Mathematics Education Research Journal

2003, Vol. 15, No. 1, 4-21

Student Engagement in Mathematics: Development of Instrument and Validation of Construct (1)

Qi-Ping Kong
East China Normal University

Ngai-Ying Wong, Chi-Chung Lam

The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Universal education has aggravated the problems of students disengagement in learning, highlighting in particular, a greater range of motivations to learn and wider diversification in students interests. Students engagement with curriculum has become a crucial element in classroom learning. How we cultivate their involvement in the curriculum may be seen as being far more important than the epistemological consideration in the design of the school curriculum. Though aspects of behavioural, affective and cognitive engagements have been revealed in literature, we are still in need of a validated instrument that measures student engagement for further research. In the present study, an instrument of student engagement in the subject area of mathematics was developed through grounded research. Its validity was established by statistical methods

Introduction
In ordinary classroom practice in American schools it appears that the reigning conception of curriculum and pedagogy is that of school lunch. It is as if the job of the teacher were to take packages of mind-food from the freezer (the curriculum), thaw them in a microwave (instruction), and see to it that the students eat it until it is finished (classroom management to maximize time on task). If certain students repeatedly refuse to eat the normal lunch, or eat it very slowly, they are served specially wrapped packages of the same food, chopped a bit more finely (remedial instruction). [However,] students can refuse to learn what the school claims to teach them, not only by not eating by refusing to sit still for instruction but by going through the appearance of learning without actually assimilating what was presented in the curricular meal. (Erickson & Shultz, 1992, p. 467)

The above passage depicts a graphic picture of student disengagement, which, as found in Sedlak, Wheeler, Pullin, and Cusick (1986), affects at least two-thirds of American high school students. Student engagement has become an important factor of curriculum implementation (Huebner, 1996) and is an aim of school education in its own right (Guthrie & McCann, 1997). The situation may be even more serious in Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) regions, such as China, where the curriculum is examination-driven and undue emphasis is put on lecturing, memorisation and preparation for in-school and public examinations (Llewellyn, Hancock, Kirst, & Roeloffs, 1982; Ma, 1999; Morris, 1985, 1988; Zhang, 1993). In past decades, the outstanding performance of CHC students, especially in mathematics, has aroused the interests of sociologists, educationalists and psychologists (Bond, 1996a; Lau, 1996; Watkins & Biggs, 1996, 2001; Wong, 1998, 2000, 2002). Whether students in CHC regions are really smarter or just work harder under the pressure of examinations is another question. Intense examination pressure could result in a degree of student disengagement and superior performance might only be the result of enforced learning.
(1)

The paper reports part of the result of the first authors Ph.D. study at The Chinese University of Hong Kong under the supervision of the second and third authors.

Student Engagement in Mathematics: Development of Instrument and Validation of Construct

Literature Review
A number of models have been established to delineate the relationships among academic engagement, its antecedents (such as perceived control, perceived competence and autonomy), and academic achievement (Ainley, 1993; Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Miserandino, 1996; Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992; Patrick, Skinner & Connell, 1993; Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1990). The conceptualisation of student engagement has been slowly evolving in literature. Newmann, Wehlage, and Lamborn, (1992), for instance, proposed a theory of student academic engagement that was based on the sociological theory of Merton (1968) and the psychological theory of Connell (1990). Engagement was defined as students psychological investment in and effort directed toward learning, understanding, or mastering the knowledge, skills, or crafts that academic work is intended to promote (Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992, p. 12). Newmann (1991) also added that engagement is not simply a commitment to complete assigned tasks or to acquire symbols of high performance such as grades or social approval. It is not directly observable and is something more than motivation. Similar definitions were put forth by such researchers as Adams (1979), Guthrie et al. (1996) and Marsh (1997).
Cognitive Flexible vs. Rigid Problem Solving Active vs. Passive Coping with Failure Independent vs. Dependent Work Styles Independent vs. Dependent Judgement Preference for Hard Work vs. Preference for Easy work

Behavioral Class Participation vs. Uninvolvement On-task vs. Off-task Behavior Extra-curricular Academically Oriented vs. Extra-curricular Non-academically Oriented Career Plans Classes Skipped Tardiness Emotional Anger Happiness Boredom Interest Nervousness Sadness Curiosity Discouragement Excitement

Figure 1. Cognitive, behavioural, and emotional engagement (after Connell, 1990). Finn (1989, 1993) suggested that students academic engagement comprises three constructs: cognitive, affective and behavioural engagements. Affective engagement implies a sense of belonging and an acceptance of the goals of

