Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The development of a student engagement instrument for the responding strand in visual arts

  • Published:
The Australian Educational Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ‘responding’ strand of the Australian visual arts curriculum promotes twenty-first century learning skills through students’ analytical engagement with artworks and artists. Assessing students’ experiences and engagement is one strategy to improve teaching and learning in responding. However, there are no validated, subject-specific student engagement instruments for teachers to use. This study sought to develop a student self-report diagnostic instrument that provides information on past experiences with visual arts and factors affecting both cognitive and psychological engagement, with implications for improving teaching and learning. The instrument was piloted with 266 Year 10 to 12 students, as responding has an approximate 50% assessment weighting in the Australian visual arts course for senior school students. This paper reports on the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses conducted in the development of the instrument. It adds to the body of knowledge on developing engagement instruments, recognising that student engagement in secondary education is context-dependent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ACARA. (2012). A guide to understanding ICSEA. Retrieved from Sydney, Australia: http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Guide_to_understanding_ICSEA.pdf.

  • Ainley, M. (2012). Students’ interest and engagement in classroom activities. In S. L. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • AITSL. (2011). The National Professional Standards for Teachers. Melbourne, Australia: Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA).

  • Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(5), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(9), 9–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., & Locke, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betts, J. E., Appleton, J. J., Reschly, A. L., Christenson, S. L., & Huebner, E. S. (2010). A study of the factorial invariance of the student engagement instrument (SEI): Results from middle and high school students. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 84–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boughton, D. (1989). The changing face of Australian art education: New horizons or sub-colonial politics? Studies in Art Education, 30(4), 197–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, B., & Vaughan, T. (2011). Transforming education through the arts. Oxford: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carbonneau, N., Vallerand, R. J., & Lafrenière, M. K. (2012). Toward a tripartite model of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality, 80(5), 1147–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Brogatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherry, D. (2004). Art history visual culture. Art History, 27(4), 479–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research on student engagment. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth of Australia. (2017). National Innovation and Science Agenda. Retrieved from https://www.innovation.gov.au/page/national-innovation-and-science-agenda-report.

  • Creswell, J. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Essex: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, J., & Mawdesley, R. (2013). Australia, quality education and the ‘best interests of the child’. Australian Journal of Education, 57(3), 292–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. H., & McPartland, J. M. (2012). High school reform and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dell-Kuster, S., Sanjuan, E., Todorov, A., Weber, H., Heberer, M., & Rosenthal, R. (2014). Designing questionnaires: Healthcare survey to compare two different response scales. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 96–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education. (2013). Statutory guidance: National curriculum in England: Art and design programmes of study. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-art-and-design-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-art-and-design-programmes-of-study.

  • Dodge, T., & Kaufman, A. (2009). Student perceptions and motivation in the classroom: Exploring relatedness and value. Social Psychology of Education, 12(1), 101–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dulfer, N., Rice, S., & Clarke, K. (2017). Student engagement, non-completion and pedagogy: Development of a measurement tool. Australian Journal of Education, 61(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944116685621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efland, A. (1990). A history of art education: Intellectual and social currents in teaching the visual arts. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E. (1987). The role of disciplined-based art education in America’s schools. Art Education, 40(5), 6–26 and 43–45.

