Professional Documents
Culture Documents
175 - Annisa Qotrun Nada (Jurnal 2)
175 - Annisa Qotrun Nada (Jurnal 2)
1, 4-21
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 author’s 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 5
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
Behavioral
Emotional
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. 223– 224).
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.
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 teacher’s questions, (b) asking
the teacher questions, (c) listening to the teacher’s 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.
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 teacher’s 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.
(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 9
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 0 0 2.5 0.3 0.5 3.0 0 0.2 0.1
2 8 0 2.7 0.3 0.2 3.0 0 0.0 0.1
3 7 1 2.7 0.3 0.2 3.0 0 0.0 0.1
4 0 0 2.7 0.3 0.2 3.0 0 0.0 0.1
5 5 0 2.7 0.3 0.2 3.0 0 0.3 0.1
6 1 0 2.7 0.3 0.5 3.0 0 0.0 0.1
7 2 0 2.7 0.3 0.2 3.0 0 0.3 0.1
8 0 0 3.0 0.3 0.2 2.5 0 0.5 0.1
Note. ANSR: answering the teacher’s questions; QUES: asking the teacher questions; LISN: listening to
the teacher’s exposition; READ: reading textbooks; DISC: discussing with classmates; EXER: doing
exercises; TASK: doing other tasks assigned by the teacher; IRRT: irrelevant behaviour; OTHR: others.
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; they’re 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 & Säljö, 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
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.
(tablecontinues)
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 teacher’s
instructions.
The most effective way to learn mathematics is to follow the
teacher’s 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.
(tablecontinues)
Student Engagement in Mathematics: Development of Instrument and Validation of Construct 13
Table 3 (continued)
Dimension Items
Anxiety 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 teacher’s 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-of-
class mathematics learning ?
14 Kong, Wong & Lam
Table 4
Reliability Index Cronbach Alpha of the Subscales of the Student Engagement in the
Mathematics Classroom Scale
Subscale Alpha
Cognitive engagement
Surface strategy 0.81
Deep strategy 0.87
Reliance 0.81
Affective engagement
Interest 0.89
Achievement orientation 0.90
Anxiety 0.83
Frustration 0.79
Behavioural engagement
Attentiveness 0.86
Diligence 0.81
Time spent 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
( Jöreskog, 1971; Marsh & O’ Neill, 1984) of the Student Engagement in the
Mathematics Classroom Scale was fitted by the use of LISREL-8 (Jöreskog &
Sörbom, 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_ X _ 1_ X
_ _ 1
__ X _ _2_ X _ _2_ X _2
_ _ _
_ _ X
__3
__ X 3
X 3
_ _ __4
_4_ X
__ X _4_ X
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 AGFI TLI
Cognitive engagement 0.90 0.92
Affective engagement 0.89 0.91
Behavioural engagement 0.90 0.92
Table 6
The Correlation Coefficients of Behavioural Engagement with Cognitive Engagement and
Affective Engagement
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
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 teach ers 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
References
Adams, M. (1979). An analysis of meanings attached to “involvement” by ANU students
and teaching staff. In Proceedings of AARE Conference (pp. 508–519). 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), 395–405.
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, 588–606.
Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of
Education Psychology, 48, 266–279.
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, 19–39.
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. 61–67). 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. 167–216).
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. 465–485). New York: Macmillan.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117– 142.
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. 125– 146). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Grigutsch, S., & Törner, 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. 128– 147). 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, 306–333.
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. 1– 12). 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 ofPsychology, 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
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 children’s behavior and
emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the academic domain.
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 65, 781–791.
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. 149– 184). 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. 223–226). 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, 117– 133.
Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and
whether I’ve got it: A process model of perceived control and children’s engagement
and achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 22–32.
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, 133– 150.
W i n t e r , S . ( 1990) . T e a c h e r a p p r o v a l a n d d i s a p p r o v a l in H o n g K o n g s eco n d ar y s ch o o l
classrooms. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 88–92.
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 ofMathematical 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. 85–98). 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
July–6 August.
Wong, N. Y. (2002). Conceptions of doing and learning mathematics among Chinese. Journal
ofIntercultural Studies, 23(2), 211-229.
Student Engagement in Mathematics: Development of Instrument and Validation of Construct 21
Authors
Qi-Ping Kong, East China Normal University.
Nim : 202033175
Kelas. : 5E PGSD
Siswa memasuki sistem sekolah dari latar belakang yang berbeda, mempraktikkan
gaya belajar yang berbeda dan membawa harapan yang berbeda dari diri sendiri dan
orang lain (orang tua, misalnya). Dengan terselenggaranya pendidikan universal di mana
setiap orang tetap bersekolah, dimungkinkan motivasi belajar siswa berbeda-beda dan
minat mereka menjadi beragam. Keragaman dalam perbedaan individu seperti itu bisa
menjadi salah satu masalah utama yang harus dihadapi oleh guru kelas. Dalam hal ini,
keterlibatan kurikulum siswa menjadi elemen penting dalam desain kurikulum sekolah
pada umumnya dan pembelajaran di kelas pada khususnya. Bagaimana kita
menumbuhkan keterlibatan siswa dalam kurikulum mungkin sama pentingnya, jika tidak
lebih penting, daripada pertimbangan epistemologis dalam desain sekolah kurikulum.