Kong, Wong & Lam

schooling. Behavioural engagement is a continuum of developing participation (i.e. compliance with school and classroom procedures, taking the initiative in the classroom, becoming involved in school activities and, ultimately, taking part in school governance). Adams (1979) also revealed that students could distinguish between motives and actions when talking about engagement with learning. Thus, at the very least, student engagement includes both affective and behavioural aspects. Similarly, Connell (1990) and Connell and Wellborn (1991) proposed a more comprehensive model which included cognitive, behavioural and emotional aspects of engagement (Figure 1). Numerous other studies have focused on these notions. For instance, self-efficacy, expectation, interest, involvement, perceived control, and autonomy were found to be related to affective engagement (see, for example, Ainley, 1993; Guthrie & Wigfield, 1997; Miserandino, 1996; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). It may be possible to draw a parallel between such a multi-dimensional perception of student engagement and a contemporary understanding of the mathematical affect in which attitude is asserted to comprise the three components of emotional response, beliefs regarding the subject, and intentional behavior toward the subject (Grigutsch & Trner, 1998; Leder, 1992; Martino & Zan, 2001, 2002; McLeod, 1992; Ruffell, Mason, & Allen, 1998). Such a derivation actually originated from Ajzen (1988) and Triandis (1971) which assumed that attitude is a multi-dimensional construct with three interwoven cognitive, affective and behavioural components. As for cognitive engagement, the factors of learning, thinking and problemsolving strategies have been identified (Ainley, 1993; Connell, 1990; Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Guthrie & Wigfield, 1997; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). These studies also suggested that the construct of cognitive engagement is closely related to approaches to learning. The three approaches to learning, viz. surface, deep, and achieving, have been identified by Biggs through factor analysis, and the model has been replicated many times (Biggs, 1978; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Watkins, 1983). The basic dimensions of surface and deep have been isolated by Marton and Slj (1976) albeit with a different theoretical and methodological framework. While it was also suggested that deep approaches to learning are closely associated with higher levels of learning outcome (Biggs & Telfer, 1987), Willis (1993) found that approaches to learning do have a close relationship with academic involvement. This relationship was also suggested by Biggs (1998) himself. As for behavioural engagement, class participation, on-task behaviour, and academically oriented extracurricular activities have been the focus of research found in current literature (Connell, 1990; Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Finn, 1989, 1993; Miserandino, 1996). A number of instruments have been developed to measure these constructs. The Learning and Studying Strategies Inventory, developed by Weinstein, Schulte, and Palmer (1987), includes the measurement of effective cognitive and learning strategies. Pace (1984) developed the College Student Experiences Questionnaire which measures various aspects of campus life of college students (see Froh & Hawkes, 1996). It contains some ten activities (such as cultural, athletic activities and activities related to technology) where students choose among never, occasionally, often or very often. The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), developed at Michigan is used to reveal reasons why students engage in an academic task (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie 1993).

Student Engagement in Mathematics: Development of Instrument and Validation of Construct

Part of the Rochester Assessment Package for Schools (Wellborn & Connell, 1987) also measures cognitive, behavioural and emotional engagement. The package contains a construct which measures ongoing engagement through which the student prototypes of innovative, enmeshed, conformist, rebellious, ritualistic and withdrawn are identified (see also Connell & Wellborn, 1991). In a similar instrument, the Rochester Assessment of Intellectual and Social Engagement, 37 action items and 36 emotion items were used to identify students perceived engagement. The factors of curiosity, anxiety, anger, enjoyment and boredom were identified through factor analysis (Miserandino, 1996). Marks (2000) also attempted to measure the relationship among student effort, attentiveness, boredom and completing class assignments. However, there was only one item for each factor: In social studies/mathematics class, how often do you try as hard as you can? (student effort); How often do you pay attention in class? (attentiveness); How often do you feel bored in this class? (boredom in class); and About how often do you complete your assignments for this class? (completing class assignments). In spite of the fact that a number of instruments have been developed in the area, there has not been much work carried out on the conceptualisation and instrumentation of engagement in subject areas such as mathematics. Disengagement in mathematics may be particularly serious since, on one hand, it is generally perceived that mathematics is a subject for all so that its role in mass education becomes all the more prominent. On the other hand, it is a common belief that the acquisition of mathematical concepts requires special talent, a belief which creates a seemingly contradictory image of a subject for all if they [the students] do not see the relevance of the subject and cannot cope with the level of sophistication, [they] will fast become indifferent to, or apprehensive of, the subject and very likely leave school with an unpleasant imprint of this nightmare called mathematics (Siu, Siu, & Wong, 1993, pp. 223224). Thus, there is a pressing need to investigate the notion and constructs of student engagement in the context of mathematics learning in CHC regions. This is precisely the purpose of the present research. After developing a validated instrument, it would be possible to proceed with various kinds of meaningful research such as cultural comparisons, studies on gender differences and investigations of possible causal relationship with learning outcomes. Thus, the establishment of a validated instrument is, in fact, a prerequisite to future development in field of student engagement with the mathematics curriculum. In this paper, the researchers report how they identified the possible constructs by qualitative methods of classroom observation and student interviews, and the result of the validation of the instrument by confirmatory factor analysis.

