Mathematics Engagement among Secondary Student: A Comparative Study based on Socioeconomic Status

Jay Singh; Michael Tarance Suraj; Sangeeta Chauhan

doi:10.22460/jiml.v9i2.31402

Authors

Jay Singh Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, India
Michael Tarance Suraj Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, India
Sangeeta Chauhan Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22460/jiml.v9i2.31402

Keywords:

Mathematics Engagement , Comparative Study , Socieconomic Status

Abstract

Engagement of students in mathematics is an important determinant which affects academic success as well as the motivation of students in secondary schools. On the other hand, there is inadequate information about the role played by socio-demographic variables like social category and parental occupation in determining student engagement. The objective of this research was to study the differences between social categories and parental occupation on student engagement in mathematics among secondary school students. This research was undertaken using quantitative methodology with a descriptive survey research design. The sample consisted of 211 students of class IX who were taken from two UP Board schools located in Lucknow district. The selection of participants was made through purposive sampling method. The data was collected from the subjects through the tool “Student Engagement in Mathematics Scale” (Perception Scale) designed by Dr. Gurpreet Kaur & Dr. Ram Mehar. Analysis of data was carried out using non-parametric statistical methods, more specifically, Mann–Whitney U test. The result showed that no significant difference was seen in cognitive and behavioral engagement based on social category, however, a significant difference was seen in affective engagement with students of reserved social category having higher engagement. Moreover, there was no observed difference among the dimensions of engagement when categorized according to the job status of parents. In summary, social category and the jobs that the parents have cannot influence engagement except for affective engagement. As a result, creating positive emotions is crucial in enhancing engagement among students.

References

Alrajeh, T. S., & Shindel, B. W. (2020). Student Engagement and Math Teachers Support. Journal on mathematics education, 11(2), 167-180.

Ashcraft, M. H., & Krause, J. A. (2007). Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 243–248.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Bandura, A., & Wessels, S. (1997). Self-efficacy (Vol. 10). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brantlinger, A. (2014). Critical mathematics discourse in a high school classroom: Examining patterns of student engagement and resistance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 201-220.

Everingham, Y. L., Gyuris, E., & Connolly, S. R. (2017). Enhancing student engagement to positively impact mathematics anxiety, confidence and achievement for interdisciplinary science subjects. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(8), 1153-1165.

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

Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 33–46.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning. Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

Jansen, A., Curtis, K., Mirzaei, A. M., Cullicott, C. E., Smith, E. P., & Middleton, J. A. (2023). Secondary mathematics teachers’ descriptions of student engagement. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 113(3), 425

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262–273.

Maamin, M., Maat, S. M., & H. Iksan, Z. (2021). The influence of student engagement on mathematical achievement among secondary school students. Mathematics, 10(1), 41.

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.

Mirzaei, A. M., Jansen, A., Headrick, L., & Middleton, J. (2021). Using Teacher and Student Noticing to Understand Engagement during Secondary Mathematics Lessons. North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.

National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academy Press.

Nguyen, T., et al. (2024). Inquiry-based learning and student engagement in mathematics classrooms. (add full source if available)

Nguyen, V. H., Halpin, R., & Joy‐Thomas, A. R. (2024). Guided inquiry‐based learning to enhance student engagement, confidence, and learning. Journal of Dental Education, 88(8), 1040-1047.

Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 459–472.

Park, S. Y. (2005). Student engagement and classroom variables in improving mathematics achievement. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6(1), 87-97.

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.

Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2008). Engagement and disaffection. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781.

Tomaszewski, W., Xiang, N., & Western, M. (2020). Student engagement as a mediator of the effects of socio‐economic status on academic performance among secondary school students in Australia. British educational research journal, 46(3), 610-630.

Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). School engagement. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 684–697.

Wang, M. T., Hofkens, T., & Ye, F. (2020). Classroom quality and adolescent student engagement and performance in mathematics: A multi-method and multi-informant approach. Journal of youth and adolescence, 49(10), 1987-2002.

Wong, Z. Y., & Liem, G. A. D. (2022). Student engagement: Current state of the construct, conceptual refinement, and future research directions. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 107-138.