Seperti disebutkan di atas, banyak penelitian telah mengungkapkan bahwa
membangkitkan pembelajaran yang mendalam akan bermanfaat bagi kualitas hasil
belajar. Sebelum kita dapat mengeksplorasi lebih jauh secara lebih rinci hubungan antara
keterlibatan siswa dan hasil belajar, langkah penting adalah mengidentifikasi dengan
jelas konstruksi keterlibatan siswa untuk memungkinkannya diinstrumentasi. Telah
terungkap dalam literatur bahwa keterlibatan perilaku hanya satu aspek dari keterlibatan
siswa Oleh karena itu, baik keterlibatan afektif maupun kognitif tidak boleh diabaikan.
Penelitian ini telah berhasil dikembangkan, melalui penelitian dasar, instrumen yang
dapat diandalkan dan menjanjikan yang berguna dalam bidang penelitian keterlibatan
siswa.
Di satu sisi, tiga konstruk keterlibatan siswa, yaitu afektif, kognitif dan perilaku,
selanjutnya divalidasi dengan pengembangan instrumen. Di sisi lain, isi konstruksi ini
diidentifikasi dalam konteks matematika. Dalam penelitian ini, keterlibatan siswa dalam
matematika ditemukan dicontohkan dalam sejumlah aspek. Segi atau dimensi ini dapat
menghasilkan aspek hasil belajar yang berbeda. Pertama-tama, pendekatan
pembelajaran berkaitan erat dengan keterlibatan kognitif. Para siswa dapat menunjukkan
keterlibatan mereka baik dengan strategi mendalam atau permukaan. Beberapa dari
mereka mungkin terlibat dalam menghafal berbagai fakta dan aturan dalam matematika
sementara yang lain terlibat dalam memahami konsep di balik aturan. Beberapa orang
lain mungkin hanya mengandalkan instruksi guru, mengikuti instruksi ini dengan cermat,
dengan harapan mencapai hasil belajar yang diinginkan. Namun, tampaknya, arah yang
berbeda untuk melibatkan diri dalam pembelajaran ini dapat membawa hasil
pembelajaran kualitatif yang sangat berbeda, tetapi semuanya adalah bentuk keterlibatan
yang berbeda. Kedua, hasil juga mengungkapkan bahwa minat merupakan aspek utama
dari keterlibatan afektif. Orientasi pencapaian dan pengalaman sukses sebelumnya
terkait erat dengan gagasan keterlibatan afektif sementara kecemasan dan frustrasi
adalah faktor lain yang terlibat.
Faktor afektif dan kognitif ini dapat tercermin dalam perilaku. Dalam penelitian ini, kami
menemukan bahwa siswa yang terlibat mungkin terlihat penuh perhatian, rajin, dan
bersedia meluangkan waktu untuk pembelajaran matematika di dalam dan di luar kelas.
Mereka bersedia mengikuti instruksi guru. Mereka bekerja dengan rajin pada masalah,
baik dengan pendekatan permukaan atau mendalam, dan mereka mencurahkan waktu
mereka untuk belajar, meskipun ini dapat mengakibatkan kecemasan dan frustrasi,
seperti yang telah kami tunjukkan. Dari temuan ini, kita dapat memiliki gambaran yang
lebih jelas tentang pembelajaran di kelas matematika CHC. Disengagement tentu akan
menjauhkan siswa dari belajar. Dengan melibatkan diri dengan cara yang berbeda,
mereka dapat mencapai hasil belajar yang berbeda. Misalnya, melibatkan diri hanya
dalam menghafal aturan matematika, bekerja keras, mengikuti instruksi yang diberikan
oleh guru, dan sebagainya - semua strategi pembelajaran permukaan ini dapat
memberikan hasil langsung (dalam hal nilai tes) namun dapat menyebabkan kecemasan
dan frustrasi. Di sisi lain, pemahaman yang sebenarnya dapat dicapai melalui
pembelajaran yang mendalam dan minat yang tulus pada subjek. Ini adalah fokus
penelitian lain yang perlu diselidiki.
Dengan instrumen yang divalidasi di tangan (melalui penelitian ini), kita dapat
melanjutkan untuk menyelidiki secara lebih rinci hubungan antara keterlibatan siswa dan
hasil belajar. Kami percaya bahwa siswa yang terlibat secara mendalam tidak hanya
unggul di atas yang lain dalam tes prestasi akademik konvensional tetapi juga mampu
mengatasi berbagai tugas yang lebih luas seperti menangani masalah terbuka. Kita juga
dapat mempelajari hubungan antara berbagai aspek keterlibatan, yang diukur dengan
instrumen yang dikembangkan dalam penelitian ini, dan berbagai hasil belajar, yang
mencakup penampilan siswa dalam masalah matematika rutin dan non-rutin. Ini bisa
menjadi arah penelitian masa depan.
Daftar pustaka :