Method
The study was conducted in two stages: (1) development of the instrument, and (2) its validation.

Development of the Instrument

Four Grade 5 classes, each from four different schools in Shanghai, were chosen for the first round of classroom observation. Grade 5 students were chosen as they were of an age to talk in some depth of their learning of mathematics and they had not yet been streamed according to subjects (In some schools in China,

Kong, Wong & Lam

students are streamed into talented or remedial classes during the secondary years, i.e., after Grade 6). Nine types of student behaviour in mathematics learning in classroom were identified, namely (a) answering the teachers questions, (b) asking the teacher questions, (c) listening to the teachers exposition, (d) reading textbooks, (e) discussing with classmates, (f) doing exercises, (g) doing other tasks assigned by the teacher, (h) irrelevant behaviour (e.g., gazing out the window), and (i) others (e.g., preparing for the start of the lesson). The researcher stayed in one school for two weeks to observe and record the behaviour of eight students in each class. Follow-up interviews of these eight students were conducted after the observation(2). Twenty other students in the same class were also interviewed so that the interviewees comprised a total of nine students with higher academic standard, ten with medium and nine with low academic standards. The focus of the follow-up interviews was the students perceived classroom learning and how they were involved in the learning of mathematics and the interviews were done individually. Based on the findings, an instrument was then developed by identifying the dimensions of cognitive, affective and behavioural engagement.

Validation of the Instrument

The instrument was pre-tested twice among a total of 299 Grade 5 students, and subsequently revised and then administered to 546 (272 male, 274 female) Grade 5 students in five different schools in Shanghai. The data obtained were analysed.

Results Classroom Observation

The behaviour of the targeted students in the mathematics classroom was recorded (see Table 1). The results revealed that although the students spent most of their time listening and doing exercises, their curriculum engagements varied not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. It was found in the classroom observation that, for the aspect of listening to the teachers lecturing, the students varied in attentiveness, concentration span and extent of involvement. Also, students with higher levels of engagement were more conscientious and were more actively involved in doing exercises. Furthermore, the degree to which students involved themselves in after-class learning (including homework and tutorial classes) also showed some variance.

Follow-up Interview with Students

Follow-up interviews were performed among the eight students observed together with twenty other students in the same class. The interviews were transcribed and analysed. Four dimensions of affective engagement, namely, interest, achievement orientation, anxiety, and frustration, were identified. It was discovered that there is marked consistency with previous research findings (e.g., Miserandino, 1996). The specific student responses in these four dimensions are described below.

(2)

The interviews were conducted in Putunghua, the classroom language of the students, the extracts reported in this paper are translations.

Student Engagement in Mathematics: Development of Instrument and Validation of Construct

Table 1 Student Behaviour in the Mathematics Classroom Student ANSR QUES LISN READ DISC EXER TASK IRRT OTHR (times) (times) (hours) (hours) (hours) (hours) (hours) (hours) (hours) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 8 7 0 5 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Note. ANSR: answering the teachers questions; QUES: asking the teacher questions; LISN: listening to the teachers exposition; READ: reading textbooks; DISC: discussing with classmates; EXER: doing exercises; TASK: doing other tasks assigned by the teacher; IRRT: irrelevant behaviour; OTHR: others.

Interest. Some students expressed interest in learning. They were attracted by the applicability of mathematics to various (real-life) problems, the elegant methods of solving problems and the beauty of geometrical shapes. Curiosity was aroused and subsequently satisfied. Here are some of their responses: I feel that some of the mathematics problems given in class illustrate the power of mathematics; When doing application problems I have come to realise the connection between mathematics and the real world; I am good at geometry, so geometry problems always interest me; I feel that time passes very quickly in the mathematics class. Achievement orientation. We found that achievement oriented students enjoyed getting good results in mathematics. However, they did not find mathematics particularly interesting. There may be a similarity with the notion of achieving approach of learning (Biggs, 1978), in which students tend to optimize organisation of time and effort just to compete for highest grades. The drive and motivation for their effort was achieving good results, which, in turn, would bring them satisfaction. Their responses include the following: My parents have very high expectations for my mathematics results. This term I got quite good marks and so I feel very happy; My mathematics results have improved and I am happy. Anxiety. Those students afflicted with anxiety felt tense in mathematics lessons and particularly during mathematics tests. Their anxiety affected their learning of mathematics. They were especially nervous when they encountered difficulties. However, it was found that most of the students had a high regard for mathematics because they wanted to do well in the subject. The following responses illustrate their feelings. My parents are very demanding when it comes to mathematics. But I am not that good at it. So I would feel very anxious whenever I have difficulty with mathematics problems. I am nervous in mathematics tests and this seriously affects my results. I cant work out those problems that I should have been able to tackle, I am scared of mathematics. I dont even dare speak to my mathematics teacher when I run into him in the school grounds.

