1. Student Classroom Engagement in 4 th to 12 th Grade Christi Bergin, Ze Wang, David Bergin, Rebecca Bryant, & Renee Jamroz University of Missouri American Educational Research Association New Orleans, 2011 Aim: The purpose of this study was to help clarify the construct and measurement of engagement, paving the way for research on how to increase student engagement. In-class engagement is believed to be both an outcome of effective teaching and an antecedent of high achievement. Thus, increasing engagement is a critical goal for educational interventions. To evaluate such interventions, educators must clearly define engagement and measure it reliably and validly. Defining Engagement: Engagement is the outward manifestation of motivation. It is class-specific. A student can be highly engaged in one class (e.g., math) but not in another (e.g., science). Three dimensions of engagement have been proposed – but research has not yet confirmed that they are distinct: 1.Affective engagement (“I am interested during class.”) 2.Behavioral engagement (“I participate in class activities.”) 3.Cognitive engagement (“I think deeply during class activities.”) Measuring Engagement: No measure currently exists that measures all 3 dimensions of engagement in a class- specific way, across grades 4-12, with reliability and validity, that is also easy to administer and affordable for districts. The Classroom Engagement Inventory (CEI) was designed to have all these attributes. It is a self-report survey with 21 items. Research Questions: What is the factor structure of the CEI – are the 3 dimensions of engagement distinct? Is the factor structure the same across demographic groups? Is the CEI reliable and valid? Method: The CEI was administered to 3,481 4 th -12 th graders in a small-city school district, including 221 classrooms in 13 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, 1 high school, and 1 career center. The sample was 85% White, 49% free/reduced lunch, and 53% female. Analysis: MPlus was used to obtain polychoric correlations and to conduct factor analyses, which were based on the polychoric matrices. Measurement invariance existed across school level, subject, gender, and SES groups. Conclusions Results empirically support a 4-dimensional model of engagement. Correlations between the four factors were moderate to high (r =.48-.73), suggesting a second-order global engagement construct; when the four factors were allowed to load on a general “classroom engagement” factor, the model fit was good (RMSEA=.066 with 90% CI [.064,.068], CFI=.956, TLI=.950.) Engagement is multidimensional and hierarchical. The multidimensionality was the same by gender, school (elementary, middle and high schools), subject (math, language arts, and science) and SES (F/RL or not). Engagement scores were linked to teaching practices, self-efficacy, and school prompted interest, providing evidence of the validity of the CEI. Groups varied in “amount” of engagement: Elementary students reported significantly higher engagement than middle school and high school students. Students in math classes reported significantly less disengagement than students in language arts or science classes, and significantly more engagement than students in science classes. There were no gender or SES differences on any of the 4 factors. The Classroom Engagement Inventory is an efficient, inexpensive tool that is reliable and valid across grades 4 to 12 for diverse students. It can be used for longitudinal research as well as evaluation of school improvement efforts. Validity: The validity of the CEI was tested with self-report of 4 variables that should correlate with engagement: 1. Self-efficacy (5 items, composite reliability =.92). Sample Item: “I am very sure I can master skills taught in this class.” 2.Teaching practices directed at the whole class (4 items, composite reliability =.84). Sample Item: “We have class discussions that make me think deeply.” 3. Teaching practices directed at the individual student (3 items, composite reliability =.80). Sample Item: “My teacher asks me to explain my thinking when I give an answer.” 4.School prompted interest (6 items, composite reliability =.85). Sample Item: “Because of this class, I get so interested in this subject that I try to find out more about it on my own by looking the subject up on the internet.”