THE INFLUENCE OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND TEACHERS’ PERFORMANCE TO STUDENTS’ SATISFACTION IN PUBLIC SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS IN BANDUNG (INDONESIA).

THE INFLUENCE OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND TEACHERS’

PERFORMANCE TO STUDENTS’ SATISFACTION IN PUBLIC SENIOR

HIGH SCHOOLS IN BANDUNG (INDONESIA)

(Descriptive Study at Public Senior High Schools in Bandung)

A thesis presented to the School of Postgraduate Studies in Indonesia University of Educationin partial fulfillment of the requirements for a degree of Master of Educational Administration.

THESIS

By: Mahase Heisi NIM: 1206807

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

THE SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

BANDUNG

2014

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this thesis entitled “The influence of student

engagement and teachers’ performance to students’ satisfaction in public

senior high schools in Bandung (Indonesia)”, a descriptive study at the public senior high schools in Bandung , Indonesia, iswhollythe product of my own work in all its contents. With all responsibility, I did not do plagiarism or any academic copyright violation which is not in conformity with the ethics of educational research. Therefore, I confirm that I will be ready to respond to any risk that can be imposed on me if later there will be any violation of educational research ethics in this work.

Bandung, dated.../... 2014

Mahase Heisi

FOREWORD

This thesisentitled“the influence of student engagement and teachers’ performance to students’ satisfaction in public senior high schools in Bandung (Indonesia)”,a descriptive study at public Public Senior High Schools in Bandung, is specificallyaimedtofulfill the requirement of Master Degree ofEducationin field of EducationalAdministrationat Indonesia University of Education or Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI).

In this work, I, as a researcher have limited the scope of research study by just only conducting or focusing at public Public senior high schools in Bandung (Indonesia), and focusing on the current status of the problem with the two main

variables, namely, student engagement and teachers‟ performance, which have influence toStudent Satisfaction. However, the researcher believes that this study may have some limitations in terms of errors of language and some inconveniences that happened. Thus, the researcher would like to apologize for unintentional mistakes to all readers.

Finally, the researcher hopes thisthesiscan be a useful reading instrument for all educational administrator and teachers (Stakeholders) who work in educational field or directly involved in everyday school activities, especially, students, teachers and principals. Moreover, this thesis will also be important for the next generation researchers in the field of Educational Administration for development of our education.

Bandung, dated:.../.../2014

Mahase Heisi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research paper was prepared for the partial fulfillment of Masters in Educational Administration program. It is a pleasure to thank all people who made this study possible. This study would not have been possible without the guidance of my advisor, supervisor (s) and also an aiding hand from my friends.At this juncture, I would like to express my heartily gratitude and appreciation to the following Lecturers for their invaluable suggestions, guidance and help throughout this study:

1. Prof.Dr. H. Djam‟an Satori, M. A, first supervisor and Dr. Aan Komariah, M.Pd, second advisor who are always helpful and supportive to me, as well as encouraging and guiding me to reach my research goals.

2. Prof.Dr. H. Udin Syaefudin Sa'ud, Ph.D. the head of the Department of Educational Administration who facilitated my two-years study.

3. I am indebted to my Parents („Makopano and Laurenti Heisi) who have brought me up with good care, moral education, encouragement and support and sent me to school to learn and develop.I also thank all my brothers and sisters who unceasingly showed their support on my studies. 4. Again, I thank all my teachers of Bahasa Indonesia who helped me to learn

this language. How can I forget my friends, both in Indonesia and Lesotho, who showed their support and motivation? I also thank my classmates who helped me to adjust and adapt to Indonesian school-life. Without their support my life would be miserable.

5. I also I owe my deepest gratitude to myProfessors/lecturers of the Department of Educational Administration who taught me. I thank all schools which gave me a chance to collect data for this research.

6. _{Last, but not the least, I would like to show my gratitude toThe} Government of the Republic of Indonesia which gave me full Scholarship through the Program of Developing Countries Partnership scholarship(PDCP)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ... Error! Bookmark not defined. FOREWORD ... Error! Bookmark not defined. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... Error! Bookmark not defined. ABSTRACT ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER IINTRODUCTION ... Error! Bookmark not defined. A. Background ... Error! Bookmark not defined. B. Problem Identification and Formulation .... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1. Problem Identification... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2. Problem Formulation ... Error! Bookmark not defined. C. Research Objectives ... Error! Bookmark not defined. D. Significance of the study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. E. Organising Research... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER IILITERATURE REVIEW, FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

