Article Sidebar

Published
Apr 27, 2021
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1472 Download : 1382

Main Article Content

Abstract

Effective teachers are those who are highly engaged and who have an essential role in promoting student motivation and achievement. Thus, this study was conducted to ascertain the engagement of Mathematics teachers and its relation to the learning motivation of students in a state college in the Philippines. It employed the mixed methods, specifically Creswell’s (2014) sequential explanatory approach, with the survey-questionnaire, interview, and focus group discussion as data collection techniques. The findings of the study revealed that teacher’s engagement in Mathematics in terms of “Body Language and Behaviors,” “Consistent Focus,” and “Individual Attention,” were “Very High” while “Rigorous Thinking,” “Meaningfulness of Work,” “Verbal Participation,” “Clarity of Teaching,” “Performance Orientation,” “Interest and Enthusiasm,” and “Confidence,” were only “High.” Meanwhile, students’ motivation to learn Mathematics as to “Relevance,” “Interest,” “Satisfaction,” and “Confidence” were also “High”. The test of hypothesis on significant correlation showed that there was a close association between teacher’s engagement in Mathematics and students’ motivation to learn Mathematics. There was also a corroboration between the quantitative data obtained from the survey and the qualitative data acquired during the interview and focus group discussion. The result further implied that teacher’s high engagement contributes positively to students’ willingness to learn essential concepts and skills in Mathematics.

Keywords

Mathematics Students’ motivation Teacher’s engagement

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Author Biographies

Mary Juliet Adapon Doño, Josefina H. Cerilles State College

School of Teacher Education Instructor I

Benjamin Baguio Mangila, Josefina H. Cerilles State College

Assistant Professor School of Teacher Education

References

  1. Alnabhan, M., Al-Zegoul, E., & Harwell, M. (2001). Factors related to achievement levels of education students at Mu'tah University. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(6), 593-604. doi:10.1080/02602930120093913

  2. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  3. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of educational psychology, 84(3), 261-271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261

  4. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  5. Basikin, B. (2007). Vigor, dedication and absorption: work engagement among secondary school English teachers in Indonesia. Paper presented at the Annual AARE Conference. Fremantle, Perth, Western Australia.

  6. [Google Scholar]


  7. Bomia, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M., & Sheldon, B. (1997). The impact of teaching strategies on intrinsic motivation. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

  8. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  9. Broussard, S. C., & Garrison, M. E. B. (2004). The relationship between classroom motivation and academic achievement in elementary‐school‐aged children. Family and consumer sciences research journal, 33(2), 106-120. doi:10.1177/1077727X04269573

  10. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  11. Burden, P. R. (2000). Powerful classroom management strategies: Motivating students to learn. California: Corwin Press.

  12. [Google Scholar]


  13. Cavallo, A. M., Miller, R. B., & Saunders, G. (2002). Motivation and affect toward learning science among preservice elementary school teachers: Implications for classroom teaching. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 14(2), 25-38. doi:10.1007/BF03173846

  14. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  15. Coffman, C., & Gonzalez-Molina, G. (2002). Follow this path: How the world’s greatest organizations drive growth by unleashing human potential. New York: Warner Books.

  16. [Google Scholar]


  17. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

  18. [Google Scholar]


  19. Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and teacher education, 16(5-6), 523-545. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00015-9

  20. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  21. Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2002). The principal’s role in shaping school culture. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education.

  22. [Google Scholar]


  23. Dickinson, D. J., & Butt, J. A. (1989). The effects of success and failure on the on-task behavior of high achieving students. Education and Treatment of Children, 12(3), 243-252.

  24. [Article]     [Google Scholar]

  25.  

  26. Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education policy and management, 24(2), 197-209. doi:10.1080/1360080022000013518

  27. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  28. Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 343-357. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199704)34:4%3C343::AID-TEA5%3E3.0.CO;2-R

  29. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  30. Gardner, H. (2000). The disciplined mind: Beyond facts and standardized tests, the K-12 education that every child deserves. New York: Penguin.

  31. [Google Scholar]


  32. Gordon, G., & Crabtree, S. (2006). Building engaged schools: Getting the most out of America's classrooms. New York: Gallup Press.

  33. [Google Scholar]


  34. Gottfried, A. E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high school students. Journal of educational psychology, 77(6), 631-645. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.77.6.631

  35. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  36. Guay, F., Chanal, J., Ratelle, C. F., Marsh, H. W., Larose, S., & Boivin, M. (2010). Intrinsic, identified, and controlled types of motivation for school subjects in young elementary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 711-735. doi:10.1348/000709910X499084

  37. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  38. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Agrawal, S., Plowman, S. K., & Blue, A. (2020). The relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes (10th ed.). Washington, DC: Gallup Poll Consulting University Press.

