Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Department of Educational Psychology & Counseling/ Faculty of Psychology and Education/ University of Tehran,/Tehran,/Iran
2 Department of Educational Psychology and Consultation/ Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences/ University of Tehran
3 Department of Educational Psychology & Counseling, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
4 Department of Educational Psychology & Counseling, Faculty of Psychology and Education/ University of Tehran,/Tehran,/Iran
Abstract
The aim of this study was to validate the scale of student discussion engagement among students of the University of Tehran. The scale of student discussion engagement 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 promote the engagement of others. This scale measures the behavior and experiences of classmates in the four dimensions of measuring skills, self-confidence, openness to discussion, and perception of the overall atmosphere of the classroom. Participants were 403 students of the University of Tehran in different stages who were selected by random sampling. Participants responded to questionnaires on discussion engagement, academic engagement, general self-efficacy (GSES), and the classroom learning environment (CLC) provided online. Data were analyzed in several steps including item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, convergent validity, divergent validity and reliability. The results of item analysis showed that all items have the necessary adequacy in terms of descriptive criteria. In exploratory factor analysis, deleting two items and re-analyzing the remaining items led to the identification of four factors. Confirmatory factor analysis also confirmed the factor structure identified in the exploratory factor analysis. Evidence showed that the scale student discussion engagement has convergent validity, divergent validity and good reliability.
Keywords
)