A. Literature Review ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1. Student Satisfaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. a. Perspectives on Students’ Satisfaction Error! Bookmark not defined. b. Academic advising and instruction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. c. Social Activities ... Error! Bookmark not defined. d. Library ... Error! Bookmark not defined. e. Adaptability ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2. Student engagement ... Error! Bookmark not defined. a. Values and Goals (I Want to)... Error! Bookmark not defined. b. Intrinsic Interest ... Error! Bookmark not defined. c. Internalized Values ... Error! Bookmark not defined. d. Engagement and Motivation ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3. Teachers’ Performance (Including ICT as part of teachers’ performance)

Error! Bookmark not defined.

a. Performance as a multi-dimensional concept .... Error! Bookmark not defined.

b. Task performance ... Error! Bookmark not defined. c. Contextual performance ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

d. Performance as a dynamic concept ... Error! Bookmark not defined. e. Perspectives on performance ... Error! Bookmark not defined. B. Theoretical framework of the research ... Error! Bookmark not defined. C. Hypothesis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER IIIRESEARCH METHODOLOGY .. Error! Bookmark not defined. A. Population and Sampling Techniques ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1. Population... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2. Sampling ... Error! Bookmark not defined. B. Research design ... Error! Bookmark not defined. C. Operational Definition ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1. Student satisfaction (Y) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2. Student Engagement (X1) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3. Teachers’ Performance (X2) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. D. Research Instrument ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1. Instrument Development Process ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2. Test Validity of Data ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3. Test Reliability of Data ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4. Measures of Variability ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5. Results of testing Instrument ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 6. Testing analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. a. Weighted Means Test Scored ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 7. Normality test ... Error! Bookmark not defined. E. Techniques of Data Collection ... Error! Bookmark not defined. F. Techniques of Data Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER IVRESEARCH FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS .... Error! Bookmark not defined.

A. RESEARCH FINDINGS ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1. Description of Student Engagement ... Error! Bookmark not defined. a. SMAN 5 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. b. SMAN 24 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. c. SMAN 1 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. d. SMAN 8 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. e. SMAN 9 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2. Description of Teachers’ Performance ... Error! Bookmark not defined. a. SMAN 5 ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

b. SMAN 24 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. c. SMAN 1 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. d. SMAN 8 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. e. SMAN 9 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3. Description of Student Satisfaction (Y) .. Error! Bookmark not defined. a. SMAN 5 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. b. SMAN 24 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. c. SMAN 1 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. d. SMAN 8 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. e. SMAN 9 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4. The Influence of Student Engagement to Student Satisfaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

5. The influence of Teachers’ Performance to Student Satisfaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

6. The Influence of Student Engagement and Teachers’ Performance to Student Satisfaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. B. ANALYSIS ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1. Student Engagement (X1) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2. Teachers’ Performance (X2) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3. Student Satisfaction (Y) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4. The Influence of Student Engagement to Student Satisfcation ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

5. The Influence of Teachers’ Performance to Student Satisfaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

6.The Influence of Student Engagement and Teachers’ Performance to Student Satisfaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER VCONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

A. CONCLUSIONS ... Error! Bookmark not defined. B. RECOMMENDATIONS ... Error! Bookmark not defined. References: ... Error! Bookmark not defined. APPENDIX ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1Factors mentioned in the literature ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 2.2Indicators of Student engagement ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 2.3Student Engagement ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 2.4Four interrelated aspects of students’ engagement Error! Bookmark not

defined.

Table 2.5 SERVQUAL ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 2.6 Performance ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 2.7Satisfaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 2.8Student Satisfaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.1Population (all SMAN in Bandung) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.2 Sampling (5 SMAN in Bandung) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.3Operational definition (s) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.4 Test results of instrument ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.5 Weighted Means ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.6 Interval coefficient ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

THE INFLUENCE OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND TEACHERS’ PERFORMANCE TO STUDENTS’ SATISFACTION IN PUBLIC SENIOR

HIGH SCHOOLS IN BANDUNG (INDONESIA) (Descriptive Study at Public Senior High Schools

In Bandung, Indonesia) By: MahaseHeisi (12067807)

ABSTRACT

Students are direct receivers and participators for education service, and their study activities wouldinfluence their perceptions and satisfactions to the educational quality. Through studying on the influence of students’ engagement

and teachers’ performance to students’ satisfaction, in this article, the researcher aimed at studying the influence of these variables to student satisfaction in Public Senior High Schools in Bandung (SMAN).

It obvious that some students showed or reported a certain level of dissatisfaction in their learning. Therefore, it was important to explore the level of

influence of student engagement and teachers’ performance to student

satisfaction.

