UKP6053-ANALISIS DATA DAN PENTAFSIRAN

Investigating the Effect of Motivation and Engagement on Students

Achievement In Science Among Level 2 Elementary School Students In
Kuala Selangor, Selangor.

GROUP MEMBERS:
MUHAMMAD IZZUDDIN BIN AZZMI

M20122001203

SUNDARAMOORTHY A/L GOVINDASAMY

M20122001502

NURUL AFNI BINTI ZULKIFLY

M20122001207

KOKILAVANNI A/P VALAN

M20122001819

Title:
Investigating the Effect of Motivation and Engagement on Students Achievement in Science
among Level 2 Elementary School students in Kuala Selangor, Selangor.
Research Questions:
(i)

What is the motivational level of students?

(ii)

What is the level engagement level of students?

(iii)

How the motivational and engagement level of Level 2 Elementary School students
affect their achievement in Science?

Aim of the research:

(i)

To study the effect of motivational and engagement level on Level 2 Elementary

School students achievement in Science.

Method
The Sample
The sample in this study was randomly selected from 63 elementary school in district of
Kuala Selangor, Selangor. The students population consisted of 7531 students in elementary
school in Kuala Selangor district. There are 3244 males and 4287 females. In other words, the
male students formed 43.08% of the population while the female students formed about 56.92%
of the population.
The researcher used the used the Multi-stage sampling method because it was more
practical and economical than the other techniques. In this research, the entire population was
divided into groups, or clusters and a random sample of these clusters were selected. All
2

observations in the selected clusters were included in the sample. Therefore, the 63 elementary
school in Kuala Selangor district were clusters of the population, and the researcher selected
randomly 3 schools: which resulted in 102 students with respect to geographical and economical
variations. The following table illustrates the research sample in terms of gender and percentage.

(ii) Table 1 The Sample

(iii)
Student

Female

Male

Total

School A

21

51.2%

20

48.8%

41

40.2%

School B

17

43.6%

22

56.4%

39

38.2%

School C

11

50.0 %

11

50.0%

22

21.6%

Total

49

48.0%

53

52.0%

102

100%

Bartlett, Kotrlik and Higgins (2001) indicated that sample size is one of the four interrelated
features of a study design that can influence the detection of significant differences, relationships
or interactions.

The Instrument
The survey is aimed at to study the effect of motivational and engagement level on Level 2
Elementary School students achievement in Science. The survey instrument used in this study
3

was developed based on literature review. It is not a test instrument but it is a descriptive one.
The validity of the instrument is determined by these procedures:
1.

Measuring the validity of the instrument by presenting the instrument to a panel of

experts to:

determine if the items reflect to the motivational and engagement level on

achievement in Science.

2.

examine the appropriateness, clarity and brevity of the language.

Modifying statements in the instrument according to the suggestions of the

panel of experts.
3.

Conducting a pilot study to:

Measure the reliability using Cronbach's alpha coefficient for homogeneity of the
instrument, and split-half reliability test.

4.

Estimate the internal consistency between the instruments items.

Changing the instrument according to the results of reliability test.

a) The Validity
In evaluating the instrument, it was important to address the issue of validity. One concept of
validity is how faithfully the set of items in an instrument correspond to that attribute in which
the researchers are interested. In fact, the scores are valid if the instrument is seen to measure
what it purports to measure (Abd-El-Rahman 1998). The researcher used two forms of Validity:

Face validity
For face validity, the researcher considered how accurate the instrument looked like in terms

of the translation of the construct. A panel of experts used to establish face validity for the
instrument. An English teacher from the English Language Unit, in SK Bestari Jaya examined
the translated statements in terms of the appropriateness of the language. To enhance clarity and
conciseness, the English teacher made suggestions about the terminologies of some items and
modified them into Malay Language according to the sample characteristics.

Content Validity
For content validity, the researcher checked the operation against the relevant content

domain for the construct. A panel of experts in teaching science were trusted to establish content
validity for the instrument. The panel consisted of four members, they were selected based on
their expertise and experience in teaching primary science . All of them were Degree holders.
They gauged the items for their relevance to Science teaching. They were free to respond
positively by saying Yes or negatively by saying No. They had also the choice to suggest
any alternatives to the items content and to write any comments about the items. The researcher
analyzed the data, the score (1) was given for the item if the panel of experts determined that it
was related to students motivation and performance , and (0) if it was not.

