Student engagement in mathematics: Development of instrument and validation of construct

  • Qi-Ping Kong
  • Ngai-Ying Wong
  • Chi-Chung Lam


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


Student Engagement Mathematics Learning Academic Engagement Cognitive Engagement Behavioural Engagement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, M. (1979). An analysis of meanings attached to “involvement” by ANU students and teaching staff. InProceedings of AARE Conference (pp. 508–519). Melbourne: Melbourne State College.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (1988).Attitudes, Personality and Behavior. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structure.Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes.British Journal of Education Psychology, 48, 266–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biggs, J. B. (1987).The Learning Process Questionnaire (LPQ): Manual. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  8. Biggs, J. B. (1994). What are effective schools? Lessons from East and West (The Radford Memorial Lecture).Australian Educational Researcher, 21, 19–39.Google Scholar
  9. Biggs, J. B. (1998). Private e-mail communication, 23 September.Google Scholar
  10. Biggs, J. B., & Telfer, R. (1987).The Process of Learning. Australia: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983).Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school.Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.Google Scholar
  16. Finn, J. D. (1993).School engagement and student at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for Education StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Huebner, D. (1996). Curricular language and classroom meanings. In J. MacDonald & R. Leeper (Eds.),Language and meaning (pp. 8–26). Washington, DC: ASCD.Google Scholar
  25. Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests.Psychometrika, 36, 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993).LISREL-8 user’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Marsh, C. J. (1997).Perspective key concepts for understanding curriculum. London: The Falmer Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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, 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marsh, H. W., & O’Neill, R. (1984). Self Description Questionnaire III: The construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late adolescents.Journal of Educational Measurements, 21, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning — I: Outcome and process.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. McDonald, R. P. & Marsh, H.W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit.Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. 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), 514–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Merton, R. K. (1968).Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  42. 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), 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Morris, P. (1988). Teachers’ attitudes towards a curriculum innovation: An East Asian study.Research in Education, 40, 75–87.Google Scholar
  45. 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. 58–75). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  46. 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. 11–39). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  47. Pace, C. (1984).Measuring the quality of college student experiences. Los Angeles: University of California, Higher Education Research Institute.Google Scholar
  48. 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 of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 781–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ruffell, M., Mason, J., & Allen B. (1998). Studying attitude to mathematics.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.Google Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Triandis, H. C. (1971).Attitude and Attitude Change. New York: Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  57. Watkins, D. (1983). Assessing tertiary students’ study processes.Human Learning, 2, 29–37.Google Scholar
  58. 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.Google Scholar
  59. Weinstein, C. E., Schulte, A. C., & Palmer, D. R. (1987).The learning and studying inventory (LASSI). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  60. Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1987).Manual for the Rochester Assessment Package for Schools. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  61. Willis, D. (1993). Academic involvement at university.Higher Education, 25, 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Winter, S. (1990). Teacher approval and disapproval in Hong Kong secondary school classrooms.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 88–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wong, N. Y. (1992). The relationship among mathematics achievement, affective variables and home background.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 4, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wong, N. Y. (1993). The psychosocial environment in the Hong Kong mathematics classroom.Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 303–309.Google Scholar
  65. 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.Google Scholar
  66. 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.Google Scholar
  67. Wong, N. Y. (2002). Conceptions of doing and learning mathematics among Chinese.Journal of Intercultural Studies, 23 (2), 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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. 93–95). Hong Kong: Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qi-Ping Kong
    • 1
  • Ngai-Ying Wong
    • 2
  • Chi-Chung Lam
    • 3
  1. 1.East China Normal UniversityChina
  2. 2.Department of Curriculum and InstructionThe Chinese University of Hong KongHong Kong
  3. 3.The Chinese University of Hong KongChina

Personalised recommendations