10

Kong, Wong & Lam

Frustration. Despite the high regard for mathematics, some of these students indicated that they were tired of mathematics and did not have any interest in learning anything new in the mathematics class. Their only objective was to pass the time. We may see their frustration from the following responses: There are too many exercises; theyre very boring; Except for getting through examinations, mathematics is of no use to me; Learning mathematics makes me tired. Besides affective engagement, the students learning strategies were found to be closely related to cognitive engagement. These strategies include methods of memorisation, practising, preparing for tests, understanding the questions, summarising what is learnt, relying on parents, relying on teachers, connecting new knowledge with the old, and synthesising ways of learning. Borrowing the notions of some researchers in approaches to learning (see, for example, Biggs, 1978; Marton & Slj, 1976), we found that these learning strategies fall into three categories, which were then adopted as dimensions of cognitive engagement (see Table 2). Table 2 Dimensions of Cognitive Engagement Surface strategy Memorisation Practising Handling tests Deep strategy Reliance

Understanding the question Relying on parents Summarising what is learnt Relying on teachers Connecting new knowledge with the old ways of learning

As for behavioural engagement, three dimensions, namely attentiveness, diligence and time spent on homework, and after-class learning, were found in our previous classroom observation. The dimensions of cognitive, affective and behavioural engagements were thus identified.

Development of the Instrument

By extracting the descriptors from the transcription of the interviews, the following dimensions were identified: Cognitive engagement Surface strategy Deep strategy Reliance Affective engagement Interest Achievement orientation Anxiety Frustration Behavioural engagement Attentiveness Diligence Time spent

Student Engagement in Mathematics: Development of Instrument and Validation of Construct

11

With the identification of these dimensions, items were constructed accordingly. In the design of the instrument items, phrases and wordings found in the interview transcripts were used as much as possible. Items from wellestablished instruments, such as the Affective Engagement Questionnaire (Miserandino, 1996) and the Student Engagement Questionnaire (Marks, 2000) were also taken into consideration. As previous research studies have shown, cognitive engagement is closely related to approaches to learning (see, for example, Biggs, 1998; Willis, 1993), so the Learning Process Questionnaire (Biggs, 1987) was taken as a reference when items on cognitive engagement were designed. We also went through the standard procedures of piloting and follow-up interviews to revise the instrument (which includes the revision of wording to make the items more comprehensible). The resulting instrument, the Student Engagement in the Mathematics Classroom Scale, consists of 57 items. All items were put on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree) except for those concerned with time spent on mathematics. The questionnaire is shown in Table 3. These items were written in Chinese, the mother tongue of the subjects. Table 3 The Student Engagement in the Mathematics Classroom Scale Dimension Items

Cognitive Engagement Surface I find memorising formulas is the best way to learn mathematics. strategy In learning mathematics, I prefer memorising all the necessary formulas rather than understanding the principles behind them. I think memorising the facts and details of a topic is better than understanding it holistically. In mathematics learning, it is very useful to memorise the methods for solving word problems. In mathematics learning, I prefer memorising different methods of solution; this is a very effective way of learning. I think the best way of learning mathematics is to memorise facts by repeatedly working on mathematics problems. I think memorising mathematics is more effective than understanding it. Deep strategy When I learn mathematics, I would wonder how much the things I have learnt can be applied to real life. When I learn new things, I would think about what I have already learnt and try to get a new understanding of what I know. When I read mathematics textbook, I would try to pick out those things which should be thoroughly understood rather than just reading the text through. I would try to connect what I learned in mathematics with what I encounter in real life or in other subjects. (table continues)

