space is divided into the various areas or learning centers that include room for both materials and students. Areas outside the classroom within the school and community facilities are used with significant frequency for organized activities. 

Median reported level 2 (Mean 2.46) - Desks of uniform design are placed in neat rows and columns, all facing in the same direction; at least one "special interest center" is included. 3. Social Environment  Level 5 - The development of positive social skills and attitudes is one avowed objective of the teacher. Students are expected to interact and share with each other and to help one another. Sometimes they work on group projects, dividing up work. The teacher teaches the skills of group processes and rewards effective group work through grading and other means. Students have every reason to be mutually helpful. Definite efforts are made to provide socially integrative experiences for exceptional students. 

Median reported level 3 (Mean 3.4) - Students work in small groups frequently and must share materials. All records are individual. Students are expected to learn to work with each other but goals for group work are nonspecific.

4. Control of and Responsibility for Environment 
Level 5 - Students share significantly in the governance (policy making and administration) of their classes and school. Their obligations run to other students as well as to school officials; they are expected to help to make the learning environment productive. They receive instruction when necessary to help them carry responsibilities. The teacher is the primary leader in the class but gives particular attention to encouraging constructive initiatives and autonomy by students. 

Median reported level 2 (Mean 2.07) - Students share occasionally in discussions of how the school environment shall be managed. A degree of "consent of the governed" is achieved. 

 5. Classroom Management
Level 5 - At least 90% of students attend when teacher tries to alert the whole class; questions almost always serve as signals for all students; systems for transitions, record keeping, materials management, and like matters are well understood and observed efficiently. Students are clear about expectations and consequences of their behavior. 

Median reported level 4 (Mean 3.56) - Communication is good; organization is complex but orderly; student attention level is high; disturbance rate is low. Teacher is creative and adaptive, she shares responsibilities for the environment with students, and she rationalizes rules in group sessions. Some days are very bad but most are tolerable to good. 

6. Teaming Arrangements 
Level 5 - Systematic studies are made in the school for the "problems" of students. These become the bases for studies of classroom and home situations as well as students and the bases for broad change efforts (e.g., providing additional approaches in reading instruction, increasing teacher competency in using small-group cooperative instructional groups, and increasing home-school interactions on truancy issues). When particular "problem" students are identified, specialists are called upon for consultation with the teacher and primary attention is given to the student's possible need for program modifications. 

Median reported level 4 (Mean 3.25) - When "problem" students are identified in regular classrooms, referral is made to specialists. The regular teacher often participates in the diagnosis and in writing the "Individualized Educational Program" (IEP). Frequently, classroom observations are made of the student in the regular classroom. Consultation with the classroom teacher to achieve program modifications is frequently a part of the total process following referral.

7. Instructional Methods 
Level 5 - Teacher is able to use at least 6 of the methods listed blow and has collaborative arrangements with special education teachers, school consultants, psychologists, or others to help to implement additional methods as they are needed: (a) direct instruction--lecture with or without correlated visual aides and/or demonstrations; (b) inquiry discovery methods--students inquire into subject matter and reach generalizations independently; may or may not involve interactions among students; (c) group investigations democratic process; (d) precision teaching--application of methods of applied behavior analysis; (e) instructional games--embedding concepts to be taught in game situations; (f) creativity--methods emphasizing divergent problem solution and other forms of productive rather than reproductive thinking; (g) psychoeducational diagnostic-prescriptive procedures; (h) peer or cross-age tutoring; (i) developmental teaching, as in direct psychological education for moral development. 

Median reported level 2 (Mean 2.55) - In a typical month, teacher uses systematically 3 or 4 of the above methods.

8. Curriculum Flexibility
Level 5 - Student interests guide selection of a significant portion of the content. The materials and content for each student are chosen according to individualized evaluation of previous performance, achievement, and interests. 

Median reported level 3 (Mean 3.0) - The teacher basically follows a textbook or curriculum guide but uses more than one level or set of textbooks in heterogeneous classes.

9. Materials 
Level 5 - Instructional materials include several levels of reading materials, collections of audio-visual materials, instructional games, and competency examinations. Students are able to "store" in the classroom their individual sets of materials and records. Students make frequent use of all materials. Special instructional materials centers and consultants are available to assist teachers. 

Median reported level 3 (Mean 2.88) - Instructional materials include several levels (different reading levels) of basic textbooks covering instructional content. Additional materials from the library are on hand regularly for use by students. Teacher makes occasional use of films, filmstrips, audio tapes, overhead projections, and similar audiovisual aids.

10. Degree of Structure 
Level 5 - Degree of structure is varied systematically so that students who need high structure get it and those who achieve better by creating their own structure are encouraged to do so. The teacher has structure clearly worked out for his/her teaching area and uses it creatively. 

Median reported level 3 (Mean 3.32) - All students receive a carefully structured approach as new concepts or content are introduced. Students who complete work rapidly are free to proceed in their own way in their "extra" time.

11. Rate of Learning and Behaving 
Level 5 - Students proceed with instruction at rates indicated by mastery examinations. Such exams may be given at any appropriate time. Entry to new areas may proceed at any time according to the individual's demonstrated readiness. 

Median reported level 2 (Mean 2.49) - All students are given uniform minimum assignments for standard periods of time. Students who complete work rapidly are usually free to work on unrelated activities. Students who do not complete work "on time" continue with classmates in the next assignments despite poor background. Some extra help to "laggards" may be given.

12. Evaluation 
Level 5 - Assessments are partly test oriented but they include informal observations and assessments as well. All evaluation is specified to domains and mastery oriented. Assessments are quite frequent and integral parts of instruction. Occasional norm-oriented tests are used to give students a basis for comparing their rates of development with those of others. All students have a solid chance to sense progress. The teacher is aware that not all learning can be assessed by another person and that a pupil must evaluate his/her own growth and optimal conditions for growth as part of the total evaluation program. 

