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

Ngai-Ying Wong, Chi-Chung Lam

East China Normal University

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.

Kong, Wong & Lam

10

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

Deep strategy

Reliance

Memorisation
Practising
Handling tests

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 ?

Kong, Wong & Lam

14

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

Alpha

Cognitive engagement
Surface strategy
Deep strategy
Reliance
Affective engagement
Interest
Achievement orientation
Anxiety
Frustration
Behavioural engagement
Attentiveness
Diligence
Time spent

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
4

_1_

_2_

_3_

_4_

_1_

_2_

_2

_3

_4

_
_3_

_
3

_4_

X
X
4

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

_1

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

AGFI

TLI

Cognitive engagement
Affective engagement
Behavioural engagement

0.90
0.89
0.90

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

Kong, Wong & Lam

16

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.

-0.05
-0.16*
0.70**

Achievement
orientation
0.09
-0.04
0.49**

Anxiety

Frustration

0.15*
0.19**
-0.19**

0.20**
0.19**
-0.51**

** p < 0.01.

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.

Kong, Wong & Lam

18

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.