Volume 3, Issue 3, June 2018, Page: 38-44
Understanding Factors Leading to College Classroom Engagement for Millennials: Development of the College Classroom Engagement Scale
Suzanne Fischer Lindt, Department of Curriculum and Learning, Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, USA
Stacia Celeste Miller, Department of Counseling and Kinesiology, Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, USA
Received: Jul. 11, 2018;       Accepted: Jul. 26, 2018;       Published: Aug. 16, 2018
DOI: 10.11648/j.her.20180303.12      View  399      Downloads  45
This aim of this research study sought to define college classroom engagement from the perspective of Millennial students. A mixed-methods study was utilized to understand both quantitative and qualitative findings for the purpose of developing a measurement scale. The study was comprised of two different phases. In phase 1, students (n = 68) completed a demographic survey from which researchers invited students (n = 20) to participate in a focus group. Data analysis led researchers to identify five themes from the focus groups (relevance, instructional practices, class climate, professor traits, and student traits) to create a scale for measuring engagement in the classroom. The 30-item scale was comprised of five Likert statements for each of the six themes from phase 1. In phase 2, the scale was distributed to students (n = 177) on a university campus in the US. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted from the student responses and revealed 2 factors (Teaching Persona, α =.83 and Learning Environment α =.82) describing Millennial students’ reasons for engagement in the college classroom. The final scale of 18 items suggests that college students in the research study believe that they are more engaged in their college courses when they believe that their instructor exhibits traits demonstrating care and concern for students and when the instructor creates an environment conducive to learning. This research study and resulting scale may be helpful for guiding college faculty to develop their courses to better engage their college students in the classroom.
Higher Education, Student Engagement, Mixed Methods
To cite this article
Suzanne Fischer Lindt, Stacia Celeste Miller, Understanding Factors Leading to College Classroom Engagement for Millennials: Development of the College Classroom Engagement Scale, Higher Education Research. Vol. 3, No. 3, 2018, pp. 38-44. doi: 10.11648/j.her.20180303.12
Copyright © 2018 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Engaged and disaffected action: The conceptualization and measurement of motivation in the academic domain. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 184–191. doi:10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192
Lindt, S. F. (2015, April). The impact of student achievement goals and engagement on students’ writing improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
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, 203-114. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.203
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. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.22
Fried, L., & Chapman, E. (2012). An investigation into the capacity of student motivation and emotion regulation strategies to predict engagement and resilience in the middle school classroom. Australian Educational Researcher, 39, 295-311. doi:10.1007/s13384-011-0049-1
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (2006). Engagement and disaffection as organizational constructs. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 223-245). New York, NY: Routledge.
Nelson Laird, T. F., Chen, D., & Kuh, G. D. (2008). Classroom practices at institutions with higher-than-expected persistence rates: What student engagement data tell us. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 115, 85–99. doi:10.1002/tl.327
Yurco, P. (2014). Student-generated cases: Giving students more ownership in the learning process. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(3), 54-58. doi:10.2505/4/jcst14_043_03_54
Jang, H. (2008). Supporting students’ motivation, engagement, and learning during an uninteresting activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 798-811. doi:10.1037/a0012841
Hunzicker, J., & Lukowiak, T. (2012). Effective teaching and student engagement in the college classroom: Using the instructional practices inventory (IPI) as a tool for peer observation and self-reflection. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 23(1), 99-132.
O’Connor, K. J. (2013). Class participation: Promoting in-class student engagement. Education, 133, 340-344.
Allred, J.E., & Swenson, M. J. (2006). Using technology to increase student preparation for and participation in marketing courses: The random selector model. Marketing Education Review, 16, 15-21. doi:10.1080/10528008.2006.11488932
Gonida, E. N., Voulala, K., & Kisseoglou, G. (2009). Students’ achievement goal orientations and their behavioral and emotional engagement: Co-examining the role of perceived school goals structures and parent goals during adolescence. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 53-60. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.002
Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 236-250. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.236
Zumbrunn, S., McKim, C., Buhs, E., & Hawley, L. R. (2014). Support, belonging, motivation, and engagement in the college classroom: A mixed method study. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences. 42(5), 661-684.
Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research of student engagement (pp. 3-19). New York, NY: Springer.
Fredericks, J. McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2011-No. 098). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Education Laboratory Southeast.
Goffin, R. D., & Gellatly, I. R. (2001). A multi-rater assessment of organizational commitment: are self-report measures biased? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 437-451. doi: 10.1002/job.94
Fredericks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research of student engagement (pp. 763-782). New York, NY; Springer.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. T. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12, 281-316. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR12-2/onwuegbuzie2.pdf
Krueger, R. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daniel, L. G. (2003, February 12). Typology of analytical and interpretational errors in quantitative and qualitative educational research. Current Issues in Education [On-line], 6(2). Retrieved January 15, 2010, from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/number2/
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement: Predicting continued interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316-330.
Tews, M. J., Ramsay, C., & Michel, J. W. (2015). Fun in the college classroom: Examining its nature and relationship with student engagement. College Teaching, 63(1), 16-26. doi:10.1080/87567555.2014.972318
Seidman, A., & Brown, S.C. (2013). College classroom humor: Even pundits can benefit. Education, 133(3). 393-395.
Zhang, Q. (2014). Assessing the effects of instructor enthusiasm on classroom engagement, learning goal orientation, and academic self-efficacy. Communication Teacher, 28, 44-56.
Garner, R. L. (2006). Humor in pedagogy: How ha-ha can lead to aha!. College Teaching, 54(1), 177-180.
Browse journals by subject