A Validating Academic Engagement as a Multidimensional Construct for Korean College Students: Academic Motivation, Engagement, and Satisfaction
Abstract
Academic engagement has been known as a strong predictor of students' cognitive and affective outcomes in an educational context. Despite increasing interest and theoretical usefulness of this construct, a few researchers seem to be interested in the validation of instruments to measure academic engagement for Korean students. Thus, this study would like to introduce one of academic scales widely used, UWES-S(Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-Student) (Schaufeli et al., 2002a: 2002b) and to validate the UWES-S for Korean college students. To validate the Korean version of the UWES-S, 651 college students (285 for Field Trial, 366 for Main Study) were used. The procedure is as follows. First, we used an integrated adaptation procedure to produce a Korean version of the UWES-S. Second, EFA(exploratory factor analyses) was applied to explore the factor structure of the UWES-S on the field trial data. Third, the psychometric properties of the UWES-S items were examined by graded response model(GRM). Also CFA(confirmatory factor analysis) was used to examine its internal construct validity for the data from the main study. Finally, the external validity of the UWES-S was scrutinized with the related variables such as academic motivation and satisfaction. As a result, the Korean version of the UWES-S with 13 items was accepted that the four items were excluded from its original version. Second, the internal validity was supported that the 3 factor CFA model(vigor, dedication, absorption) fit the data well. Third, we supported the partial mediation model that academic engagement played as a mediating variable between academic motivation(internal/external) and academic satisfaction. Finally, the differences between a validation of UWES-S for Korean college and high school students, the necessity of construct equivalence testing, and direction for future research of scale validating were discussed.
- keywords
- 학업참여, UWES-S, 학업동기, 학업만족, 구인타당도, 대학생 표본, 등급반응모형, Academic Engagement, UWES-S, Academic Motivation, Academic Satisfaction, Construct Validity, College Students, Graded Response Model
Reference
권병선, 강익원 (2010). 대학생들의 교양체육수업 참여 동기가 수업만족도와 대인 관계성향에 미치는 영향. 한국체육과학학회지,19, 91-103.
김남희, 김종백 (2011). 기본심리욕구와 수업참여를 매개로 한 학생-교사 애착관계와 학업성취도의 관계: 교사지지와 학생 교사애착 관계의 의미와 역할의 차이를 중심으로. 교육심리연구, 25, 763-789.
김은주, 도승이 (2009). 협동학습에서 학습자의유능감 및 관계성 욕구와 내재동기 및 수업 참여의 관계분석. 교육심리연구, 23,181-196.
박인우 (2011). 학습자의 기본적 심리 욕구와교사의 자율성지지 및 교수전략이 학습자의 수업 참여에 미치는 영향 분석. 교육방법연구, 23, 235-250.
박한숙, 조태순 (2009). 수업참여기술향상 프로그램이 학습습관 및 자기주도적 학습능력에 미치는 효과. 초등교육연구, 22, 421-438.
박현정 (2008). 학습동기, 자아개념, 학업성취간 관계의 집단간 동등성 분석: PISA 2006을 중심으로. 교육평가연구, 21, 43-67.
신현숙 (2008). 중학생의 학업동기, 학교생활참여, 학업수행 및 학급품행의 관계. 교육연구, 31, 25-46.
이은주 (2009). 중학생이 지각하는 담임교사의지도성 유형 및 자기 효능감과 학업몰입과의 관계. 고려대학교 교육대학원 석사학위논문.
정은이 (2012). 대학생 수업 참여에 영향을 미치는 변인 탐색. 교육방법연구, 24, 355-378.
정혜승 (2005). 기업내 성인학습자의 자기주도성, 과제가치, 학습형태 (집합교육,e-Learning, Blended Learning)가 학습만족도와 학업성취도에 미치는 영향. 이화여자대학교 교육대학원 석사학위논문.
조한익, 이현아 (2010). 완벽주의와 학업소진및 학업열의와의 관계에 있어서 성취목표의 매개효과. 청소년학연구, 17, 131-154.
추헌택, 손원숙 (2011). 한국판 학업참여 척도(UWES-S)의 타당화. 교육평가연구. 24,897-920.
한민희 (2010). 여대생의 평가염려 완벽주의와학업몰입의 관계에서 타인 및 자기인정 추구의 매개효과 검증. 이화여자대학교 대학원 심리학과 석사학위논문.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369-386.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 427-445.
Aduas, R., & Willms, J. D. (2001). Engagement and dropping out of school: a life course perspective. Human Resources and Social Development Canada. Retrieved November 2002, from http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/hrsd/pre/publications/research/2001-00175/SP-483-01-02E.pdf.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp.136-162). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates[Online]. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13). Retrieved April 19, 2006, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=13.
Connell, J. P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system precesses across the life-span. In D. Cicchetti & M. Beeghly (Eds.), The self in transition: From fancy to childhood (pp.61-97). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: a motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes and development, 23, 43-77. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children's academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148-162.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-Unit-Level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279.
Jimerson, S. R., Compos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. California School Psychologist, 8, 7-27.
Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262-273.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Libby, H. P. (2004). Measuring students’ relationship to school: attachment, bonding, connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74, 274-283.
Marks, H. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: patterns in the elementary, middle and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 153-188.
Maehr, M. L., & Meyer, H. A. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we've been, where we are, and where we need to go. Educational Psychology Review, 9, 371-408.
McCarthy, M. & Kuh, G. (2006). Are students ready for college: what student engagement data say, Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 664-669.
Mehlinger, H. D. (1995). School reform in the information age. Bloomington. IN: Indiana University Press.
OECD (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Volume 1: Analysis.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 82, 33-40.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students' engagement by increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147-169.
Russell, V. J., Ainley, M., & Frydenberg, E. (2005). Schooling issues digest: Student motivation and engagement. Retrieved November 9, 2005, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/schooling_issues_digest/schooling_issues_digest_motivation_engagement.htm.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Selfdetermination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being, American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent trait ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monograph Supplement, No. 17.
Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I., Marques-Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002a). Burnout and engagement in university students: a cross national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 464-481.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002b). The measurement of Engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W. B., Kosugi, S., Suzuki, A., Nashiwa, H., Kato, A., Sakamoto, M., Irimjiri, H. Amano, S., Hirohata, K., Goto, R. (2008). Work engagement in Japan: Validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 510-523.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Social Methodology, 13, 290-312.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between non-work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518-528.
Walker, C. O., Breene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 1-12.
Wefald, A. J., & Downey, R. G. (2009). Construct dimensionality of engagement and its relation with satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 91-111.
Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1161-1176.
- Downloaded
- Viewed
- 0KCI Citations
- 0WOS Citations