©2013 Scienceweb Publishing

Journal of Educational Research and Reviews

Vol. 1(1), pp. 1-8, August 2013
Research Paper

Relationships between students’ task engagement and

learning outcomes in chemistry
Orji Nna Sunday
Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council, P. O. Box 895 Gwagwalada, Abuja.
E-mail: nsorji@yahoo.com. Tel: +234(0)8069259978.

Accepted 13th July, 2013

Abstract. To promote Science and Technology at the classroom level, for national growth and global competitiveness,
nations are now paying more attention to students’ active participation in science learning. This study investigated
science students’ task engagement in relation to their learning outcomes (attitude and achievement) in Chemistry. A
stratified sample of 60 students drawn from 10 schools was used in the study. The Student Task Engagement Record, a
classroom observation instrument, was used to record students’ on-task and off-task behaviour/engagement during
chemistry lessons. At the end of the 6 weeks observation period, the Chemistry Achievement Test and Chemistry
Attitude Questionnaire were administered to ascertain students’ chemistry achievement and attitude respectively. The
engagement scores of the students were correlated with their achievement and attitude scores using Pearson’s product
moment correlation. Students’ task engagement was found to have significant, positive correlation (r = 0.74) with
achievement in chemistry; and non-significant negative correlation (r = -0.03) with attitude toward chemistry. It was
therefore recommended that strategies for promoting task engagement should be taught and promoted in schools. Both
practicing and trainee science teachers should build capacity in fostering engaging learning activities.

Keywords: Science Education, engagement, chemistry achievement, learning outcomes.

INTRODUCTION

Advancement in Science and Technology has become a demonstrate commitment, persistent, and willingness to
global phenomenon; science now permeates almost all learn.
facets of human endeavor, and nations are increasingly Several studies (Akey, 2006; Carini et al., 2006;
investing enormous resources into the ‘doing’ and Christenson et al., 2012; Orji, 2011; Taylor et al., 2011)
‘learning’ of science for development and global have described students’ involvement in the learning
competitiveness. Consequently, scientists and science process and its relation to academic achievement and
educationists are today more recognized as playing attitude. They used the term ‘student engagement’ to
crucial roles in advancement. At the classroom level, the connote not only students’ attention in class but also their
science teacher’s role in fostering students’ active cognitive, psychological and social involvement or
involvement in ‘doing’ and ‘learning’ of science is seen as efforts/pursuits in learning task. Akey (2006) explored the
crucial for students’ achievement in sciences, and the influence of student engagement and perceived
overall sustainable advancement of science (Adesoji et academic competence on achievement in reading and
al., 2003). As teachers are key players in fostering mathematics. He found that both engagement in school
student engagement for academic success (Akey, 2006), and students’ perception of their own academic competence
so also the students themselves must play their part, positively influenced achievement in mathematics for high
2 J. Edu. Res. Rev. / Sunday