12

Kong, Wong & Lam

Table 3 (continued) Dimension Items I would spend out-of-class time to deepen my understanding of the interesting aspects of mathematics. In learning mathematics, I always try to pose questions to myself and these questions would help me understand the core of mathematics. I would use my spare time to study the topics we have discussed in class. Reliance The best way to learn mathematics is to follow the teachers instructions. The most effective way to learn mathematics is to follow the teachers instructions. I would learn what the teacher teaches. I would learn in the way the teacher instructs me. I would solve problems in the same way as the teacher does. I solve problems according to what the teacher teaches. In learning mathematics, no matter what the teachers says, I will follow accordingly. Affective Engagement Interest In the mathematics class, I find the mathematics knowledge interesting and mathematics learning enjoyable. I find mathematics learning pleasurable and I am interested in solving mathematics problems. I feel a sense of satisfaction when I do mathematics exercises in class. I am always curious to learn new things in mathematics and I find learning mathematics enjoyable. I feel excited when we start a new topic in mathematics. I am very interested to know how to solve new mathematics problems. Mathematics always gives me pleasure. Achievement Though mathematics learning is tough, I feel happy when I can orientation finish the tasks. Though mathematics learning is boring, I am happy when I get good results. Learning mathematics is tough, but to get good results, the effort is worthwhile. Learning mathematics is tough, but I am satisfied when I get good results after making an effort. Learning mathematics is tough, but I am happy as long as I can good results. Though learning mathematics is tough, I get a sense of satisfaction when I get good results. (table continues)

Student Engagement in Mathematics: Development of Instrument and Validation of Construct

13

Table 3 (continued) Dimension Anxiety Items I find myself very nervous during mathematics tests. I am worried in mathematics examinations. During mathematics examinations, when I come across problems that I cannot comprehend, I will feel very nervous. I am always afraid that I will get poor results in mathematics tests. During mathematics tests, when I come across problems that I cannot solve, I will feel very anxious. Frustration I feel uncomfortable when the teacher starts a new topic. I am tired of learning a new topic in school. I do not like attending mathematics classes. I dislike doing mathematics. I am tired of learning mathematics. Behavioural Engagement Attentiveness I listen to the teachers instruction attentively. In the discussion of new topics, I take an active part and raise my points. I really make an effort in the mathematics lesson. I concentrate very hard when the teacher introduces new mathematical concepts. I will use every means to understand what the teacher teaches in mathematics. I always take part in the discussion in the mathematics class. Diligence For difficult problems, I would study hard until I understand them. If I cannot arrive at the right answer straight away, I will try again later. If I cannot tackle a problem, I would try again later. If I make mistakes in solving problems, I will work until I have corrected them. If I work on problems persistently, I am sure that I will get the right answer. If I cannot solve a problem right away, I will persist in trying different methods until I get the solution. Time spent Please let me know the time you spend on mathematics homework on a normal school day. In a normal week, besides the time spent on mathematics homework in the above question, how many hours do you spend on out-ofclass mathematics learning ?

14

Kong, Wong & Lam

Evidence of Reliability and Validity

Exploratory factor analysis was performed for refining the items. The reliability index, Cronbach alpha, was evaluated on the finalised scale. The results are listed in Table 4. Table 4 Reliability Index Cronbach Alpha of the Subscales of the Student Engagement in the Mathematics Classroom Scale Subscale Cognitive engagement Surface strategy Deep strategy Reliance Affective engagement Interest Achievement orientation Anxiety Frustration Behavioural engagement Attentiveness Diligence Time spent Alpha 0.81 0.87 0.81 0.89 0.90 0.83 0.79 0.86 0.81 not applicable

It was seen that the internal consistency reliability indices were generally high, with a median of .86. These findings were encouraging. We proceeded to test the instrument by confirmatory factor analysis. A one factor congeneric model (Jreskog, 1971; Marsh & ONeill, 1984) of the Student Engagement in the Mathematics Classroom Scale was fitted by the use of LISREL-8 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993) (Figure 2), which has advantage over the parallel and tau-equivalent models since differences in both the factor loadings and residual coefficients are

__ __ __ __

X
1

_ _ _ _ _

_1_ _2_ _3_ _4_

X
1

_1_ _ _ _ _ _ _3_ _4_ _2_

X
1

_1 _2 _3 _4 _

X
2

X
2

X
2 3

X
3

X
3

X X
4

X
4

X
4

Figure 2. Parallel, tau-equivalent and congeneric models.

Student Engagement in Mathematics: Development of Instrument and Validation of Construct

15

allowed. To assess the goodness-of-fit, the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) were utilised. These indices appeared to be among the most useful goodness-of-fit indicators (see Bentler, 1990; Marsh & Balla, 1994; Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988; McDonald & Marsh, 1990). The results are listed in Table 5. It is generally regarded as satisfactory if these goodness-of-fit indices were close to 0.90 (Bentler & Bonett, 1980) and with the results of Table 5, we can conclude that satisfactory goodness of fit indices were obtained. Table 5 Goodness-of-Fit Indices of the Student Engagement in the Mathematics Classroom Scale Subscale Cognitive engagement Affective engagement Behavioural engagement AGFI 0.90 0.89 0.90 TLI 0.92 0.91 0.92

Correlation Among Constructs

The correlation coefficients among various subscales were calculated. Table 6 shows the correlation coefficients of behavioural engagement with cognitive engagement and affective engagement. Table 6 The Correlation Coefficients of Behavioural Engagement with Cognitive Engagement and Affective Engagement Behavioural engagement Attentiveness Diligence Homework Extra work
Note. * p < 0.05.