  39. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  40. Hutajulu, M., Wijaya, T. T., & Hidayat, W. (2019). The effect of mathematical disposition and learning motivation on problem solving: an analysis. Infinity Journal, 8(2), 229-238. doi:10.22460/infinity.v8i2.p229-238

  41. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  42. Johnson, L. S. (2008). Relationship of instructional methods to student engagement in two public high schools. American secondary education, 36(2), 69-87.

  43. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  44. Jones, R. D. (2008). Strengthening student engagement. New York: International Center for Leadership in Education.

  45. [Google Scholar]


  46. Kelly, S. (2007). Classroom discourse and the distribution of student engagement. Social Psychology of Education, 10(3), 331-352. doi:10.1007/s11218-007-9024-0

  47. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  48. Kirkpatrick, C. L. (2007). To invest, coast or idle: Second-stage teachers enact their job engagement. In American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, 1-32.

  49. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  50. Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of school health, 74(7), 262-273.

  51. [Google Scholar]


  52. Krueger, J., & Killham, E. (2005). At work, feeling good matters: Happy employees are better equipped to handle workplace relationships, stress, and change, according to the latest GMJ survey. Gallup Management Journal.

  53. [Google Scholar]


  54. Kuyper, H., van der Werf, M. P. C., & Lubbers, M. J. (2000). Motivation, meta-cognition and self-regulation as predictors of long term educational attainment. Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(3), 181-205. doi:10.1076/1380-3611(200009)6:3;1-A;FT181

  55. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  56. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs instudent engagement and learning intheclassroom. Reading &Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119-137. doi:10.1080/10573560308223

  57. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  58. Long, J. F., & Hoy, A. W. (2006). Interested instructors: A composite portrait of individual differences and effectiveness. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(3), 303-314. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.11.001

  59. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  60. Louis, K. S., & Smith, B. (1992). Cultivating teacher engagement: Breaking the iron law of social class. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 119-152). New York: Teachers College Press.

  61. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  62. Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American educational research journal, 37(1), 153-184. doi:10.3102/00028312037001153

  63. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  64. McCune, V., & Entwistle, N. (2011). Cultivating the disposition to understand in 21st century university education. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 303-310. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.017

  65. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  66. Middleton, J. A., & Spanias, P. A. (1999). Motivation for achievement in mathematics: Findings, generalizations, and criticisms of the research. Journal for research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 65-88. doi:10.2307/749630

  67. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  68. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2002). Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington, DC: NCATE.

  69. [Google Scholar]

  70.  

  71. Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

  72. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  73. Seifeddine, F. (2014). Predictors of student motivation to succeed in first-year college mathematics: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Educational Thought/Revue de la Pensée Educative, 47(3), 204-235.

  74. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  75. Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2014). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.). Applications of flow in human development and education (pp. 475-494). Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9094-9_24

  76. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  77. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of educational psychology, 85(4), 571-581. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571

  78. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  79. Thomas, E. H., & Galambos, N. (2004). What satisfies students? Mining student-opinion data with regression and decision tree analysis. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 251-269. doi:10.1023/B:RIHE.0000019589.79439.6e

  80. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  81. Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children's motivation for literacy. Reading research quarterly, 30(3), 410-441. doi:10.2307/747624

  82. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  83. Tyler, K. M., & Boelter, C. M. (2008). Linking black middle school students' perceptions of teachers' expectations to academic engagement and efficacy. Negro Educational Review, 59(1/2), 27.

  84. [Article]     [Google Scholar]

  85.  

  86. Wagner, R., & Harter, J. K. (2006). 12: The elements of great managing. New York: Gallup Press.

  87. [Google Scholar]

  88.  

  89. Walker, C. O., & Greene, B. A. (2009). The relations between student motivational beliefs and cognitive engagement in high school. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 463-472. doi:10.3200/JOER.102.6.463-472

  90. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  91. Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B. R., & Grogaard, J. B. (2002). Student satisfaction: Towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept. Quality in higher education, 8(2), 183-195. doi:10.1080/1353832022000004377

  92. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  93. Willms, J. D., Friesen, S., & Milton, P. (2009). What Did You Do in School Today? Transforming Classrooms through Social, Academic, and Intellectual Engagement. Toronto: Canadian Education Association.

  94. [Article]     [Google Scholar]


  95. Xiang, P., Bruene, A., & Chen, A. (2005). Research. Journal of teaching in Physical Education, 24(2), 179-197. doi:10.1123/jtpe.24.2.179

  96. [Article]     [Google Scholar]

  97.