school students. Similarly, Carini et al. (2006) found student task engagement. Direct observation schedule
many measures of student engagement positively, was used in this study to measure overt engagement
though weakly, correlated with such desirable learning index of students in science classroom. This is similar,
outcomes as critical thinking and grades. Student yet different from Beasley (1983) study of overt student
engagement does not only prevent dropout but improves involvement behaviours in small group laboratory setting
learning outcomes (Christenson et al., 2012). Thus, with students as ‘definitely in’, ‘probably in’, ‘waiting’ and
according to Taylor et al. (2011), we need to change how ‘out’ of the task. The engagement index included: student
we teach and what we teach in order to encourage performance of requested activity, listening, watching,
student engagement. answering questions, writing note, watching teacher,
Encouraging or fostering student engagement is watching demonstration, manipulating apparatus,
predicated upon the understanding and operationalization collating data, reading and solving problems and
of student engagement. While referring to students’ summarizing material.
engagement as their mental and social participation in Orji (2011) utilized index of participation that emphasize
learning tasks, Orji (2011) operationalized it with ‘effort-on-task’ rather than ‘time-on-task’. He noted that
sociological factors of feeling, belonging, cooperation and measurement of student engagement/participation could
group work; psychological factors of interest, personality be on individual basis, that is, by judging acts of
and motivation; and situational factor (institutional individual students who performed them or on whole-
classroom variables). This was based on the assertion class or group basis, measuring total number of students
that human is made up of cognition, that is, has cognitive involved in required task. He also used terms such as
ability, and is a social being (Piaget, 1978; Knowles, ‘intensity’, ‘forms’ and ‘degree’ to describe extent of
1978). Sociological indicators of student engagement participation in learning. Using questionnaires, checklists
include ‘cooperation’, ‘involvement’, ‘participation’, and participation chart/scale, he operationalized
'taking-part-in’ and ‘attendance’ in an organized social engagement using index of motivation, interest, activity,
activity, influenced by the need to be part of an activity, appearance, attentiveness, attitude/values, concern for
pressure from peers, expectations and values skill, contribution to group discussions, earliness to class,
(Cangelosi, 1993; Courtney, 1989 in Orji, 2011). Other emotional balance, helpfulness in class, homework
studies (Appleton et al., 2006 & 2008) focused on submission, independent study, influence popularity,
psychological indicators (interest personality, motivation) initiatives, interest in study, motivation, outspokenness,
such as ‘interest’, ‘personality’, ‘motivation’, ‘involvement’, regularity of attendance, responsibility, self-control and
‘attentiveness’, ‘student initiative’, ‘curiosity’, and social interaction.
‘enthusiasm’. There are also studies (Cangelosi, 2008; Student active learning, which posits students’
Smith et al., 2005) that focused on ecological, situational conscientious responsibility for their learning, is especially
or institutional explanation of student engagement. They relevant in science learning considering the nature of
highlighted the importance of a conducive classroom science. According to Science Council (2013), science is
climate and instructional management procedures for the a process of discovery of the natural and social world or
promotion of students’ task engagement. “the pursuit and application of knowledge and
Chapman (2003) reviewed studies which made use of understanding of the natural and social world” (par. 1).
time-based indices such as ‘time-on-task’ to describe Strategies to promote active student engagement have
overt student engagement (Brophy, 1983; Fisher et al., been researched (Taylor et al., 2011; Orji, 2006; Herr,
1980; McIntyre, et al., 1983) and those that described 2007). According to Taylor et al. (2011), student
covert cognitive engagement (Dintrich and De Groot, engagement is improved by ‘Interaction’, ‘Exploration’,
1990; Schranben, 1992). He described students’ ‘Relevancy’, ‘Multimedia’, ‘Instruction’, and ‘Authentic
cognitive, behavioral and affective task engagement assessment’. We need to change how we teach and what
measures using ‘time-on-task’, ‘involvement’ and we teach in order to encourage student engagement.
‘willingness to participate’ index. According to him, Herr (2007) described a set of strategies that posits the
student engagement includes: the extent to which responsibility for learning with the student. These include
students were attentive in class and expending mental effort discovery learning, problem-based learning, experiential
in the learning task, that is their use of cognitive and meta- learning, and inquiry-based instruction. He added
cognitive strategies; the extent to which students actively discussion, debate, student questioning, think-pair-share,
respond to the tasks (asking relevant questions, solving quick-writes, polling, role playing, cooperative learning,
task-related problems, and participating in relevant group projects, and student presentations as learner-
discussions with teachers/peers); and the level of student’s driven activities. Incorporated in science class, these
investment in learning and their emotional reactions to enrichment activities foster student engagement.
the learning tasks (e.g. high levels of interest or positive Student engagement has been studied in relation to
attitudes towards the learning tasks). He described both student and teacher variables. Orji (2006) reviewed
student self-report measures, checklists and rating studies (Capie and Tobin, 1981; Johnson and Butts, 1983;
scales, direct observations, work sample analysis, and Ramadas and Kulkarni,1982; Shymansky and Penick,
focused case studies as instruments for assessing 1977; Tobin, 1986) that investigated science students’
4 J. Edu. Res. Rev. / Sunday

