Psychometric Properties of the Student Discussion Engagement Scale

Amirian, Seyedeh Khadijeh; Hajhosseini, Mansoure; Nezami, Mina; Ebrahimi, Simin

doi:10.22054/jem.2023.67395.3366

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

¹ Ph.D. Student in Educational Psychology, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Psychology & Counseling, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

³ PhD Student in Educational Psychology, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22054/jem.2023.67395.3366

Abstract

The aim of this study was to validate the student discussion engagement scale among students of the University of Tehran. The student discussion engagement scale, conceptualizes discussion in the form of a group question and answer that requires an understanding of the overall atmosphere of a class and the participation of individuals who enhance/facilitate/boost the engagement of others. The scale assesses students' behavior and experiences in the classroom in four areas, namely their skills, self-confidence, openness to discussion, and perception of the overall atmosphere. The study included 403 students of the University of Tehran from different study areas and stages, who were selected through random sampling. The students were asked to fill out a survey online, which included questions about discussion engagement, academic engagement, general self-efficacy (GSES), and the classroom learning environment (CLC). The data were examined in several steps, including item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, convergent validity, divergent validity, and reliability. This was done in order to ensure that the analysis produces accurate and reliable results. The item analysis revealed that all items were adequate in terms of the descriptive criteria. The exploratory factor analysis identified four factors after removing two items. This suggests that there are four underlying factors influencing the students' engagement in classroom discussions. The confirmatory factor analysis also supported the factor structure identified in the exploratory factor analysis. This suggests that the Student Discussion Engagement (SDE) scale has convergent validity, divergent validity, and good reliability. This means that the scale can reliably and accurately measure students' engagement in classroom discussions.

Keywords

References

اصغر نژاد، طاهره، احمدی قطب‌الدینی، محمد، فرزاد، ولی‌الله و خداپناهی، محمد کریم. (1385). مطالعه ویژگی‌های روان‌سنجی مقیاس خودکارآمدی عمومی شرر. مجله روانشناسی، 10(3)، 274-267.

اکبری زردخانه، سعید، احمدی، فرشاد و مهدوی، مجتبی. (1396). انطباق‌سازی نسخه فارسی آزمون نقایص شناختی برای افراد بهنجار: یک مطالعه مقدماتی. روانشناسی شناختی، 5(4)، 35-27.

رمضانی، ملیحه و خامسان، احمد. (1396). شاخص‌های روان‌سنجی پرسشنامه درگیری تحصیلی ریو 2013: با معرفی درگیری عاملی. فصلنامه‏ی اندازه‏گیری تربیتی، 8(29)، 185–204. https://doi.org/10.22054/jem.2018.22660.1555

سلمانی، منصور. (1394). نقش واسطه‌ای باورهای انگیزشی در رابطه ادراک از جوّ کلاس و تعلل‌ورزی دانشجویان. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه بیرجند.

Alvermann, D. E., Young, J.P., Weaver, D., Hinchman, K. A., Moore, D. W., Phelps, S.F., Thrash, E.C., & Zalewski, P. (1996). Middle and high school students' perceptions of how they experience text-based discussions: A multicase study. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 244-267.

Anderson, K. L. (2016). Active learning in the undergraduate classroom: A journal-club experience designed to accentuate course content. The American Biology Teacher, 78(1), 67-69.‏ https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2016.78.1.67

Baum, S., & McPherson, M. (2019). Improving teaching: Strengthening the college learning experience. Daedalus, 148(4), 5-13.‏ https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_e_01757

Beaumont, E., A. Colby, T. Ehrlich, & Torney-Purta. J. (2006). Promoting Political Competence and Engagement in College Students: An Empirical Study. Journal of Political Science Education. 2(3): 249–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160600840467

Bridges, D. (1979). Education, Democracy & Discussion. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Brookfield, S., & S. Preskil. (2005). Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carico, K.M. (2001). Negotiating meaning in classroom literature discussions. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44(6), 510-518. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40013562