  • Eisner, E. (1990). Discipline-based art education: Conceptions and misconceptions. Educational Theory, 40(4), 423–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, I. (2013). Essential motivation in the classroom. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, A. D. (2016). The framework for 21st century learning: A first-rate foundation for music education assessment and teacher evaluation. Arts Education Policy Review, 117(1), 13–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H. (2015). Validity, science and educational measurement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(2), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1015402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J., & Hackling, M. (2009). Wellbeing and retention: A senior secondary student perspective. The Australian Educational Researcher, 36(2), 119–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greer, D. W. (1987). A structure of discipline concepts for DBAE. Studies in Art Education, 28(4), 227–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Csapó, B., Demetriou, A., Hautamäki, J., Graesser, A. C., et al. (2014). Domain-general problem solving skills and education in the 21st century. Educational Research Review, 13, 74–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, I. (2015). Data, numbers and accountability: The complexity, nature and effects of data use in schools. British Journal of Educational Studies, 63(4), 467–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2015.1066489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. A., & Brown, G. T. L. (2011). Assessment and evaluation. In C. M. Rubie-Davies (Ed.), Educational psychology: Concepts, research and challenges. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model specification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, S., & Scaife, J. (2012). Misunderstood and neglected? Diagnostic and formative assessment practices of lecturers. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 38(2), 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., & Geahigan, G. (2004). South Korean art education during the third and fourth republics, 1960–1979: Economic development and nationalistic aspirations. Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education, 22, 69–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovelace, M. D., Reschly, A. L., Appleton, J. J., & Lutz, M. E. (2014). Concurrent and predictive validity of the student engagement instrument. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32(6), 509–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914527548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, S. (2005). A century of art and design education: From arts and crafts to conceptual art. Cambridge: Lutterworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansour, M., Martin, A. J., Anderson, M., Gibson, R., Liem, G. A. D., & Sudmalis, D. (2016). Student, home, and school socio-demographic factors: Links to school, home, and community arts participation. The Australian Educational Researcher, 43, 221–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-015-0199-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. (2007). The relationship between teachers’ perceptions of student motivation and engagement and teachers’ enjoyment of and confidence in teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 73–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazer, J. P. (2012). Development and validation of the student interest and engagement scales. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2), 99–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, L. M. (2012). Educational accountability and policy feedback. Educational Policy, 27(2), 170–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeon, P. (2002). The sense of art history in art education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 36(2), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.2307/3333760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moller, A. C., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). Choice and ego-depletion: The moderating role of autonomy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(8), 1024–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreira, P. A. S., & Dias, M. A. (2018). Tests of factorial structure and measurement invariance for the Student Engagement Instrument: Evidence from middle and high school students. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2017.1414004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J. E. (2015). Assessing Western Australian year 11 students' engagement with responding in visual arts. Doctoral thesis, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.

  • Morris, J. E. (2018). Arts engagement outside of school: Links with Year 10 to 12 students’ intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy in responding to art. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45(4), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0269-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J. E., & Lummis, G. W. (2014). Investigating the personal experiences and self-efficacy of Western Australian primary pre-service teachers in the visual arts. Australian Art Education, 36(1), 26–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J. E., Lummis, G. W., & Lock, G. (2017). Questioning art: Factors affecting students’ cognitive engagement in responding. Issues in Educational Research, 27(3), 493–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muijs, D. (2011). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proust, J. (2010). Metacognition. Philosophy Compass, 5(11), 989–998. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00340.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punch, K. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1557–1586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scaife, J., & Wellington, J. (2010). Varying perspectives and practices in formative and diagnostic assessment: A case study. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 36(2), 137–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • School Curriculum and Standards Authority. (2014). Visual arts ATAR course: Year 12 syllabus. Perth: School Curriculum and Standards Authority.

    Google Scholar 

  • School Curriculum and Standards Authority. (2015). Visual arts ATAR course: Year 12 syllabus. Perth: School Curriculum and Standards Authority.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Shank, D. (2008). Visual culture and issues-based curricula. Australian Art Education, 31(1), 6–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stobart, G. (2004). Developing and improving assessment instruments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(3), 243–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000304573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, J. (2005). Assessing goodness of fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37(4), 240–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarricone, P. (2011). The taxonomy of metacognition. New York: Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Kleij, F. M., Vermeulen, J. A., Schildkamp, K., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Integrating data-based decision making, assessment for learning and diagnostic testing in formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(3), 324–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.999024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Prooijen, J. W., & van der Kloot, W. A. (2001). Confirmatory analysis of exploratively obtained factor structures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(5), 777–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640121971518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the motivational impact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and autonomy-supportive versus internally controlling communication style on early adolescents’ academic achievement. Child Development, 76(2), 493–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., & Jee, B. D. (2011). Cognition: Overview and recent trends. In V. G. Aukrust (Ed.), Learning and cognition in education (pp. 3–8). Oxford: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winchmann, S. S. (2011). Self-determination theory: The importance of autonomy to well-being across cultures. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 50(1), 16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yonezawa, S., Jones, M., & Joselowsky, F. (2009). Youth engagement in high schools: Developing a mulitdimensional, critical apporach to improving engagement for all students. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2), 191–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia E. Morris.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morris, J.E. The development of a student engagement instrument for the responding strand in visual arts. Aust. Educ. Res. 46, 449–468 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0296-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0296-5

Keywords

Navigation