Cognitive engagement Surface strategy 0.16** 0.09* 0.12** 0.06 Deep Reliance strategy 0.38** 0.18** 0.20** 0.16** 0.20** 0.38** -0.08 0.08

Affective engagement Interest 0.08 0.30** -0.07 0.01 AO 0.10 0.30** -0.05 -0.06 Anxiety Frustration -0.06 -0.08 0.10* -0.01 0.16** -0.17** 0.10* -0.01

** p < 0.01. AO = Achievement orientation.

The results revealed that students behavioural engagement is closely related to their cognitive and affective engagements. Their extent of attentiveness, diligence, and the time they spent on homework is closely related to their cognitive engagement. Also, deep strategy is the only construct that is related to the extra work devoted to mathematics practice after school. As for affective engagement, diligence is closely related to interest and achievement orientation, and negatively to frustration. It is interesting to note that attentiveness is closely related to frustration. Reliance is closely related to diligence and frustration since diligence infers working hard on mathematics problems without easily giving up. This may be seen as a responsibility imposed by the teacher. In this case, it is related with reliance (on the teacher) and possibly frustration on the students side. Significant non-statistical correlations among a number of factors were also observed. Interest was not significantly related to attentiveness, homework and extra work. In all probability, attentiveness in class, indulgence in homework and

16

Kong, Wong & Lam

extra work were seen more as duties rather than something of interest. This shows a marked difference from the significant relationship between diligence and interest. To have students diligently involved in mathematics learning and problem solving, interest still plays an important role. Similar results were found with achievement orientation in which a sense of satisfaction was involved after mathematics problems were successfully solved. It is envisaged that achievement orientation is closely related to diligence rather than attentiveness, amount of homework and of extra work. It has been found in previous research that Hong Kong students attribute academic success to the level of effort made (Hau & Salili, 1991; see also Wong, 1993). The amount of extra work was not significantly correlated with many other factors. In fact, it was found that the amount of homework achieved has nothing to do with attitude or academic achievement (Wong, 1992). The correlation coefficients among the subscales of cognitive engagement and affective engagement were also calculated. They are listed in Table 7. The results reveal that deep strategy is closely related to all the subscales of affective engagement, but negatively with anxiety and frustration. It is again, interesting to note that reliance and surface strategy both have a positive relationship to anxiety and frustration. Table 7 The Correlation Coefficients Between Cognitive and Affective Engagements Interest Reliance Surface strategy Deep strategy
Note. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

Achievement orientation 0.09 -0.04 0.49**

Anxiety 0.15* 0.19** -0.19**

Frustration 0.20** 0.19** -0.51**

-0.05 -0.16* 0.70**

Again, a number of non-correlated factors were observed. As mentioned above, the factor achievement orientation actually involves satisfaction in solving mathematics problems but is not significantly correlated with reliance and surface strategy. Interest has nothing to do (statistically) with whether one relies on the teachers instructions.

Discussion
Students enter the school system from different backgrounds, practising different styles of learning and carrying different expectations from self and others (parents, for instance). With the implementation of universal education where everybody stays in school, it is possible that students motivation to learn varies and their interest becomes diversified. Such diversity in individual differences could be one of the major issues that classroom teachers have to contend with. In this light, students curriculum engagement becomes a crucial element in the design of school curriculum in general and classroom learning in particular. How we cultivate student involvement in the curriculum may be as important, if not more important, than the epistemological consideration in the design of school

Student Engagement in Mathematics: Development of Instrument and Validation of Construct