The general objective of this study is to explore and check the influence of student engagement and teachers’ performance to students’ satisfaction in Public Senior High Schools in the city of Bandung in Indonesia.

This research used quantitative research methodology (descriptive) which was conducted at Public senior high schools in Bandung. The population consists of twenty nine (29) schools and sampling consisted of five schools which were taken from different regions (North, South, East, West and central) of the city of Bandung. Each school was given copies of questionnaires. The measurement of

the influence of student engagement and teachers’ performance to student

satisfaction was done with Likert scale with five weighted options.

The findings showed that influence of student engagement and teachers’

performance to student satisfaction is good enough in these schools. It was found that contribution madeby thestudent engagement and teachers’performance onstudent satisfactionisstrong enough. While the remainingpartbelongs toother factorsthataffectstudent satisfaction which were not examinedby the researcher. On the same hand student engagement had good influence. Whileteachers performance tosatisfaction ofthe students had also had the same good influence.

Therefore, the influence of student engagement and teachers’ performance

to student satisfaction is found to be good enough in these schools. This is positive in the process of learning but calls for attention from all stakeholders in educational administration. There is also a room for improvement. This research recommends that the future research be focused between public and private senior high schools.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background

Satisfaction is a well researched topic in both academic and non-academic (workplace) settings. In academic settings, students’ satisfaction data helps both schools, colleges and universities make their education more responsive to the needs of a changing marketplace. Students’ satisfaction surveys are important in ascertaining whether school, colleges and universities are fulfilling their mission. Satisfaction is a relevant measure because many studies have demonstrated that other factors being equal, satisfied individuals are likely to be willing to exert more effort than unsatisfied individuals (Bryant, 2006; Özgüngör, 2010). Thus, satisfied students (with the curriculum) are likely to exert more effort in their educational studies by taking actions such as regularly attending their classes and becoming more involved in their coursework and institution. Satisfied students are more likely to be committed and continue their studies (as measured by a higher retention rate) than unsatisfied students, who are likely to be less willing to regularly attend classes, and are more likely to quit their studies.

Schools or institutions are no longer merely focused on societal values in relation to the skills andabilities of their graduates but are also seeking to assessstudents’ feelings about their educational experience.This switch of focus call for themanagement of schools or institutions to incorporate student satisfaction as an integral component of their management or administration process in addition to their traditional areas of academic standards, accreditation, teaching and research (Abdullah,2006).

In relation to this development, students are not viewed merely as participants in the process but as customers of theprocess. Given the current situation, student satisfaction in the process of knowledge acquisition and delivery

student engagement, teachers’ performance and Students’ satisfaction. The more students are engaged in their school work (and the more teachers perform) the more they will be satisfied.

While student engagement has enjoyed considerable attention in the literature sincethe mid-1990s, its beginnings can substantively be seen a decade previously, seminallyin Alexander Astin’s work on student involvement (Kelly, S., & Price, H. 2014). Following on fromthe student experience and research-led teaching before it, student engagementhas become the latest focus of attention among those aiming to enhance learning andteaching in higher education, headlining meeting agendas and theming conferences incampuses around the world.

It is not difficult to understand why: a sound body of literature has establishedrobust correlations between student engagement or involvement in a subset of educationally purposiveactivities, and positive outcomes of student success and development, includingsatisfaction, persistence, academic achievement and social engagement (Pascarellaand Terenzini, 2005).

Student engagement is increasingly seen as an indicator of successful classroominstruction, and is increasingly valued as an outcome of school improvementactivities. Students are engaged when they are attracted to their work, persistin despite challenges and obstacles, and take visible delight in accomplishingtheir work. Student engagement also refers to a student’s willingness, need,desire and compulsion to participate in, and be successful in the learningprocess.

Student engagement is primarily andhistorically about increasing achievement,positive behaviors, and a sense of belonging inall students. However, student engagement is primarily focused at students in middleschool and high school, where disengagement typically becomes a concern (Willms,Friesen and Milton, 2009).

There are many theories and approaches in education and in most cases educational administrators, including teachers, who use comprehensive approach

seem to be the most successful in the field of education. Education is a process which has stages like: input, process of the input, output and outcome. Educational goals change according to new social needs, and so do strategies for engaging students into teaching and learning. The world is in need of well modeled output which has the most necessary skills needed in the market. The world is in need of quality not quantity as such. We are living in the world of information and technology and we can learn from the advertisements (Recruitment) of many companies that competency in ICT (Information and Communication Technology) is now a prerequisite for almost every job. Therefore, teachers are expected to be skillful in the use of ICT in the process of learning. This is now considered as one of the aspects in teachers’ performance.