The Instrument's Scale

For first and third questionnaire which are the Science Motivation Questionnaire and Self-

Developed Academic Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ), the researcher used a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 to 5: ( 1= "strongly disagree", 2="disagree", 3= " neutral ", 4= "agree", and
5= "strongly agree"). Meanwhile for second questionnaire which is the Students engagement
5

Questionnaire (ASQ), the researcher used a 3-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 3: (1= Never,
2= Sometimes, 3= Always).
After modifying the questionnaire in terms of its content validity, the final version of the
questionnaire was used. (see Appendix 1).

b) The Pilot Study

The purpose of the pilot study was to evaluate the instrument for reliability and internal
consistency. The pilot study was conducted by the researcher in schools. The students selected
for the pilot study were not included in the main study. The pilot study sample consisted of
school students from SK Rantau Panjang in Kuala Selangor, a school that is located nearby our
location of study. There were 33 boys (56.9 %) and 25 girls (43.1%). All of them were 58 pupils
from grade 4 6 (10 12 years old). In addition to completing the instrument, the students were
asked to circle any words they did not understand and to indicate any difficulties they had in
completing the instrument. The students did not specify any difficulties in understanding the
issues in the instrument.

Internal Consistency
The internal consistency procedure was used to obtain the reliability estimate of the internal

consistency of the measurement; In other words, it aimed to make judgment on the

instrument by estimating how well the items that reflected the same construct yielded similar
results. The Pearson correlation coefficient between each item score and total score were
calculated (See Appendix 2). The results show that all of the items were correlated with the
instrument total scores. It can be concluded that the instrument had good internal consistency.
6

The Reliability

Abd-El-Rahman (1998) described reliability as the "degree of consistency with which an

instrument measured what it is supposed to measure." The Cronbach's alpha, and split half
procedures were used to obtain the reliability estimate of the instrument. Also he argued that,
"the Coefficient Alpha is a suitable procedure to use when responses get a specific value (not 1
or 0) as in an attitude scale". He further pointed out that "tests with items scored along a
continuum, such as Likert scale attitude items (scored 1 through 5), require the use of Alpha". In
split-half reliability, all items prepared to measure the same construct, were randomly divided
into two sets; the correlation between these two total scores for each item were randomly
divided into halves to be calculated.

Questionnaire 1: Science Motivation Questionnaire

The Cronbach's alpha coefficient and splithalf reliability test were used to obtain the
reliability estimate of the instrument, the results of the pilot study were summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Results of Reliability Tests

The coefficient

The value

Cronbach's alpha

0.878

split half

0.893

N of items

30
7

The results indicate that an alpha coefficient of 0.878 and splithalf reliability test of 0.836 was
found on the instrument. It was clear that the instrument is reliable and could be used to measure
the students opinions about their motivation towards science learning.
Therefore, the validity and reliability of the instrument were considered to be acceptable to test
the students motivation level in Science.

Questionnaire 2: Students engagement Questionnaire

The Cronbach's alpha coefficient and splithalf reliability test were used to obtain the
reliability estimate of the instrument, the results of the pilot study were summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Results of Reliability Tests

The coefficient

The value

Cronbach's alpha

0.686

split half

0.630

N of items

15

The results indicate that an alpha coefficient of 0.686 and splithalf reliability test of 0.619 was
found on the instrument. It was clear that the instrument is reliable and could be used to measure
the students opinions about their engagement in Science learning.
Therefore, the validity and reliability of the instrument were considered to be acceptable
to test the students engagement level in Science learning.

Questionnaire 3: Self-Developed Academic Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ)

The Cronbach's alpha coefficient and splithalf reliability test were used to obtain the
reliability estimate of the instrument, the results of the pilot study were summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Results of Reliability Tests

The coefficient

The value

Cronbach's alpha

0. 729

split half

0. 716

N of items

10

The results indicate that an alpha coefficient of 0.729 and splithalf reliability test of 0.716 was
found on the instrument. It was clear that the instrument is reliable and could be used to measure
the students opinions about their self-developed academic satisfaction in Science which
represents their achievement in Science.
Therefore, the validity and reliability of the instrument were considered to be acceptable to test
the students achievement in Science.

Appendix 2
Internal Consistency of Items.
Pearson correlation coefficient between each item score and total score:
1. Questionnaire 1: Science Motivation Questionnaire
i.