17

curriculum. As noted above, numerous research studies have revealed that evoking deep learning would be beneficial to the quality of learning outcome. Before we can further explore in greater detail the relationship between student engagement and learning outcome, an important step is to identify clearly the constructs of student engagement to enable it to be instrumentalised. It has been revealed in the literature that behavioural engagement is only one aspect of student engagement Hence, neither affective nor cognitive engagements should be overlooked. The present study has successfully developed, via grounded research, a promisingly reliable instrument useful in the research area of student engagement. On one hand, the three constructs of student engagement, namely affective, cognitive and behavioural, were further validated with the development of the instrument. On the other hand, the contents of these constructs were identified in the context of mathematics. In the present research, student engagement in mathematics was found to be exemplified in a number of facets. These facets or dimensions may result in different aspects of learning outcomes. First of all, the approach to learning is closely related to cognitive engagement. The students may demonstrate their engagement by either a deep or a surface strategy. Some of them may engage themselves in memorising various facts and rules in mathematics while others are involved in understanding the concepts behind the rules. Some others may rely solely on the instructions of the teacher, following these instructions closely, in the hope of attaining desirable learning outcomes. Yet, apparently, these different directions of engaging oneself in learning could bring about vastly different qualitative learning outcomes, but all of them are different forms of engagement. Secondly, results also revealed that interest is a major aspect of affective engagement. Achievement orientation and prior experience of success are closely related to the notion of affective engagement while anxiety and frustration are other factors that are involved. These affective and cognitive factors may be reflected in behaviour. In the present research, we found that engaged students may be shown to be attentive, diligent and willing to spend time on in-class and out-of-class mathematics learning. They are willing to follow the teachers instructions. They work diligently on problems, either with a surface or deep approach, and they devote their time to learning, though this may result in anxiety and frustration, as we have pointed out. From these findings, we are able to have a clearer picture of learning in the CHC mathematics classroom. Disengagement would certainly drive students away from learning. By engaging themselves in different ways they may arrive at different learning outcomes. For instance, involving oneself in mere memorisation of the mathematical rules, working hard, following the instructions given by the teachers, and so forth all these surface learning strategies may yield immediate results (in terms of test scores) yet may lead to anxiety and frustration. On the other hand, real understanding may be arrived at through deep learning and genuine interest in the subject. This is another research focus that needs to be investigated. With a validated instrument at hand (through the present study), we can proceed to investigate in greater detail the relationship between student engagement and learning outcome. We believe that a deeply engaged student not only excels above others in conventional academic achievement tests but is also able to cope with a wider range of tasks such as tackling open-ended problems. We can also study the relationship between various aspects of engagement, as measured by the instrument developed in the present study, and various learning outcomes, which includes students performances in routine and non-routine mathematics problems. This could be a direction of future research.

18

Kong, Wong & Lam

References
Adams, M. (1979). An analysis of meanings attached to involvement by ANU students and teaching staff. In Proceedings of AARE Conference (pp. 508519). Melbourne: Melbourne State College. Ainley, M. D. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional assessment of their relationship with strategy use and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 395405. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, Personality and Behavior. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structure. Psychological Bulletin, 88 , 588606. Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of Education Psychology, 48, 266279. Biggs, J. B. (1987). The Learning Process Questionnaire (LPQ): Manual . Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Biggs, J. B. (1994). What are effective schools? Lessons from East and West (The Radford Memorial Lecture). Australian Educational Researcher, 21, 1939. Biggs, J. B. (1998). Private e-mail communication, 23 September. Biggs, J. B., & Telfer, R. (1987). The Process of Learning. Australia: Prentice-Hall. Connell, J. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system processes across the life-span. In D. Cicchetti & M. Beeghly (Eds.), The self in transition: From infancy to childhood (pp. 6167). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Connell, J., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system process. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self process in development: Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology, (Vol. 2, pp. 167216). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm. Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1992). Students experience of the curriculum. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum (pp. 465485). New York: Macmillan. Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117142. Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and student at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics Froh, R. C., & Hawkes, M. (1996). Assessing student involvement in learning. In R. J. Menges, J. M. Weimer, & Associates (Eds.), Teaching on solid ground: Using scholarship to improve practice (pp. 125146). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Grigutsch, S., & Trner, G. (1998). World Views of Mathematics Held by University Teachers of Mathematics Science (Schriftenreihe des Fachbereichs Matematik Reprint 420. Duisburg: Gerhard Mercator University. Guthrie, J. T., & McCann, A. D. (1997). Characteristics of classrooms that promote motivations and strategies for learning. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 128147). Delaware: International Reading Association. Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C. C., Rice, M. E., Faibisch, F. M., Hunt, B., & Mitchell, A. M. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31 , 306333. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading engagement: A rationale for theory and teaching. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 112). Delaware: International Reading Association. Hau, K. T., & Salili, F. (1991). Structure and semantic differential placement of specific causes: Academic causal attributions by Chinese students in Hong Kong. International Journal of Psychology, 26 , 175-193. Ho, D. Y. F. (1986). Chinese patterns of socialization: A critical review. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 1-37). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Student Engagement in Mathematics: Development of Instrument and Validation of Construct