Median reported level 3 (Mean 3.3 1) - Evaluation is reasonably in accord with what is being taught. All exams are returned to pupils but attention is mainly on grading, rather than on the planning of instruction. Procedures tend to be somewhat inconsistent.

13. Affective Education  Level 5 - Affective education is recognized as an essential component of the total curriculum, is a part of the regular daily instructional schedule, and is systematically included in carry-over activities in all subject areas. Administrators and teachers attend to professional colleagues' affective needs. Exert consultation is provided on affective education to both teachers and administrators. 

Median reported level 3 (Mean 2.88) - Affective education is recognized as worthwhile and is included on a planned but infrequent basis throughout the year. Teachers have opportunities for inservice education and consultation on the topic.

14. Recognizing and Appreciating Cultural Differences  Level 5 - Content, materials, and methods of instruction are made meaningful for poor and minority group children as well as all others; the commitment to cultural pluralism is real, especially as it is reflected in curriculum. Both students and parents from minority communities feel engaged and well understood in the school situation; they feel like equals among equals. Aesthetic school experiences include samples from all cultures represented by the student body. 

Median reported level 2 (Mean 2.69) - Special arrangements for remedial work are made for students who may have second language problems or who have different developmental patterns and learning styles associated with race or ethnicity. Teachers may have had required human relations training.

15. Child Study Process 
Level 5 - Child study is focused on positive development of increasingly accommodate learning environments. Children's diversity in needs and abilities are closely examined, not to identify deficits in children but rather to plan modification in school practices and in school/home environments. Specialists, such as psychologists, are heavily involved in program development. 

Median reported level 4 (Mean 3. 1) - Child study is educationally oriented, with child and his/her teacher central to process and focus on analyzing teaching-learning interaction to determine areas where efforts for improvement should be concentrated.

16. Parent-Teacher Interaction 
Level 5 - Parent-teacher cooperation is close and continuous. As volunteer aides, as participants in various school committees, as co-sponsors of school-community activities, parents join with teachers in enhancing and expanding children's learning and experiential opportunities. The atmosphere stresses creativity, mutual commitments, and trust. Administrators enter as leaders/facilitators. 

Median reported level 2 (Mean 2.30) - Parent-teacher interaction, in addition to crisis stimulated meetings, occurs on a regularly scheduled basis throughout the year; the agenda is characteristically limited to the teacher's reporting on children's progress.

The teachers in this study did not describe their classroom as having a high degree of power to accommodate exceptionality, since many of the 16 variables on the ACLE instrument were scored relatively low. Variables that received a low median score of two were: space and facilities, teaching-learning setting, control/responsibility for environment, instructional methods, rate of learning and behaving, recognizing and appreciating cultural differences, and parent teacher interaction. In discussing these variables with all the teachers, a number of teachers felt they had little control over factors such as facilities, rate of learning and parent-teacher interaction. A number of teachers, however, felt that preparatory courses and an increased number of in services could provide teachers with the necessary skills to improve the teacher-learning setting, appreciate cultural differences, and improve parent-teacher interactions. 

A number of variables, classroom management, teaming arrangements and child study process received relatively high median scores of four. During discussions, teachers explained that they saw themselves as being responsible for and having control over classroom management and teaming arrangements, and, possibly, they had scored these variables too high. It was difficult to oppose these variables when they included descriptors such as the "teacher is creative and adaptive," "she rationalizes rules in group sessions," and "participates in the diagnosis . . . " Yet, teachers were quick to point out the apparent inconsistencies between high scores on classroom management and low scores on instructional methods and rate of learning and behaving. They also added that ACLE was useful in pointing to learning environment factors that they needed to work on. 

The results of this study as well as teacher discussions of the ACLE indicated that more courses and in-services should be provided to teachers so they can learn the skills necessary to provide a learning environment that can readily accommodate the exceptional student. Future research should deal with classroom environments that are manipulated to investigate the changes resulting in student learning. 

Fraser, B. (1981). Learning environment in curriculum evaluation: A review. Evaluation in Education: An International Review Series. Oxford: Pergamon. 

Fraser, Barry J., Fisher, Darrell L. (1982). Predicting students’ outcomes from the perceptions of classroom psychosocial environments. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 498-518. 

Gajar, Anna. (1985). American Indian personnel preparation in special education. Journal of American Indian Education, 24, 7-15. 

Haertel, G., Walberg, H., & Haertel, E. (198 1). Social-psychological environments and learning: A quantitative synthesis. British Educational Research Journal, 7, 27-36. 

Mahan, James M. (1984). Major concerns of Anglo student teachers serving in Native American communities. Journal of American Indian Education, 23, 19-24. 

Moos, R. (1978). A typology of junior high and high school classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 53-66. 

Moos, R.H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: Procedures, measures, findings and policy implications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Reynold, M.C., Birch, J. (1978). Teaching exceptional children in all America’s schools. Reston, Virginia: The Council for Exceptional Children 

Walberg, H.J. (Ed.) (1979). Educational environments and effects: Evaluation, policy and productivity. Berkeley, California: McCutchan. 

Wang, Margaret C., Pevrly, Stephen, Randolph, Robert. (1984). An investigation of the implementation and effects of a full-time mainstreaming program in a large urban school system. Unpublished manuscript. University of Pittsburgh, Learning, Research and Development Center.

William E. Schulz, Ph.D., is a Professor on the Faculty of Education, and Gerry Bravi, Ph.D., is Associate Professor at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.