Subcategory 1 (Attitude Engagement)

Correlations
EAttitud
e

EAttitud Pearson
e

E01

E02

E03

E04

.608**

.694**

.713**

.699**

.000

.000

.000

.000

40

40

40

40

40

.608**

.175

.275

.175

.280

.086

.279

40

40

40

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

E01

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

.000
40

40

10

E02

Pearson

.694**

.175

.265

.466**

.000

.280

.098

.002

40

40

40

40

40

.713**

.275

.265

.334*

.000

.086

.098

40

40

40

40

40

.699**

.175

.466**

.334*

.000

.279

.002

.035

40

40

40

40

40

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
E03

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

E04

Pearson

.035

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

ii.

Subcategory 2 (Emotional Engagement)

Correlations
EEmotiona
l
EEmotiona Pearson
l

E05

E06

E07

E08

E09

E10

.696**

.594**

.568**

.658**

.740**

.370*

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.019

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
11

N
E05

Pearson

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

.696**

.376*

.399*

.334*

.375*

.166

.017

.011

.035

.017

.305

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
E06

Pearson

.000
40

40

40

40

40

40

40

.594**

.376*

.083

.383*

.161

.069

.000

.017

.609

.015

.321

.671

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

.568**

.399*

.083

.117

.508**

-.111

.000

.011

.609

.474

.001

.496

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

.658**

.334*

.383*

.117

.402*

.103

.000

.035

.015

.474

.010

.528

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

.740**

.375*

.161

.508**

.402*

.241

.000

.017

.321

.001

.010

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

.370*

.166

.069

-.111

.103

.241

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
E07

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

E08

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

E09

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

E10

Pearson
Correlation

12

.134

Sig. (2-tailed)
N

.019

.305

.671

.496

.528

.134

40

40

40

40

40

40

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

iii.

Subcategory 3 (Cognitive Engagement)

Correlations
ECognitiv
e
ECognitiv Pearson
e

E11

E12

E13

E14

E15

.487**

.576**

.462**

.528**

.679**

.001

.000

.003

.000

.000

40

40

40

40

40

40

.487**

.149

.139

-.118

.154

.358

.392

.467

.344

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

E11

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

E12

Pearson

.001
40

40

40

40

40

40

.576**

.149

-.064

.341*

.165

.000

.358

.695

.031

.309

40

40

40

40

40

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

13

40

40

E13

Pearson

.462**

.139

-.064

.003

.392

.695

40

40

40

.528**

-.118

.000

-.118

.304

.467

.057

40

40

40

.341*

-.118

.285

.467

.031

.467

40

40

40

40

40

40

.679**

.154

.165

.304

.285

.000

.344

.309

.057

.074

40

40

40

40

40

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
E14

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

E15

Pearson

.074

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

40

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

2. Questionnaire 2: Students engagement Questionnaire

i.

Subcategory 1: Intrinsically Motivated Science Learning

Correlations
MIntrinsi
c

MIntrinsi Pearson
c

M01
1

.819**

Correlation
14

M16
.538**

M22
.599**

M27
.553**

M30
.725**

Sig. (2-tailed)
N
M01

Pearson

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

40

40

40

40

40

40

.819**

.283

.562**

.323*

.519**

.077

.000

.042

.001

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
M16

Pearson

.000
40

40

40

40

40

40

.538**

.283

.088

.073

.199

.000

.077

.589

.654

.219

40

40

40

40

40

40

.599**

.562**

.088

.065

.287

.000

.000

.589

.689

.073

40

40

40

40

40

40

.553**

.323*

.073

.065

.338*

.000

.042

.654

.689

40

40

40

40

40

40

.725**

.519**

.199

.287

.338*

.000

.001

.219

.073

.033

40

40

40

40

40

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
M22

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

M27

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

M30

Pearson

.033

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

15

40

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

ii.

