Abstract
The study explored how much student engagement and classroom variables predicted student achievement in mathematics. Since students were nested within a classroom, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was employed for the analysis. The results indicated that student engagement had positive effects on student academic growth per month in math after taking into account student variables such as gender, SES, race, and interaction effects. The effects of student engagement are consistent regardless of minority and gender. Among classroom level variables such as teachers’ degree, experience, certification, authentic instruction, content coverage, and class size, there is no significant predictor of student math achievement growth. The findings suggest that student engagement should be emphasized in a school and educational policy for students’ success in a school.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
The Abell Foundation (2001).Teacher certification reconsidered: Stumbling for quality. Baltimore, MD.
Achilles, C. M., Finn, J. D., & Bain, H. P. (1997). Using class size to reduce the equity gap.Educational Leadership, 55(4), 40–43.
Achilles, C. M., Finn, J. D., & Bain, H. P. (2002). Measuring class size: Let me count the ways.Educational Leadership, 59(5), 24–26.
Brandt, R. (1998).Powerful learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992).Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Burstein, L. (1980). The analysis of multilevel data in educational research and evaluation.Review of Research in Education, 8, 158–233.
Chang, L. (2003). Variable effects of children’s aggression, social withdrawal, and prosocial leadership as functions of teacher beliefs and behaviors.Child Development, 74, 535–548.
Coleman, J. S., et. al. (1966).Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Cooley, W. W., & Leinhardt, G. (1980). The instructional dimensions study.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2(1), 7–25.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997).Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence.Education Policy Analysis Archives,8 (1). Retrieved Dec., 2003, from Web site: http://olam.ed.asu.edu/ epaa/v8n1/
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school.Review of Educational Research, 59(2), 117–142.
Finn, J. D. (1993).School engagement & students at risk. Washington DC: National Center for Educational Statistics Research and Development Reports. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 362322).
Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1990). Answers and questions about class size: A statewide experiment.American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 557–577.
Finn, J. D., Gerber, S. B., Achilles, C. M., & Zaharias, J. B. (2001). The enduring effects of small classes.Teachers College Record, 103(2), 145–183.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement.Review of Educational Research, 66 (3), 361–416.
Greenwood, C. R. (1991). Longitudinal Analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk versus non-risk students.Exceptional Children, 57 (6), 521–35.
Guo, S., & Hussey, D. (1999). Analyzing longitudinal rating data: A three-level hierarchical linear model.Social Work Research, 23, 258–268.
Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools.Journal of Economic Literature, 24(3), 1141–1177.
Hanushek, E. A. (1989). Class size reduction: Good politics, bad education policy.High School Magazine, 6(4), 44.
Hedges, L. V., Laine, R. D., & Greenwald, R. (1994). Does money matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes.Educational Researcher, 23 (3), 5–14.
Hill, P. W., & Crevola, C. A. (1999). The role of standards in educational reform for the 21st century. In D. D. Marsh (Ed.),ASCD 1999 yearbook: Preparing our schools for the 21st century. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hines, C. V., et. al. (1986). Teacher behavior, task engagement, and student achievement: A path analytic study.Florida Journal of Educational Research, 28 (1), 25–40.
Jones, H. A. & Warren, S. F. (1991). Enhancing engagement in early language teaching.Teaching Exceptional Children, 23 (4), 48–50.
Kaplan, L. S. & Owings, W. A. (2001). Teacher quality and student achievement: Recommendations for principals.NASSP Bulletin, 628 (85), 64–73. Reston: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Kreft, I. & Leeuw, J. (1998).Introducing multilevel modeling. CA: SAGE.
Krueger, A. B. & Whitmore, D. M. (2001). Would smaller classes help close the black-white achievement gap?Working paper, 451. New Jersey: Princeton University. Retrieved Nov., 2003, from http://www.irs.princeton. edu/pubs/working_papers.html
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years.American Educational Research Journal, 37 (1), 153–84.
Newmann, F. M. (Ed.). (1992).Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), (1992).Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Nye, B. A., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopulos, S. (2001a). The long-term effects of small classes in early grades: Lasting benefits in mathematics achievement at grade nine.Journal of Experimental Education, 69(3), 245–258.
Nye, B. A., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopulos, S. (2001b). Are effects of small cumulative? Evidence from a Tennessee experiment.Journal of Educational Research, 94(6), 336–345.
Park, S. Y. (2004). Student Engagement and Teacher Variables Improving Student Achievement.Asian Journal of Education, 5(3), 92–113.
Porter, A. C., Kirst, M., Osthoff, E., Smithson, J., & Schneider, S. (1993).Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Robinson, G. L. (1990). Synthesis of research on the effects of class size.Educational Leadership, 47(7), 80–90.
Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002).What largescale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects study of elementary schools. CPRE Research Report Series, 51, 1–46.
Sammons, P. (1999).School effectiveness: Coming of age in the twenty-first century. Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.: Lisse, The Netherlands.
Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002).Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Silverman, S. (1985). Student characteristics mediating engagement-outcome relationships in physical education.Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56 (1), 66–72.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999).Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. CA: SAGE.
Stedman, L. C. (1997). International achievement differences: An assessment of a new perspective.Educational Researcher, 26(3), 4–15.
Strong, R., Silver, H. F., & Robinson, A. (1995). What do students want (and what really motivates them?).Educational Leadership, 53 (1), 8–12.
Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000).The international handbook of school effectiveness research. London: Falmer Press.
Van derLeeden, Rien (1998). Multilevel analysis of longitudinal data. In C. C. J. H. Bijleveld (Ed.),Longitudinal data analysis: Designs, models, and methods. (pp. 269–317). London: SAGE.
Wasley, P. (1999) Teaching worth celebrating.Educational Leadership, 56 (8). 8–13.
Wehlage, G. G., Newmann, F. M., & Secada, W. G. (1996). Standards for authentic achievement and pedagogy. In Newmann, et al. (Eds.).Authentic achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wenglisky, H. (1997).When money matters. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service Policy Information Center.
Wolfe, P. (1998). Revisiting effective teaching.Educational Leadership, 56 (3), 61–64.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, SY. Student engagement and classroom variables in improving mathematics achievement. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 6, 87–97 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024970
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024970