Chandler-Olcott, K. (2008). Humanities instruction for adolescent literacy learners. In K. A. Hinchman, and H. K. Sheridan-Thomas (Eds.), Best Practices in Adolescent Literacy Instruction, (pp. 212-228). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Colby, A., E. Beaumont, T. Ehrlich, & Stephens. J. )2003(. Educating Citizens: Preparing America’s Undergraduates for Lives of Moral and Civic Responsibility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Davis, H. S. (2013). Discussion as a Bridge: Strategies That Engage Adolescent and Adult Learning Styles in the Postsecondary Classroom. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1): 68–76.

Ding, L., Kim, C., & Orey, M. (2017). Studies of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers & Education, 115(1),126-142.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.016

Douglas, M. E. (2014). Revisiting the Art of Undergraduate Teaching in Higher Education: One Person's Journey towards Enlightenment. Journal of Effective Teaching, 14(2), 69-82.‏

Garside, C. (1996). Look who’s talking: A comparison of lecture and group discussion strategies in developing critical thinking skills. Communication Education, 45(3), 213-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529609379050

Gee, J.P. (1996). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses (2nd ed.). London: Falmer.

Gunnlaugson, O., & Moore, J. (2009). Dialogue education in the post-secondary classroom: Reflecting on dialogue processes from two higher education settings in North America. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(2), 171-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770902857395

Hess, D. E., & McAvoy, P. (2014). The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education. New York: Routledge.‏ https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315738871

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., and Mullen, M. R. (2008), “Equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit”, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R.

Irvin, J., Buehl, D.R., & Klemp, R.M. (2007). Reading and the High School Student: Strategies to Enhance Literacy (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Jalilifar, A. (2010). The effect of cooperative learning techniques on college students’ reading comprehension. System, 38(1), 96-108.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.12.009

Lenihan, G. (2003). Reading with adolescents: Constructing meaning together. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(1), 8-12. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40026900

McAvoy, P., Hunt, T., Culbertson, M. J., McCleary, K. S., DeMeuse, R. J., & Hess, D. E. (2022). Measuring student discussion engagement in the college classroom: a scale validation study. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1761-1775.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1960302

McLaughlin, M. (2010). Content Area Reading: Teaching and Learning in an Age of Multiple Literacies. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Newmann, F. (1981). Reducing student alienation in high schools: Implications of theory. Harvard educational review, 51(4), 546-564. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.51.4.xj67887u87l5t66t

Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). The process of becoming a participant in small-group critical discussions: A case study. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(6), 488-497. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40014737

Nystrand, M., Wu, L.L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D.A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2),135-198. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3502_3

Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of educational psychology, 105(3), 579.‏-595. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0032690

Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of educational research, 99(6), 323-338.‏ https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological reports, 51(2), 663-671.‏ https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663

Smith, M.K., Wood, W.B., Krauter, K., & Knight, J.K. (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101

Smith, M.W., & Wilhelm, J.D. (2002). "Reading don't fix no Chevys": Literacy in the lives of young men. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Srba, I., Savic, M., Bielikova, M., Ivanovic, M., & Pautasso, C. (2019). Employing community question answering for online discussions in university courses: Students’ perspective. Computers & Education, 135(8), 75-90.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.017

Woodruff, S. L., & Cashman, J. F. (1993). Task, domain, and general efficacy: A reexamination of the self-efficacy scale. Psychological reports, 72(2), 423-432.‏

Zwiers, J. (2013). Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms, grades 5-12. John Wiley & Sons.‏

Quarterly of Educational Measurement

Psychometric Properties of the Student Discussion Engagement Scale

References

References

Volume 14, Issue 53
October 2023
Pages 32-56

Psychometric Properties of the Student Discussion Engagement Scale

References

References

Volume 14, Issue 53October 2023Pages 32-56

Volume 14, Issue 53
October 2023
Pages 32-56