19

Huebner, D. (1996). Curricular language and classroom meanings. In J. MacDonald & R. Leeper (Eds.), Language and meaning (pp. 826). Washington, DC: ASCD. Jreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36, 109133. Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL-8 users reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software. Leder, G. (1992). Measuring attitudes to mathematics. In W. Geeslin, & K. Graham (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. II (pp. 33-39). Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire. Llewellyn, J., Hancock, G., Kirst, M., & Roeloffs, K. (1982). A perspective on education in Hong Kong: Report by a visiting panel. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government. Ma, Y. (1999). A case study of the implemented mathematics curriculum in urban and rural primary school in China. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 153-184. Marsh, C. J. (1997). Perspective key concepts for understanding curriculum. London: The Falmer Press. Marsh, H. W. & Balla, J. R. (1994). Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size and model complexity. Quality and Quantity, 28, 185-217. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. W., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: Effects of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391411. Marsh, H. W., & ONeill, R. (1984). Self Description Questionnaire III: The construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurements, 21, 153174. Marton, F., & Slj, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning I: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 411. Martino, P. D., & Zan, R. (2001). The problematic relationship between beliefs and attitudes. Paper presented at the MAVI (Mathematical Views) -10 European Workshop in Kristianstad, Sweden, June 2-5, 2001. Martino, P.D., & Zan, R. (2002). An attempt to describe a negative attitude towards mathematics. Paper presented at the MAVI-11 European Workshop in Pisa, Italy, April 4-8, 2002. McDonald, R. P. & Marsh, H.W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247-255. McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 575-596). New York: Macmillan. Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Student goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 514523. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free Press. Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 203214. Morris, P. (1985). Teachers perceptions of the barriers to the implementation of a pedagogic innovation: A South East Asian case study. International Review of Education, 31, 318. Morris, P. (1988). Teachers attitudes towards a curriculum innovation: An East Asian study. Research in Education, 40, 7587. Newmann, F. M. (1991). Student engagement in academic work: Expanding the perspective on secondary school effectiveness. In J. R. Bliss, W. A. Firestone, & C. E. Richards (Eds.), Rethinking effective schools: Research and practice (pp. 5875). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary school (pp. 1139). New York: Teachers College Press.

20

Kong, Wong & Lam

Pace, C. (1984). Measuring the quality of college student experiences . Los Angeles: University of California, Higher Education Research Institute. Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. (1993). What motivates childrens behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 781791. Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Student motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 149184). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813. Ruffell, M., Mason, J., & Allen B. (1998). Studying attitude to mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35 , 1-18. Sedlak, M. W., Wheeler, C. W., Pullin, D. C., & Cusick, P. A. (1986). Selling students short: Classroom bargains and academic reform in the American High School . New York: Teachers College Press. Siu, F. K., Siu, M. K., & Wong, N. Y. (1993). Changing times in mathematics education: The need of a scholar-teacher. In C. C. Lam, H. W. Wong, & Y. W. Fung (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Curriculum Changes for Chinese Communities in Southeast Asia: Challenges of the 21st Century (pp. 223226). Hong Kong: Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54 , 117133. Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and whether Ive got it: A process model of perceived control and childrens engagement and achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 2232. Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and Attitude Change. New York: Wiley & Sons Inc. Watkins, D. (1983). Assessing tertiary students study processes. Human Learning, 2, 29-37. Watkins, D. A. & Biggs, J. B. (1996) (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences . Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre; and Melbourne: The Australian Council for the Educational Research. Weinstein, C. E., Schulte, A. C., & Palmer, D. R. (1987). The learning and studying inventory (LASSI) . New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1987). Manual for the Rochester Assessment Package for Schools. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester. Willis, D. (1993). Academic involvement at university. Higher Education, 25, 133150. Winter, S. (1990). Teacher approval and disapproval in Hong Kong secondary school classrooms. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 8892. Wong, N. Y. (1992). The relationship among mathematics achievement, affective variables and home background. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 4, 32-42. Wong, N. Y. (1993). The psychosocial environment in the Hong Kong mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 303-309. Wong, N. Y. (1998). In search of the CHC learner: Smarter, works harder or something more? Plenary lecture. In H. S. Park, Y. H. Choe, H. Shin, & S. H. Kim (Eds.). Proceedings of the ICMI-East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematical Education, 1 (pp. 8598). Seoul: Korean Sub-Commission of ICMI; Korean Society of Mathematical Education; Korea National University of Education. Wong, N. Y. (2000). Mathematics education and culture: The CHC learner phenomenon. Paper presented at the Topic Study Group 22 on Mathematics Education in Asian Countries. 9th International Congress on Mathematical Education. Tokyo/Makuhari, Japan. 31 July6 August. Wong, N. Y. (2002). Conceptions of doing and learning mathematics among Chinese. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 23 (2), 211-229.

Student Engagement in Mathematics: Development of Instrument and Validation of Construct

21

Zhang, D. (1993). Success and inadequacies of mathematics education in Chinese communities (in Chinese). In C. C. Lam, H. W. Wong, & Y. W. Fung (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Curriculum Changes for Chinese Communities in Southeast Asia: Challenges of the 21st Century (pp. 9395). Hong Kong: Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Authors
Qi-Ping Kong, East China Normal University. Ngai-Ying Wong, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Email: <nywong@cuhk.edu.hk>. Chi-Chung Lam, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.