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)
(ii)
(iii)

What is the motivational level of students?

What is the level engagement level of students?
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
observations in the selected clusters were included in the sample. Therefore, the 63 elementary
2

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
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.

examine the appropriateness, clarity and brevity of the language.

2. 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.

Estimate the internal consistency between the instruments items.

4. 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 SelfDeveloped 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
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
6

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.

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.
7

Table 1: Results of Reliability Tests

The coefficient

The
value

Cronbach's alpha

0.878

split half

0.893

N of items

30

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

9

The coefficient

The value

Cronbach's alpha

1. 729

split half

1. 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.

10

Appendix 2
Internal Consistency of Items.
Pearson correlation coefficient between each item score and total score:
2. Questionnaire 1: Science Motivation Questionnaire
i.
Subcategory 1 (Attitude Engagement)
Correlations
EAttitud
e
1

E01
.608**

E02
.694**

E03
.713**

E04
.699**

E01

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

40
.608**

.000
40
1

.000
40
.175

.000
40
.275

.000
40
.175

E02

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.694**

40
.175

.280
40
1

.086
40
.265

.279
40
.466**

E03

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.713**

.280
40
.275

40
.265

.098
40
1

.002
40
.334*

E04

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.699**

.086
40
.175

.098
40
.466**

40
.334*

.035
40
1

.035
40

40

EAttitud Pearson
e

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.279
.002
N
40
40
40
**. 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)

11

Correlations
EEmotiona
l
1

E05
.696**

E06
.594**

E07
.568**

E08
.658**

E09
.740**

E10
.370*

E05

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

40
.696**

.000
40
1

.000
40
.376*

.000
40
.399*

.000
40
.334*

.000
40
.375*

.019
40
.166

E06

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.594**

40
.376*

.017
40
1

.011
40
.083

.035
40
.383*

.017
40
.161

.305
40
.069

E07

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.568**

.017
40
.399*

40
.083

.609
40
1

.015
40
.117

.321
40
.508**

.671
40
-.111

E08

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.658**

.011
40
.334*

.609
40
.383*

40
.117

.474
40
1

.001
40
.402*

.496
40
.103

E09

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.740**

.035
40
.375*

.015
40
.161

.474
40
.508**

40
.402*

.010
40
1

.528
40
.241

E10

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.370*

.017
40
.166

.321
40
.069

.001
40
-.111

.010
40
.103

40
.241

.134
40
1

.671
40

.496
40

.528
40

.134
40

40

EEmotiona Pearson
l

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.019
.305
N
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)

12

Correlations
ECognitiv
e
1

E11
.487**

E12
.576**

E13
.462**

E14
.528**

E15
.679**

E11

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

40
.487**

.001
40
1

.000
40
.149

.003
40
.139

.000
40
-.118

.000
40
.154

E12

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.001
40
.576**

40
.149

.358
40
1

.392
40
-.064

.467
40
.341*

.344
40
.165

E13

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.462**

.358
40
.139

40
-.064

.695
40
1

.031
40
-.118

.309
40
.304

E14

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.003
40
.528**

.392
40
-.118

.695
40
.341*

40
-.118

.467
40
1

.057
40
.285

E15

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.679**

.467
40
.154

.031
40
.165

.467
40
.304

40
.285

.074
40
1

.309
40

.057
40

.074
40

40

ECognitiv Pearson
e

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.344
N
40
40
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

3. Questionnaire 2: Students engagement Questionnaire

i.
Subcategory 1: Intrinsically Motivated Science Learning

13

Correlations
MIntrinsi
c
1

M01
.819**

M16
.538**

M22
.599**

M27
.553**

M30
.725**

M01

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

40
.819**

.000
40
1

.000
40
.283

.000
40
.562**

.000
40
.323*

.000
40
.519**

M16

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.538**

40
.283

.077
40
1

.000
40
.088

.042
40
.073

.001
40
.199

M22

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.599**

.077
40
.562**

40
.088

.589
40
1

.654
40
.065

.219
40
.287

M27

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.553**

.000
40
.323*

.589
40
.073

40
.065

.689
40
1

.073
40
.338*

M30

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.725**

.042
40
.519**

.654
40
.199

.689
40
.287

40
.338*

.033
40
1

.219
40

.073
40

.033
40

40

MIntrinsi Pearson
c

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.001
N
40
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