(2013), correlational studies are used to look for was judged to have been non-engaged or off-task. Inter-
relationships between variables. She described three raters reliability coefficient of 0.65 was obtained for the
types of correlational studies: Naturalistic observation, instrument by comparing ratings from two independent
the survey method and archival research. This study concurrent observation of students’ engagement during a
employed both naturalistic observation and survey chemistry lesson.
method. While classroom observation was used to study The Student Chemistry Achievement Test (CAT) is a
students’ task engagement, survey and questionnaires 30-item multiple choice objective test (4 options) covering
were used to ascertain students’ achievement and the topics: Acids, Bases, Salts and Carbon/Carbon
attitude towards chemistry. This design allowed the Compounds. These topics, contained in the term’s
researcher to investigate the nature and extent to which scheme of work, were covered by the teachers at the
variations in student task-engagement corresponds with study period. Science Education experts subjected the
variations in students’ achievement and attitude towards test to face validation; while test blueprint (appendix III)
chemistry. It did not, however, seek to determine cause- ensured content validity. A test-retest reliability coefficient
effect relationship among the variables. of 0.72 was obtained for the CAT. This was calculated by
comparing two sets of scores by 25 students who took, at
two weeks intervals, two versions of the same test with
Sample and sampling techniques test items rearranged.
The Chemistry Attitude Questionnaire, CAQ (Appendix
The study population included the entire SS II science II) comprised a 30-item scale with 4-point loading ranging
students of all secondary schools in Ibadan, Oyo State. from strongly Agreed (SD) to strongly Disagreed (SD). It
60 SSII chemistry students participated in the study. They gave a Crombach alpha reliability coefficient of 0.68. The
were drawn from 10 randomly selected public secondary CAQ specification include statements on: ‘Likeness for
schools that offer chemistry at the SS II level. The chemistry’, ‘Emotional climate of the chemistry
chemistry students (6 per school) were selected by classroom’, ‘Chemistry curriculum’, ‘Chemistry teacher’,
stratified random sampling; they all had average ‘Physical environment of the chemistry classroom/labora-
achievement scores in chemistry as ascertained via tory’, ‘Friends’ attitude towards chemistry’, ‘Achievement
school records. In each school, the 6 chemistry students motivation’, ‘anxiety’, and ‘Chemistry self-concept’
were from same class. (appendix II). Experts in science education provided face
validation for it.

Instrumentation
Procedure for data collection and analysis
Data were collected using a direct classroom observation Permission to conduct the study in the schools was sort
instrument - the Student Task Engagement Record for and obtained from school principals/heads. The
(STER) and 2 questionnaires - Chemistry Achievement researcher visited the schools and observed classroom
Test (CAT) and Chemistry Attitude Questionnaire (CAQ) lessons in chemistry -Acid, Base, Salt, and
developed by the researcher. Science education experts Carbon/Carbon Compounds. These lessons were already
provided face validation of the instrument, reordering and in the SSII chemistry curriculum/scheme of work for the
rephrasing questions as appropriate. The test blueprint term. Participant observation was used. Only the
below (Appendix II) ensured content validity of the CAT. researcher observed and scored the STER to ensured
The Student Task Engagement Record (STER) is a uniform scoring across the selected students and
two-point scale for recording student overt task- schools. At the outset of observation, the students made
engagement (appendix 1a). Each of the 6 selected choice of their setting positions; however, they were
students is observed in 20 second turns. STER classified requested to maintain their position for the rest of the
students’ behaviour as: 1 = engaged behaviour (on-task) observation period. Student locations were numbered to
and 0 = non-engaged (off-task). Evidence of engaged allow for stratified random selection of 6 students. The
behaviour included students’ activities of: school record was consulted to ensure that the 6 selected
students were representatives of the class in terms of
i. Physically attending; looking at the teacher aptitude/achievement.
or the chalkboard; The researcher, taking non-interrupting position within
ii. Working at desk, that is, taking notes from the classroom, observed the selected students in turns of
the lecture or chalkboard; and 20 seconds to determine whether or not each student
iii. Interaction with teacher or students; such was engaged. Using criteria spelt out in the
as, asking questions, responding to instrumentation, the engagement status was scored as 1
questions, or commenting on the objective- or 0. The observations lasted throughout the 45 min
related issues. lesson period. The STER shows observation time interval of
Any behaviour that was not classified as one of the above 2 minutes (that is, 20 seconds for each of the 6 students)
 J. Edu. Res. Rev. / Sunday 5