Several studies argue that the use of new technologies in education is essential for providing opportunities for students to learn to operate in an information age (era). Nowadays integrating ICT in learning is one of the indicators and part of teacher’s performance which will lead to student satisfaction. It is evident as Yelland (2007) argued that traditional educational environment do not seem to be suitable for preparing students to function or be productive in today’s society workplaces. She claims that organizations or schools that do not incorporate the use of new technologies cannot seriously claim to prepare their students for life in the twenty-first century. This argument is supported by many authors who hold that by teaching ICT skills at primary schools the pupils are prepared to face the future developments based on proper understanding.

This thesis is aimed at presenting the conceptualization and the influence of student engagement and teachers’ performance to student satisfaction. On the part of student satisfaction the conceptualization is based on the culmination of concentration, interest, collaboration and enjoyment. This will be done through investigating how Grade X students spend their time in Public senior high schools across the city of Bandung in Indonesia.

There is a growing importance for ICT within the process of learning. Not only it is used to support teaching and learning within other curriculum subjects,

but it is also a subject in its own right as a separate discipline. The major objective is that developing skills, knowledge, and understanding in the use of ICT prepares pupils to use such technologies in their everyday lives. ICT tools enable pupils to access, share, analyze, and present information gained from a variety of sources and in many different ways. The use of ICT provides opportunities for pupils to work both collaboratively and independently. As such, the role of ICT within the learning process is not only to enhance the learning experiences of pupils but also to help them develop the skills essential to participate effectively in the world of affairs. It generates avenues for working in groups, developing team spirit, cohesion, and social values.

This is a challenge to our education system and many developed countries have managed to master integration of ICT in students’ learning to the satisfaction of students in order to be equal to the needs of the market out there. Indonesia started to have a plan of integration of ICT in education around 2001. This research paper (Thesis) intents to see relationship between student engagement and teachers’ performance for students’ satisfaction in the process of learning.

Engaging students in their own learning has challengededucators for decades.There is general agreement that engagement in learning is as important forsuccess in school as it is elusive in the vast majority oftraditional, bureaucratic school structures. As a result,researchers have studied and measured the construct ofengagement in many different ways. It is evident that student engagement and teachers’ performance have influence on student satisfaction. Without these variables students are likely to be disengaged and easily drop out of school more especially at senior high school.

Moreover, student engagement has become synonymous with the measurement of teaching and learning quality at schools. We are now living in the world of technology and our education, as a matter of fact, should produce outputs that are needed by today’s world. Therefore, technology is part and parcel of teachers’ performance. Rapid technological change and global communication are facts of life in the 21st century.In the sector of teaching, ICT has brought many opportunities to improve student learning.Internet, which hosts billions of

documents, allows students to have wider source of informationfor their learning. Students’ hovering over books in the library has given way to reading e-textson a tablet PC or listening to them on an MP3 player(Daniels & Pethel, 2005). Teachers are nomore the only source of knowledge for students. As a result of this technological impact, the roleof teachers has become a facilitator in networked classroom. The teachers suggest and guidestudents to access relevant sources of information in their learning process.

Many Indonesian public senior high schools have installed computers, projectors and internet and sometimes some teachers do not use them in the process of learning of students for various reasons. Some public senior high schools have got proportionally enough computers for their students but the challenge is that some teachers do not integrate ICT in their classes.

Indonesia’s plans to integrate ICT in education are directed towards ingraining students with the ability to harness new technologies for accessing and disseminating information and knowledge, and to harness these as tools for decision-making. The Curriculum Centre believes that this is an important competency in the era of knowledge and information technology. (http://www.unescobkk.org/education/)

It is intended that students will learn to understand when and what kind of knowledge is needed; to find and access information from various sources; and to evaluate, use and share information with others. The Centre defined ICT in relation to students as …in ICT students learn to get information, process and use it to communicate effectively through various media.

ICT is introduced to students in primary school. However, schools introduce ICT according to student needs. A school may add a subject according to the specific needs of students. Schools are likewise encouraged to upload their ICT curriculum on the Internet. ICT is also used for school management. In the non-formal education sector, private computer courses are offered or sometimes, ICT is offered as an extra-curricular subject.

The government set the following goals and objectives for the integration of ICT in education:

Information and Communication Technology in Society: The student understands the benefits and disadvantages, as well as the challenges in information technology;

Information and Communication: Students put their knowledge, skills and attitudes into practice relating to Information Technology in getting, processing, arranging, distributing, and keeping information.

