Measuring student discussion engagement in the college classroom: a scale validation study

ABSTRACT

This paper presents findings from a scale validation study of discussion engagement using data from multiple in-person courses from a public flagship university in the United States. The Discussion Engagement scale conceptualizes discussion as a collective inquiry that requires an inclusive classroom climate and individual contributions that promote the engagement of others. The scale measures individual behaviors and experiences along four dimensions: skills, confidence, openness within classroom discussions, and perception of an inclusive classroom climate. The methodology included: conceptual development of the construct, expert reviews, cognitive interviews, data collection of the target group, exploratory factor analysis, data collection of the target group using a revised scale, confirmatory factor analysis, and comparison with an existing scale. EFA and CFA find that the scale has a strong factor structure that parallels the theoretical framework. The subscales have strong reliability, as well as evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. The Discussion Engagement scale has potential for measuring student-reported experiences with discussion in university courses.

KEYWORDS:

• Classroom discussion
• student engagement
• scale development
• scale validation
• university teaching

Acknowledgment

This validation study grew out of The Discussion Project, a professional development program for faculty developed at the University of Wisconsin–Madison School of Education. The program seeks to improve the ability of instructors across campus to design and facilitate classroom discussion. The Discussion Project was initiated by Diana Hess who worked with a team led by Paula McAvoy to engage in a two-year design-based process to create and evaluate a curriculum, professional development program, and scale validation (206-2018). The validated scale was developed with researchers from the Learning through Evaluation, Adaptation, and Dissemination (LEAD) Center, housed within the Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

Funding for The Discussion Project came from the Provost's Office of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, the Karen A. Falk Distinguished Chair of Education Fund, and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.