Table 1. Simple statistics for the 3 variables: STDTASK, ACHIVT and ATTITUDE.

Variable N Mean Std Dev Sum Min Max Max Exp ½ Max
STDTASK 10 11.2600 1.0069 112.6 9.0000 12.6000 15 7.5
ACHIVT 10 12.1200 2.9491 121.2 5.3000 15.3000 30 15
ATTITUDE 10 90.9250 3.4378 909.3 83.3000 96.2500 120 60

Table 2. Correlation analysis for STDTASK and ACHIVT.

STDTASK ACHIVT
Pearson Correlation 1.00000 0.74366
STDTASK Sig. (2-tailed) 0.0273
N 60 60

Pearson Correlation 0.74366 1.00000

ACHIVT Sig. (2-tailed) 0.0273
N 60 60
P < 0.05. STDTASK means student task engagement; ACHIVT means student achievement in
chemistry

and break intervals of 2 minutes. The break allowed for Table 2 shows the Pearson’s correlation between student
scoring of the STER as well as observation of some task engagement and achievement in Chemistry. Table 2
teacher variables not reported in this study. Same topics reveals a strong, positive and significant correlation
were taught across the classes/schools observed, and between students’ task engagement and achievement in
the CAT and CAS were administered during the last chemistry (r = 0.74; p < 0.05). This suggests that
week of the 4 to 6 weeks classroom observations. Each increase in students’ task engagement corresponds with
class was observed three times for the research (at least increase in achievement in chemistry. The null
once each week). hypothesis Ho1 is, therefore, rejected.
The data from the continuously coded STER (Appendix
I), the CAT and CAS were analyzed using Pearson’s HO2: There is no significant relationship between student
product moment correlation and simple descriptive task engagement and students attitude toward chemistry.
statistics. Average scores for each of the ten schools
were calculated and correlated. Specifically, the SPSS Table 3 shows the Pearson’s correlation between
15.0 for Windows Version was used for the analysis. students’ task engagement and attitude towards
chemistry. Table 3 shows a weak negative, insignificant
relationship (r = -0.03; p < 0.05) between students’ task
RESULTS engagement and attitude toward chemistry. This near
zero correlation suggests that task engagement and
The research question is ‘What is the nature and extent attitudes in chemistry are almost independent of each
of students’ task engagement in chemistry?’ Table 1 other. Therefore, the null hypothesis HO2 is not rejected.
shows simple statistics of the study variables including
Task Engagement (STDTASK) for all 10 classes. Table 1
shows a STDTASK mean score of 11.26 (Std = 1.0069, DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATIONS
Min = 9, Max = 12.6) for all 60 students, which is more
than half the maximum expected value (Max e = 15; each Students’ science task engagement was found to have
student was observed 15 times during a 45-min lesson significant positive relationship with achievement in
period). This indicates an overall high task engagement. Chemistry. This finding agrees with Orji (2011) and
There is also a pattern of high task engagement within Johnson and Butts (1983) assertion that learner
each of the 10-science classroom observed (Appendix variables, including their pursuit (efforts) or active
1b). participation positively influenced learning outcomes. On
the contrary, no significant relationship was found
HO1: There is no significant relationship between between students’ task and attitude towards chemistry
students’ task engagement and their achievement in suggesting that any trend between students’ engagement
chemistry. and attitude was a chance occurrence.
6 J. Edu. Res. Rev. / Sunday

Table 3. Correlation analysis for STDTASK and ATTITUDE.