14

Correlations
MExtrinsi
c
1

M03
.707**

M07
.607**

M10
.673**

M15
.648**

M17
.775**

M03

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

40
.707**

.000
40
1

.000
40
.386*

.000
40
.445**

.000
40
.252

.000
40
.380*

M07

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.607**

40
.386*

.014
40
1

.004
40
.222

.117
40
.093

.016
40
.418**

M10

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.673**

.014
40
.445**

40
.222

.168
40
1

.568
40
.332*

.007
40
.320*

M15

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.648**

.004
40
.252

.168
40
.093

40
.332*

.036
40
1

.044
40
.474**

M17

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.775**

.117
40
.380*

.568
40
.418**

.036
40
.320*

40
.474**

.002
40
1

.007
40

.044
40

.002
40

40

MExtrinsi Pearson
c

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.016
N
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: Personal Relevance of Learning Science

15

MPersonal Pearson

Correlations
MPersonal M02
1
.789**

M11
.695**

M19
.611**

M23
.753**

M25
.675**

.000
40
.516**

.000
40
.280

.000
40
.453**

.000
40
.534**

M02

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

40
.789**

.000
40
1

M11

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.695**

40
.516**

.001
40
1

.080
40
.297

.003
40
.482**

.000
40
.244

M19

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.611**

.001
40
.280

40
.297

.063
40
1

.002
40
.267

.129
40
.133

M23

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.753**

.080
40
.453**

.063
40
.482**

40
.267

.096
40
1

.413
40
.530**

M25

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.675**

.003
40
.534**

.002
40
.244

.096
40
.133

40
.530**

.000
40
1

.129
40

.413
40

.000
40

40

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
N
40
40
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
iv.

Subcategory 4: Self- Determination to Learn Science

16

MSelf

Pearson

M05

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

Correlations
MSelfD
M05
M08
**
1
.663
.570**

M09
.690**

M20
.661**

M26
.598**

40
.663**

.000
40
1

.000
40
.101

.000
40
.154

.000
40
.364*

.000
40
.344*

M08

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.570**

40
.101

.534
40
1

.342
40
.488**

.021
40
.173

.030
40
.260

M09

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.690**

.534
40
.154

40
.488**

.001
40
1

.285
40
.216

.106
40
.573**

M20

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.661**

.342
40
.364*

.001
40
.173

40
.216

.181
40
1

.000
40
.021

M26

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.598**

.021
40
.344*

.285
40
.260

.181
40
.573**

40
.021

.899
40
1

.000
40

.899
40

40

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.030
.106
N
40
40
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

17

Correlations
MSelfEffica
cy
1

M12
.656**

M21
.773**

M24
.814**

M28
.800**

M29
.731**

M12

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

40
.656**

.000
40
1

.000
40
.375*

.000
40
.469**

.000
40
.347*

.000
40
.191

M21

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.773**

40
.375*

.017
40
1

.002
40
.560**

.028
40
.443**

.237
40
.461**

M24

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.814**

.017
40
.469**

40
.560**

.000
40
1

.004
40
.577**

.003
40
.483**

M28

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.800**

.002
40
.347*

.000
40
.443**

40
.577**

.000
40
1

.002
40
.740**

M29

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.731**

.028
40
.191

.004
40
.461**

.000
40
.483**

40
.740**

.000
40
1

.003
40

.002
40

.000
40

40

MSelfEffica Pearson
cy

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.237
N
40
40
**. 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

18

Correlations
MAnxiet
y
1

M04
.483**

M06
.553**

M13
.452**

M14
.516**

M18
.277

M04

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

40
.483**

.002
40
1

.000
40
.095

.003
40
.348*

.001
40
-.121

.084
40
-.224

M06

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.002
40
.553**

40
.095

.558
40
1

.028
40
-.157

.457
40
-.013

.165
40
.247

M13

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.000
40
.452**

.558
40
.348*

40
-.157

.333
40
1

.937
40
.186

.124
40
-.453**

M14

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.003
40
.516**

.028
40
-.121

.333
40
-.013

40
.186

.250
40
1

.003
40
.218

M18

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson

.001
40
.277

.457
40
-.224

.937
40
.247

.250
40
-.453**

40
.218

.177
40
1

.003
40

.177
40

40

MAnxie Pearson
ty

Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.084
.165
.124
N
40
40
40
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

19