J, Kaur. (1999). Learning Environment in Residential and Non – Residential Schools and its Impact on Academic Achievement, Initiative, Mannerism and Co – Operation of High School Students. Unpublished. Ph.D., Education. Panjab University, Chandigarh.
The objectives of the study were: (1) To study the academic environment in selected schools. (a) To study the teaching learning process as perceived by the teachers. (b) To study the teaching learning process as observed by the investigator through Flanders classroom interaction analysis. (c) To study the status of material equipments in relation to classroom facilities, library facilities and laboratory facilities. (d) To study the type of co- curricular activities in relation to academic activities, socio – cultural and national activities, outdoor/indoor activities and aesthetic activities. (2) To investigate the organizational climate in the selected schools. (a) To study the organisational environment. (b) To study the organisational environment in relation to the job satisfaction of the teachers. (3) To study the impact of learning environment on students’ academic achievement. (4) To study the impact of learning environment on students’ initiative. (5) To study the impact of learning environment on students’ manners. (6) To study the impact of learning environment on students’ cooperation.
The hypothesis of the study were: (1) Different schools have no differential patterns of teaching learning process as perceived by teachers. (2) The classroom interaction process are not different in the Residential and non – residential schools as well as in the Government and private schools. (3) The level of different categories of co – curricular activities does not correspond with the types of school. (4) Nature of different material equipments does not correspond with the types of school. (5) The teacher taught relations are not different in different schools. (5a) There is no difference in mean scores of teacher taught relationship (within the class) of four different types of schools. (5b) There is no difference in mean scores of teacher taught relationship (within the class) associated with different affective response modes. (5c) There is no interaction between types of schooling and teachers’ affective response modes with regard to teacher–taught relationship within the class. (5d) There is no difference in mean scores of teacher taught relationship (beyond the class) in four different types of school. (5e) There is no difference in mean scores of teacher taught relationship (beyond the class) associated with different affective response mode. (5f) There is no interaction between types of schooling and the teachers’ affective response modes with regard to teacher taught relationship (beyond the class). (6) The organisational climate of residential and non- residential, and government and private schools are not different. (7) The teachers of schools under two types of management (government and private) are not different on their job satisfaction scores. (8) The teachers in residential and non-residential schools are equally satisfied with their jobs. (9) There is no interaction between type of management and mode of schooling. (10) The learning environment of government and private schools (management style) yield equal academic achievement score.
The sample consisted of randomly selected 332 students of Class IX and 35 Teachers teaching Class XI from Chandigarh U.T., Mohali.
Flanders’s Classroom Interaction Category System, Organisational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) by Halpin and Craft, Job Satisfaction Scale by J. S. Chandel, A Scale for Rating Initiative and Manners by V. Mehra, Cooperation – Competition Disposition Inventory (CCDI) by Pareek & Dixit, Scale of Teaching Learning Process (Split-half reliability coefficient= 0.91), Scale of Teacher – Taught Relationship (Split-half reliability coefficient=0.86), Check List Developed by Researcher and Achievement Scores taken from records available in schools were used for data collection.
Ex–Post Facto Design was used in this study.
The data were analyzed using Chi-square Test, t–test and Two way ANOVA techniques.
The findings of the study were: (1) Different school systems follow a different pattern of curricular activities through teaching learning process (as perceived by teachers) by way of content knowledge / delivery, facility in content delivery, use of skill of presentation, stimulus variation evoking students interaction, use of evaluation devices and use of reference material. (2) Teaching learning processes (classroom interaction) as observed through FCICS were not different in residential and non-residential and also same in between government and private school. (3) The nature of different co – curricular activities do not correspond with the type of school. It shows that different types of schools used different types of co – curricular activities. (4) The nature of different classroom equipments, library equipments and facilities, and laboratory facilities do not correspond with the types of schools. (5) The teacher taught relationship within and beyond class was different in different types of schools. (6) There was no interaction between types of schools and teachers’ affective response modes in case of with in the class as well as beyond the class. (7) The organisational environment of all the four schools was found as representative of moderate organisational climate. None of these schools were found to be absolutely open or absolutely closed. (8) Private school teachers were found to be more satisfied with their jobs than government school teachers. (9) Non- residential school teachers were found to be more satisfied with their jobs as compared to residential school teachers. (10) Private school yields higher mean achievement scores than the government school students. (11) The mean academic achievement scores of the non-residential school children were found higher than the mean achievement score of the residential school children. (12) Students of private schools yielded higher mean score of initiative than the students of government schools. (13) The mean initiative scores of students studying in residential schools were found higher than the mean scores of initiative for non-residential school children. (14) Private schools were promoting higher levels of mannerism among children as compared to government schools. (15) Mode of schooling (residential / non-residential) did not yield different levels of mannerism among IX grade children. (16) Learning environment due to management style (government / private) yielded equal levels of cooperation among IX graders. (17) The mean cooperation scores of residential school children were found higher than the mean score of the non – residential school IX graders.
Keyword(s): Learning Environment, Residential and Non – Residential Schools, Academic Achievement, Initiative, Mannerism , Co – Operation , High School Students