STDTASK ATTITUDE
Pearson Correlation 1.00000 -0.02869
STDTASK Sig. (2-tailed) 0.8277
N 60 60

Pearson Correlation -0.02869 1.00000

ATTITUDE Sig. (2-tailed) 0.8277
N 60 60
p < 0.05

Conclusion Beasley W (1983). Teacher management behaviours and pupil task

involvement during small group laboratory activities. J. Res. Sci.
Teach. 20(8):713-719.
Promoting science and technology for national growth Cangelosi JS (2008). Classroom management strategies: Gaining and
and global competitiveness has been the priority of maintaining students’ cooperation [6th Edition]. Hoboken, NJ: John
nations. At the classroom level, educationists and Wiley & Sons.
Carini RM, Kuh GD, Klein SP (2006). Student engagement and
researchers are now focusing on the contribution of student learning: Testing the linkages. Res. In Higher Educ. 47(1):1-
students’ variables to successful learning and doing of 32.
science. This study sought to ascertain the relationship Chapman E (2003). Alternative Approaches to assessing student
between students’ science task engagement and engagement rates. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 8(13). Retrieved from
http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=13.
achievement and attitude toward chemistry. It found that Cherry K (2013) Correlational studies: Psychological research with
students’ engagement had positive significant relation- correlational studies. Retrieved from
ship with achievement, but was insignificantly related with http://psychology.about.com/od/researchmethods/a/correlational.htm
attitude. Thus, school science improvement projects Christenson SL, Reschly AL, Wylie C (2012). Handbook of research
on student engagement. Retrieved from
should target preparing and motivating students’ for http://books.google.com.ng/books/about/Handbook_of_Research_on
active task engagement in science. _Student _Engageme.html?id=7LSxRvDF-RgC&redir_esc=y
Herr N (2007). Theories and Perspectives in Science Education.
Retrieved from http://www.csun.edu/science/ref/theory-
RECOMMENDATIONS research/theories-science-education.html
Mosadomi W (2010). NECO releases results. The Vanguard. Retrieved
on 12/7/13from http://www.vanguardngr.com /2010/09/neco-releases-
The study therefore makes the following recommenda- result/
tions: Nigerian Tech (n.d.) NECO results 2012/2013 GCE/SSCE Exams
Results. Retrieved on 12/07/13 from http://www.naijatechguide.com
1. In addition to exposure to subject contents, students /2010/01/neco-ssce-examination-2010-registration.html
Oranu PC (2012). Student Engagement: Issues and Concerns for
should be taught “what it takes to be actively engaged in Nigerian Schools in Achieving Mellennium Development
science lessons. Goals. Int. J. Acad. Res. in Progressive Educ. and Dev. 1(1):256-259.
2. Science teachers should seek practical ways to foster Orji NS (2006). Relationship among teacher classroom management
students’ engagement for academic excellence. behaviours, students’ task engagement, and students’ outcomes in
chemistry (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Ibadan,
3. Pre-service and serving teachers should be trained on Ibadan.
designing and conducting appropriate learning task that Orji NS (2011). The influence of adults’ socio-psychological
will physically, mentally and socially engage students. characteristics on their active participation in adult educational
programme. Niger. J. Teach. Educ. Teach. 9(1):356-370.
Science Council (2013). What is Science? Retrieved from:
REFERENCES http://www.sciencecouncil.org/definition
Smith KA, Sheppard SD, Johnson DW, Johnson RT (2005).
Adesoji FA, Ige TA, Iroegbu TO, Olagunju AM (2003). Innovations in Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. J. Eng.
science teaching for new millennium. O. Ayodele-Bamisaiye, I. A. Educ.pp.1-15. Retrievedfromhttp://www.ce.umn.edu/~smith/docs/
Nwazuoke and A. Okediran (Eds) Education this Millennium – Smith- Pedagogies_of_Engagement.pdf
Innovation in Theory and Practice. Ibadan: Macmillan Publishers. Taylor L, Parsons J (2011). Improving student engagement. Curr.
Akey TM (2006). School context, student attitudes and behavior, and Issues in Educ. 14(1):1-33.
academic achievement: An exploratory analysis. New York: MDRC.
Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.org/publications/419/full.pdf
Appleton JJ, Christenson SL, Furlong MJ (2008). Student
engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological
issues of the construct. Psychol. Schools 45(5):369-386.
Appleton JJ, Christenson SL, Kim D, Reschly AL (2006). Measuring
cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student
Engagement Instrument. J. Sch. Psychol. 44(5):427-445. http://www.sciencewebpublishing.net/jerr
 J. Edu. Res. Rev. / Sunday 7

