Sudanese Students’ Perceptions of Their Class Activities: Psychometric Properties and Measurement Invariance of My Class Activities–Arabic Language Version
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2017
Sudanese Students’ Perceptions of Their Class Activities: Psychometric Properties and Measurement Invariance of My Class Activities–Arabic Language Version
This study examined the psychometric properties and measurement invariance of the Arabic version of My Class Activities (MCA), an instrument designed to measure students’ perceptions of interest, challenge, choice, and enjoyment in classrooms. Scores of 3,516 Sudanese students in Grades 2 to 8 were used. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate the factor structure of MCA. Multigroup CFA was used to examine measurement invariance across students in gifted and regular schools (nongifted). Four items were deleted to improve model fit and internal consistency. Results indicated noninvariant indicator intercepts across gifted and nongifted students, suggesting that MCA-Arabic can be used with elementary and middle school students; however, it should not be used to compare gifted and nongifted students.
Al-MobadalM. (2009). Positive classroom environment components in light of Murray’s theory and its relation to the skills of critical thinking (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
BakhietS. (2015). Psychometric properties of the Arabic version of My Class Activities Arabized classroom scale (MCA). Educational and Psychological Studies Journal of the College of Education in Zagazig, 87, 125-161.
4.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
5.
BentlerP. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
6.
BrophyJ. E. (2004). Motivating students to learn. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
7.
BrownT. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
8.
ByrneB. M.WatkinsD. (2003). The issue of measurement invariance revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 155-175.
9.
CashR. (2011). Advancing differentiation: Thinking and learning skills for the 21st century. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
10.
ChapmanD. W.CarterJ. F. (1979). Translation procedures for the cross cultural use of measurement instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1, 71-76.
11.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464-504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834
12.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Literacy and intrinsic motivation. Daedalus, 119, 115-140.
13.
DavisG. A.RimmS. B.SiegleD. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
14.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
15.
DeciE.RyanR. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49, 17-23.
16.
DweckC. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
17.
EcclesJ. S.AdlerT. F.FuttermanR.GoffS. B.KaczalaC. M.MeeceJ. L.MidgleyC. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In SpenceJ. T. (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75-146). San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.
18.
ElliotA. J.McGregorH. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.
19.
FinneyS. J.DiStefanoC. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269-314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
20.
FrenchB. F.FinchW. H. (2006). Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 378-402.
21.
FreyN.FisherD. (2010). Motivation requires a meaningful task. The English Journal, 100, 30-36.
22.
GagnéF. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103-112.
23.
GagnéF. (2005). The DMGT as a developmental model. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98-119). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
24.
GeisingerK. F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6, 304-312.
25.
GentryM.GableR. K. (2001a). From the students’ perspective—My Class Activities: An instrument for use in research and evaluation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 322-343.
26.
GentryM.GableR. K. (2001b). My Class Activities: A survey instrument to assess students’ perceptions of interest, challenge, choice and enjoyment in their classrooms [Instrument]. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
27.
GentryM.GableR. KSpringerP. (2000). Gifted and non-gifted middle school students: Are their attitudes toward school different as measured by the new affective instrument, My Class Activities?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 74-96.
28.
GentryM.OwenS. V. (2004). Secondary student perceptions of classroom quality: Instrumentation and differences between advanced/honors and nonhonors classes. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 20-29.
29.
GentryM.PaulK. A.McIntoshJ. S.FugateC. M.JenE. (2014). Total school cluster grouping and differentiation: A comprehensive, research-based plan for raising student achievement and improving teacher practices (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
GregorichS. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44, 78-94.
32.
HospelV.GalandB. (2016). Are both classroom autonomy support and structure equally important for students’ engagement? A multilevel analysis. Learning and Instruction, 41, 1-10.
33.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
JangH.ReeveJ.DeciE. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 588-600.
36.
Joint Committee on Testing Practices. (2004). Code of fair testing practices in education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
37.
KatzI.AssorA.Kanat-MaymonY.Bereby-MeyerY. (2006). Interest as a motivational resource: Feedback and gender matter, but interest makes the difference. Social Psychology of Education, 9, 27-42.
38.
Khartoum Federal Ministry of Education. (2008). The development of education: National report of Sudan (Report submitted to the International Center for Education in Geneva, the International Bureau of Education, cycle 48, the World Conference on Education). Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/National_Reports/ICE_2008/sudan_NR08_ara.pdf
39.
LaeversF. (1993). Deep level learning: An exemplary application on the area of physical knowledge. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 1, 53-68.
40.
LietaertS.RoordaD.LaeversF.VerschuerenK.De FraineB. (2015). The gender gap in student engagement: The role of teachers’ autonomy support, structure, and involvement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 498-518.
41.
McCoachD. B.GableR. K.MaduraJ. P. (2013). Instrument development in the affective domain: School and corporate applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
42.
OmarM. H. (2011, October). Enrichment programs to build character in gifted education in Sudan. Paper presented at the 8th Arab Scientific Conference for the Gifted and Talented, Arab Council for the Gifted and Talented, Jordan.
43.
PekrunR.GoetzT.FrenzelA. C.BarchfeldP.PerryR. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 36-48.
44.
PereiraN.PetersS.GentryM. (2010). The My Class Activities instrument as used in Saturday enrichment program evaluation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 568-593.
45.
ReeveJ.JangH. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209-218.
46.
ReisS. M.BoeveH. (2009). How academically gifted elementary, urban students respond to challenge in an enriched, differentiated reading program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 203-240.
47.
ReisS. M.McCoachD. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go?Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152-170.
48.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (2013). The schoolwide enrichment model: A practical approach for developing the gifts and talents of all students. In RomeyE. A. (Ed.), Finding John Galt: Politics, and practice in gifted education (pp. 179-206). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
49.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184.
50.
RenzulliJ. S. (2005). The three-ring conceptions of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246-279). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
51.
RenzulliJ. S.GentryM.ReisS. M. (2014). Enrichment clusters: A practical plan for real-world, student-driven learning (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
52.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (2009). The schoolwide enrichment model: A focus on student strengths and interests. In RenzulliJ. S.GubbinsJ. E.McMillenK. S.EckertR. D.LittleC. A. (Eds.), Systems & models for developing programs for the gifted & talented (pp. 323-352). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
53.
RyanR. M.DeciE. (2000). Self-determination and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
54.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3-33).Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
55.
ShimS. S.RyanA. M.AndersonC. J. (2008). Achievement goals and achievement during early adolescence: Examining time-varying predictor and outcome variables in growth-curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 655-671.
56.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54.
57.
TomlinsonC. A.JarvisJ. M. (2009). Differentiation: Making curriculum work for all students through responsive planning and instruction. In RenzulliJ. S.GubbinsE. J.McMillenK. S.EckertR. D.LittleC. A. (Eds.), Systems & models for developing programs for the gifted & talented (2nd ed., pp. 599-628). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
58.
TomlinsonC. A.KaplanS. N.RenzulliJ. S.PurcellJ.LeppienJ.BurnsD. (2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
59.
VanderbergR. J.LanceC. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70.
60.
Van de VijverF.HambletonR. K. (1996). Translating tests. European Psychologist, 1, 89-99.
61.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
62.
YangY.GentryM.ChoiY. O. (2012). Gifted students’ perceptions of the regular classes and pull-out programs in South Korea. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 270-287.
