School engagement of children in early grades: Psychometric, and gender comparisons


Autoři: Morteza Charkhabi aff001;  Evgeny Khalezov aff001;  Tatyana Kotova aff003;  Julien S Baker aff004;  Frederic Dutheil aff005;  Marie Arsalidou aff001
Působiště autorů: National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia aff001;  Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, LaPSCo, Physiological and Psychosocial Stress, Clermont-Ferrand, France aff002;  Russian Academy for National Economy and Public Administration, Moscow, Russia aff003;  Centre for Health and Exercise Science Research, Department of Sport, Physical Education and Health, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong aff004;  Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, LaPSCo, Physiological and Psychosocial Stress, University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Preventive and Occupational Medicine, WittyFit, Clermont-Ferrand, France aff005;  York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada aff006
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225542

Souhrn

School engagement reflects the degree to which students are invested, motivated and willing to participate in learning at their school and this relates to future academic and professional success. Although school engagement is a primary factor predicting educational dropout or successful school completion in Europe and North America, little is known about school engagement factors in non-English speaking countries. We adapted a 15-item school engagement scale and assessed validity and reliability of the Russian translation on a sample of Russian school-aged children (N = 537, 6–12 years, 46% females) who attended at public schools in Moscow. Results of the final factorial structure that included emotional, cognitive and behavioral components were selected based on its excellent fit indices and principles of parsimony. Component results show that the emotional component has the highest internal consistency and the behavioral component has the lowest. Although, all components are significantly interrelated, we observed no gender differences and no significant correlation with age. Theoretically, our data agree with the notion that children’s emotional engagement in schools sets the foundation for learning, participating and succeeding in school activities. Practically, the proposed scale in Russian can be used in educational and clinical settings with Russian speaking children.

Klíčová slova:

Behavior – Emotions – Human learning – Children – Learning – Psychometrics – Schools – Russian people


Zdroje

1. Christenson SL, Reschly AL, Appleton JJ, Berman S, Spangers D, Varro P. Best practices in fostering student engagement. In Thomas A. & Grimes J. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. 2008: 1099–1120

2. Finn JD. The adult lives of at-risk students: The roles of attainment and engagement in high school (NCES 2006–328). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2006: 1–132.

3. Simons-Morton B, Chen R. Peer and Parent Influences on School Engagement Among Early Adolescents. Youth & Society. 2009; 41(1): 3–25. doi: 10.1177/0044118x09334861 19888349

4. Veiga FH, Festas I, Taveira C, Galvão D, Janeiro I, Conboy J, …, Nogueira J. Student’s engagement in school: concept and relationship with academic performance—its importance in teacher training. Revista Portuguesa de Pedagogia. 2012; 46(2): 31–47. doi: 10.14195/1647-8614_46-2_2

5. Huebler F, Lu W. Adult and Youth Literacy: National, regional and global trends, 1985–2015. 2013; 7–132. UIS Information paper. doi:10.15220/978-92-9189-133-7-en

6. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research. 2004; 74(1): 59–109. doi: 10.3102/00346543074001059

7. Fredricks JA, McColskey W. The Measurement of Student Engagement: A Comparative Analysis of Various Methods and Student Self-report Instruments. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, 2012; 763–782. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_37

8. Jimerson SR, Campos E, Greif JL. Toward an Understanding of Definitions and Measures of School Engagement and Related Terms. The California School Psychologist. 2003; 8(1): 7–27. doi: 10.1007/bf03340893

9. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld P, Friedel J, Paris A. Engagement Measure. In Moore K. A. & Lippman L. (Eds.), Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development: What do children need to flourish? New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press. 2005; 305–321.

10. Finn JD. Withdrawing from School. Review of Educational Research. 1989; 59(2): 117–142. doi: 10.2307/1170412

11. Marks HM. Student Engagement in Instructional Activity: Patterns in the Elementary, Middle, and High School Years. American Educational Research Journal. 2000; 37(1): 153–184. doi: 10.2307/1163475

12. Newman FM, Wehlage GG, Lamborn SD. The Significance and Sources of Student Engagement. In: Newman F.M., Ed., Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools, Teachers College Press, New York. 1992; 11–39.

13. Willms S. Visualizing a User Model for Educational Adaptive Information Retrieval. User Modeling. 2003; 432–434. doi: 10.1007/3-540-44963-9_66

14. Connell JP, Wellborn JG. Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In Gunnar M. & Sroufe L. A. (Eds.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology: 23. Self-processes in development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1991: 43–77.

15. Jang H, Kim EJ, Reeve J. Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction. 2016; 43: 27–38.

16. Dolzan M, Sartori R, Charkhabi M, De Paola F. The Effect of School Engagement on Health Risk Behaviours among High School Students: Testing the Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 205: 608–613. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.09.091

17. Veiga FH. Assessing Student Engagement in School: Development and Validation of a Four-dimensional Scale. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2016; 217: 813–819. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.153

18. Badmaeva NC. Vliyanie motivatsionnogo factora na razvitie umstvennyh sposobnostei /The motivational factor effect on cognitive development/. Ulan-Ude: VSGTU. 2004; 1–7 [Russian]

19. Bojovich AI, Markova IK. Tipologia motivov ucheniya "Lesenka pobujdenii" /The typology of motives "Stairs of inducements"/ In Fetiskin, N.P., Kozlov, V.V., Manuilov, G.M. Social'no-psikhologicheskaya diagnostika razvitia lichnosti i malyh grup. /Social-psychology diagnosis of personality development and small groups/ Moscow: Publishing house of the Institute of Psychotherapy. 2002 [Russian]

20. Nejnova TA."Besedy o shkole" /"Conversations about the school". In Artemieva, T.A. Diagnostika I korrekcia razvitia mladshego shkolnika. /The diagnosis and correction of of younger shcoolchildren/. Kasan': Otechestvo. 2013 [Russian]

21. Mai MY, Yusuf M, Saleh M. Motivation and engagement as a predictor of students’ science achievement satisfaction of Malaysian of secondary school students. European Journal of Social Sciences Education and Research. 2015; 5(1): 25–33.

22. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.2010.

23. World Health Organization. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; [cited 2013 Jan 20]. 2015. Available from: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/

24. Lynn M (1986) Determination and Quantification of Content Validity Index. Nursing Research. 1986; 35: 382–386. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017 3640358

25. Arbuckle JL. Amos 6.0 user’s guide. Spring House, PA: AMOS Development Corporation. 2005.

26. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press. 1998.

27. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999; 6(1): 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

28. Vander Elst T, Baillien E, De Cuyper N, De Witte H. The role of organizational communication and participation in reducing job insecurity and its negative association with work-related well-being. Economic and Industrial Democracy. 2010; 31(2): 249–264. doi: 10.1177/0143831x09358372

29. Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative Approaches to Testing for the Factorial Validity of a Measuring Instrument. International Journal of Testing. 2001; 1(1): 55–86. doi: 10.1207/s15327574ijt0101_4

30. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociological Methods & Research. 1993; 21(2): 230–258. doi: 10.1177/0049124192021002005

31. Hoyle RH. Structural equation modelling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 1995.

32. Weston R, Gore PA. A Brief Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. The Counseling Psychologist. 2006; 34(5): 719–751. doi: 10.1177/0011000006286345

33. Marsh H, Hau KT. Assessing goodness of fit. Is parsimony always desirable? The journal of experimental education. 1996; 64(4): 364–390. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1996.10806604

34. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Authors. 1985.

35. Hinton PR, Brownlow C, McMurray I, Cozens B. SPSS Explained, East Sussex, England: Routledge Inc. 2004.

36. Global Challenge Insight Report. The Future of Jobs (REF 010116). 2016:1–57. Retrieved from The World Economic Forum website: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf

37. Gutiérrez M, Tomás J, Chireac S, Sancho P, Romero I. Measuring School Engagement: Validation and Measurement Equivalence of the Student Engagement Scale on Angolan Male and Female Adolescents. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science. 2016; 15(3): 1–11. doi: 10.9734/bjesbs/2016/25276

38. Fernández-Zabala A, Goñi E, Camino I, Zulaika LM. Family and school context in school engagement. European Journal of Education and Psychology. 2016; 9(2): 47–55. doi: 10.1016/j.ejeps.2015.09.001

39. Veiga FH, Burden R, Appleton J, do Céu Taveira M, Galvão D. Student’s Engagement in School: Conceptualization and relations with Personal Variables and Academic Performance. Revista de Psicología y Educación. 2014; 9(1): 29–47

40. Mundy LK, Simmons JG, Allen NB, Viner RM, Bayer JK, Olds T, …, Patton GC. Study protocol: the Childhood to Adolescence Transition Study (CATS). BMC Pediatrics. 2013; 13(1). doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-13-3

41. Mih V, Mih C, Dragoş V. Achievement Goals and Behavioral and Emotional Engagement as Precursors of Academic Adjusting. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 209: 329–336. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.243

42. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld P, Friedel J, Paris A. Positive Development Conference. 2003; 1–49. Retrieved from: https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Child_Trends-2003_03_12_PD_PDConfFBFP.pdf

43. Teuscher S, Makarova E. Students’ School Engagement and Their Truant Behavior: Do Relationships with Classmates and Teachers Matter? Journal of Education and Learning. 2018; 7(6): 124. doi: 10.5539/jel.v7n6p124

44. Sanyal N, Tandon S, Fernandes T. Perceived Social Support, Career Aspiration and School Engagement of First Generation Learners and Second Generation Learners. IRA International Journal of Education and Multidisciplinary Studies (ISSN 2455-2526). 2017; 8(1): 94–113. doi: https://doi.org/10.21013/jems.v8.n1.p10

45. Vazirabadi GE. Comprehensive validation of a measure of student school engagement: a pilot study of middle school students. Electronic Theses and Dissertations: 944. 2010. University of Denver.

46. Upadyaya K, Salmela-Aro K. Development of School Engagement in Association With Academic Success and Well-Being in Varying Social Contexts. European Psychologist, 2013; 18(2): 136–147. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000143

47. Ramos-Díaz E, Rodríguez-Fernández A, Revuelta L. Validation of the Spanish Version of the School Engagement Measure (SEM). The Spanish Journal of Psychology. 2016; 19:1–9. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2016.94 27881203

48. Zahed A, Karimi Yousefi SH, MoeiniKia M. Psychometric properties of school engagement scale. 2013; 2 (7): 56–70 [Persian].

49. Yusof N, Ang RP, Oei TP. The Psychometric Properties of the School Engagement Measure in Adolescents in Singapore. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2016; 35(5): 521–533. doi: 10.1177/0734282916639441


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11