Subcategory 2: Extrinsically Motivated Science Learning

Correlations
MExtrinsi
c

MExtrinsi Pearson
c

M03

M10

M15

M17

.707**

.607**

.673**

.648**

.775**

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

40

40

40

40

40

40

.707**

.386*

.445**

.252

.380*

.014

.004

.117

.016

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

M03

M07

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

M07

Pearson

.000
40

40

40

40

40

40

.607**

.386*

.222

.093

.418**

.000

.014

.168

.568

.007

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

16

N
M10

Pearson

40

40

40

40

40

40

.673**

.445**

.222

.332*

.320*

.000

.004

.168

.036

.044

40

40

40

40

40

40

.648**

.252

.093

.332*

.474**

.000

.117

.568

.036

40

40

40

40

40

40

.775**

.380*

.418**

.320*

.474**

.000

.016

.007

.044

.002

40

40

40

40

40

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
M15

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

M17

Pearson

.002

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

40

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

iii.

Subcategory 3: Personal Relevance of Learning Science

Correlations
MPersona
l

M02

17

M11

M19

M23

M25

MPersonal Pearson

.789**

.695**

.611**

.753**

.675**

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

40

40

40

40

40

40

.789**

.516**

.280

.453**

.534**

.001

.080

.003

.000

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
M02

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

M11

Pearson

.000
40

40

40

40

40

40

.695**

.516**

.297

.482**

.244

.000

.001

.063

.002

.129

40

40

40

40

40

40

.611**

.280

.297

.267

.133

.000

.080

.063

.096

.413

40

40

40

40

40

40

.753**

.453**

.482**

.267

.530**

.000

.003

.002

.096

40

40

40

40

40

40

.675**

.534**

.244

.133

.530**

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
M19

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

M23

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

M25

Pearson
Correlation

18

.000

Sig. (2-tailed)
N

.000

.000

.129

.413

.000

40

40

40

40

40

40

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

iv.

Subcategory 4: Self- Determination to Learn Science

Correlations
MSelfD

MSelf

Pearson

Correlation

M05

Pearson

M08

M09

M20

M26

.663**

.570**

.690**

.661**

.598**

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

40

40

40

40

40

40

.663**

.101

.154

.364*

.344*

.534

.342

.021

.030

Sig. (2-tailed)
N

M05

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
M08

Pearson

.000
40

40

40

40

40

40

.570**

.101

.488**

.173

.260

.000

.534

.001

.285

.106

40

40

40

40

40

40

.690**

.154

.488**

.216

.573**

.000

.342

.001

.181

.000

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
M09

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

19

N
M20

Pearson

40

40

40

40

40

40

.661**

.364*

.173

.216

.021

.000

.021

.285

.181

40

40

40

40

40

40

.598**

.344*

.260

.573**

.021

.000

.030

.106

.000

.899

40

40

40

40

40

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
M26

Pearson

.899

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

40

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

v.

Subcategory 5: Self- Efficacy for Learning Science

Correlations
MSelfEffica
cy

MSelfEffica Pearson
cy

M12

M24

M28

M29

.656**

.773**

.814**

.800**

.731**

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

40

40

40

40

40

40

.656**

.375*

.469**

.347*

.191

.017

.002

.028

.237

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

M12

M21

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

.000
20

N
M21

Pearson

40

40

40

40

40

40

.773**

.375*

.560**

.443**

.461**

.000

.017

.000

.004

.003

40

40

40

40

40

40

.814**

.469**

.560**

.577**

.483**

.000

.002

.000

.000

.002

40

40

40

40

40

40

.800**

.347*

.443**

.577**

.740**

.000

.028

.004

.000

40

40

40

40

40

40

.731**

.191

.461**

.483**

.740**

.000

.237

.003

.002

.000

40

40

40

40

40

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
M24

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

M28

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

M29

Pearson

.000

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

vi.

Subcategory 6: Anxiety about Science Assessment

Correlations
21

40

MAnxiet
y
MAnxie Pearson
ty

M04

M13

M14

M18

.483**

.553**

.452**

.516**

.277

.002

.000

.003

.001

.084

40

40

40

40

40

40

.483**

.095

.348*

-.121

-.224

.558

.028

.457

.165

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

M04

M06

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

M06

Pearson

.002
40

40

40

40

40

40

.553**

.095

-.157

-.013

.247

.000

.558

.333

.937

.124

40

40

40

40

40

40

.452**

.348*

-.157

.186

-.453**

.003

.028

.333

.250

.003

40

40

40

40

40

40

.516**

-.121

-.013

.186

.218

.001

.457

.937

.250

40

40

40

40

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
M13

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

M14

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

22

.177
40

40

M18

Pearson

.277

-.224

.247

-.453**

.218

.084

.165

.124

.003

.177

40

40

40

40

40

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

23

40