engagement has been conducted by Fredriks &
McColskey (2012). In his research, it was found that
student engagement is a multidimensional construct
consisting of three dimensions. These dimensions are
cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, and
behavioral engagement. In this study, 21 items were
valid and reliable for measuring student engagement.
Another study conducted by Reeve & Tseng (2011)
found that student engagement is a multidimensional
construct consisting of four dimensions, namely
cognitive engagement, emotional engagement,
behavioral engagement, and agentic engagement. The
results of research conducted by Veiga (Veiga, 2016)
found that student engagement consists of cognitive
engagement, emotional engagement, behavioral
engagement, and agentic engagement. Meanwhile,
research conducted by Appleton, Cristenson, Kim, &
Reschly (2006) found that student engagement
consists of two dimensions, namely cognitive
engagement and psychological engagement.
In this study, the student engagement scale (SES)
being tested is a scale adapted from the SES made by
Reeve and Tseng (2011) which states that student
engagement consists of four dimensions, namely:
Agentic engagement (AE) is student involvement in
a form that deliberately acts proactively about what
will be learned and prepare for the lesson, Behavior
engagement (BE) is the involvement of students in
the form of concentration, attention, and effort during
the learning process, Emotional engagement (EE) is
student involvement in the form of interest in learning
and the absence of emotional resistance (stress) on
lessons, and Cognitive Engagement (CE) is the
involvement of students in the form of using
strategies in learning activities.
2 METHOD
This study uses a quantitative research design. The
validity of the measuring instrument in this study was
obtained in two ways: first, through content validity
carried out through an assessment by a panel of
experts and secondly through the obtained construct
validity through exploratory factor analysis, namely to
test the dimensional properties of the construct this
student engagement. The reliability of the measuring
instrument was obtained using the alpha Cronbach
analysis.
A total of 596 students in Indonesia participated in
this study consisting of junior high school students,
high school students, and undergraduate students.
Data was collected online using a student engagement
scale (SES), the Indonesian version of the adaptation
of the SES by Reeve & Tseng (2011), which contains
22 items.
3 RESULTS
The student engagement scale used is an adaptation
of the student engagement scale made by Reeve &
Tseng (2011). The adaptation process refers to the
way described by Beaton et al., (2000) in which the
processes include: 1) Translating the original
language measuring instrument into Indonesian. In
this case the researcher translates with the help of a
licensed translator and another translator who is
proficient in psychology. 2) Synthesis of translation.
The two translations from the translators were
synthesized. 3) Backward transaction. In this case the
researcher is assisted by a translator who speaks
Indonesian and is a native speaker of the original
language. 4) Final translation assessment by expert
judgment.
From the results of data analysis with the
Cronbach Alfha test, the reliability coefficient value
was 0.927. Then to find out the factors / dimensions
that make up SES, it is done by using the EFA test,
by first doing an assumption test analysis with KMO
and Bartlett's test. The assumption test results
obtained a KMO value of 0.939 (>0.05) and a Bartleet
Test of 7000,823 (p=0.000), so it can be concluded
that the assumption test is fulfilled so that it can be
continued to factor analysis. The results were
analyzed by means of the analysis of exploratory
factor analysis (EFA). The results of this analysis
indicated that there were 3 factors that had
eigenvalues above 1, these three factors were able to
explain 57,986% of the total variance of SES. The
results of loading factors from the EFA can be seen in
the following table:
Table 1: SES loading factor results with 3 factors.
No Item
Factors
12 3
i1 .188 .265 .670
i2 .106 .065 .827
i3 .145 .099 .842
i4 .318 .213 .650
i5 .235 .106 .748
i6 .170 .801 .110
i7 .206 .759 .136
i8 .252 .796 .102
i9 .410 .697 .124
I10 .135 .548 .128
i11 .445 .616 .186