APPENDIX I

A: Student’s Task-Engagement Record (STER)

(min)
Time

11-12

14-15

17-18

20-21

23-24

26-27

29-30

32-33

35-36

38-39

41-42

44-45

Total
2-3

5-6

8-9
Student no
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
*Key: 1 = on-task/engaged; 0 = off-task/disengaged

B: Class average scores for: STDTASK, ACHIVT and ATTITUDE

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
AVE STDTASK 11 11 12 11 13 12 11 12 9 12
AVE ACHIVT 15 14 13 13 12 9 12 12 5 16
AVE ATTITUDE 90.7 94.8 94.8 89.5 9.5 90.2 91 96.3 91.7 83.3

C: Test blueprint for the 30-item chemistry test

Item numbers: 1-30

Knowledge Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation Total
Acids 1, 2, 4 3, 5 0 8 6, 7 8
Bases 9, 12 14, 15 13 11 10 7
Salts 16, 17, 20 18 0 18 0 5
Carbon 21, 23 24, 25 22 0 0 5
Carbon compounds 26, 27 28 30 0 29 5
TOTAL 12 8 3 3 4 30
8 J. Edu. Res. Rev. / Sunday

APPENDIX II

Chemistry attitude questionnaire (CAQ)

Instruction: The statements in this questionnaire seek to find out how you feel about chemistry. Please tick in the
appropriate column to show your feelings toward the statements. SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; D = Disagree; SD =
Strongly Disagree. There is no right or wrong answers.

Name of student: _____________________ Sex: _________ Class: __________

S/N Chemistry attitude statements SA A D SD

1. Chemistry is a fun
2. I have good feelings towards chemistry
3. I like chemistry
4. I would enjoy being a chemist or chemical scientist
5. Everyone should learn chemistry
6. I feel nervous in chemistry class
7. I usually look forward to my chemistry class
8. We do a lot fun activities in chemistry class
9. We learn about important things in chemistry class
10. We cover interesting topics in chemistry class
11. I love spending my free time studying chemistry
12. I consider our chemistry classroom attractive and comfortable
13. Our chemistry classroom/laboratory contains a lot of interesting equipment
14. My chemistry teacher encourages me to learn more chemistry
15. I enjoy talking to my chemistry teacher after class
16. My chemistry teacher makes good plans for us
17. Sometimes my chemistry teacher makes me feel dumb
18. My chemistry teacher expects me to make good grades
19. My best friends like chemistry
20. Most of my friends do well in chemistry
21. I always try hard, no matter how difficult the work
22. When I fail that makes me try that much harder
23. I always try to do my best in school
24. I try hard to do well in chemistry
25. Chemistry makes me feel as though I am lost in a bush
26. Chemistry tests make me afraid
27. I would probably not do well in sciences if I took it in college.
28. I consider myself a good chemistry student
29. I think I am capable of becoming an engineer, scientist, chemist or doctor
30. In chemistry class, I feel being in control of my learning