University of Missouri

1. American Educational Research Association New Orleans, 2011 Student Classroom Engagement in 4th to 12th GradeChristi Bergin, Ze Wang, David Bergin, Rebecca Bryant, & Renee Jamroz University of Missouri Aim: The purpose of this study was to help clarify the construct and measurement of engagement, paving the way for research on how to increase student engagement.  In-class engagement is believed to be both an outcome of effective teaching and an antecedent of high achievement. Thus, increasing engagement is a critical goal for educational interventions. To evaluate such interventions, educators must clearly define engagement and measure it reliably and validly. Defining Engagement: Engagement is the outward manifestation of motivation. It is class-specific. A student can be highly engaged in one class (e.g., math) but not in another (e.g., science). Three dimensions of engagement have been proposed – but research has not yet confirmed that they are distinct: Affective engagement (“I am interested during class.”) Behavioral engagement (“I participate in class activities.”) Cognitive engagement (“I think deeply during class activities.”) Measuring Engagement: No measure currently exists that measures all 3 dimensions of engagement in a class-specific way, across grades 4-12 , with reliability and validity, that is also easy to administer and affordable for districts. The Classroom Engagement Inventory (CEI) was designed to have all these attributes. It is a self-report survey with 21 items. Research Questions: What is the factor structure of the CEI – are the 3 dimensions of engagement distinct? Is the factor structure the same across demographic groups? Is the CEI reliable and valid? Method: The CEI was administered to 3,481 4th-12th graders in a small-city school district , including 221 classrooms in 13 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, 1 high school, and 1 career center. The sample was 85% White, 49% free/reduced lunch, and 53% female. Analysis: MPlus was used to obtain polychoric correlations and to conduct factor analyses, which were based on the polychoric matrices. Measurement invariance existed across school level, subject, gender, and SES groups. • Conclusions • Results empirically support a 4-dimensional model of engagement. Correlations between the four factors were moderate to high (r = .48-.73), suggesting a second-order global engagement construct; when the four factors were allowed to load on a general “classroom engagement” factor, the model fit was good (RMSEA=.066 with 90% CI [.064, .068], CFI=.956, TLI=.950.) Engagement is multidimensional and hierarchical. • The multidimensionality was the same by gender, school (elementary, middle and high schools), subject  (math, language arts, and science) and SES (F/RL or not). • Engagement scores were linked to teaching practices, self-efficacy, and school prompted interest, providing evidence of the validity of the CEI. • Groups varied in “amount” of engagement: • Elementary students reported significantly higher engagement than middle school and high school students. • Students in math classes reported significantly less disengagement than students in language arts or science classes, and significantly more engagement than students in science classes. • There were no gender or SES differences on any of the 4 factors. • The Classroom Engagement Inventory is an efficient, inexpensive tool that is reliable and valid across grades 4 to 12 for diverse students. It can be used for longitudinal research as well as evaluation of school improvement efforts. • Validity: The validity of the CEI was tested with self-report of 4 variables that should correlate with engagement: • Self-efficacy (5 items, composite reliability = .92).Sample Item: “I am very sure I can master skills taught in this class.” • Teaching practices directed at the whole class (4 items, composite reliability =.84). Sample Item: “We have class discussions that make me think deeply.” • Teaching practices directed at the individual student (3 items, composite reliability = .80). Sample Item: “My teacher asks me to explain my thinking when I give an answer.” • School prompted interest (6 items, composite reliability = .85). Sample Item: “Because of this class, I get so interested in this subject that I try to find out more about it on my own by looking the subject up on the internet.”