System and Design: Students apply their knowledge, skills and attitudes in designing information technology systems, solving problems relating to ICT.

B. Problem Identificationand Formulation 1. Problem Identification

An emerging consensus exists in the school reform literatureabout what conditions contribute to student satisfaction. This among many variables includes student engagement and teachers’ performance. Satisfied students are more likely to be committed and continue their studies (as measured by a higher retention rate) than unsatisfied students, who are likely to be less willing to regularly attend classes, and are more likely to quit their studies. However, some students report that they are not satisfied at school and they do not find schooling enjoyable and interesting at senior high schools. In response to this problem I intent or propose to carry out a research to investigate on the most important independent variables namely, student engagement and teachers’ performance for students’ satisfaction. Teachers’ performance will include the use of ICT in the process of learning.

According to FissehMikre (2011), ICTs are making dynamic changes insociety. They are influencing all aspects oflife. The influences are felt more and moreat schools. Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) as part and parcel of teacher’s performance provide bothstudents and teachers with moreopportunities in adapting learning andteaching to individual needs and society isforcing schools aptlyrespond to thistechnical innovation. However some teachers are still not able to integrate ICT in the process of learning. The Republic of Indonesia through ministry of education and culture has a policy of

ICT which is aimed at improving the quality of education and making education to be contextual as we are now living in the world of technology. We cannot benefit anything important from this policy without the teachers’ performance (or confidence) and availability of the necessary equipment (Computer labs, computers, internet, etc.).

Here, a teacher plays a pivotal role in the process of teaching and learning. Without teachers’ competency or confidence in integrating ICT in the process of learning students cannot be satisfied. Teachers are gatekeepers of students’ satisfaction in integration of ICT in the process of learning. Hence, knowledge of ICT and skills to use ICT in teaching/learning has gained enormous importance for today’s teachers. Teachers are expected to know to successfully integrate ICT into their subject areas to make learning more meaningful. This knowledge development during pre-service training has gained much importance with the notion that exposure to ICT during this time is helpful in increasing student-teachers’ willingness to integratetechnology with classroom teaching. Teachers are expected to know how to integrate ICT in learning but there are many teachers who still have problems of integrating ICT in learning because they lack skill.Teachers’ performance on integration of ICT in the process of learning is very important. In some schools some teachers still face problems of using ITC’s equipment or tools and this affects student satisfaction as teachers play a pivotal role in students’ satisfaction.

2. Problem Formulation

According to Creswell (2012), Research questions are questions in quantitative or qualitative research that narrows the purpose statement to specific questions that researchers seek to answer. Therefore, the following are the research questions for this study:

1) How is student engagement in the city of Bandung at senior public high schools in Grade X?

2) How is teachers’ performance in the city of Bandung at senior public high schools in Grade X?

3) How is Students’ satisfaction in public senior high schools in the city of Bandung in Grade X?

4) How much is the influence of student engagement in the process of learning to student satisfaction?

5) How much is the influence of teachers’ performance in the process of learning to student satisfaction?

6) How much is the influence of student engagement and teachers’ performance to student satisfaction?

C. Research Objectives

The general objective of this study is to explore and check the influence of student engagement and teachers’ performance to students’ satisfaction in Public Senior High Schools in the city of Bandung in Indonesia.

The specific objectives among others include:

1. To obtain overview of student engagement in public senior High schools in Bandung

2. To obtain overview of teachers’ performance in Public senior High schools in Bandung

3. To obtain overview of Students’ satisfaction in Public senior High schools in Bandung

4. To analyze the effects of the influence of student engagement to student satisfaction

5. To analyze the effects of the influence of teachers’ performance to student satisfaction

6. To analyze the effects of the influence of student engagement and teachers’ performance to student satisfaction

D. Significance of the study

The findings of this study will be useful for educational administrators and teachers in designing educational approaches for development of quality

education in Indonesia. They will also help to identify the problems that lead to dissatisfaction of students in the process of learning. Secondly, the results will help in clarifying the importance of student satisfaction, student engagement and teachers’ performance in education.

E. Organising Research

According to Creswell (2012), the purpose statement is a statement that advances the overall direction or focus forthe study. Researchers describe the purpose of a study in one or more succinctly formedsentences. It is used both in quantitative and qualitative research and is typically foundin the “statement of the problem” section. This paper aims to bring together the findings and key points from a review of a significant part of the available literature associated with the influence of student engagement and teachers performance to student satisfaction. Studying the obstacles of this important element in education is crucial because this knowledge will provide guidance for ways to enhance student engagement and teachers’ performance. Identifying the fundamental barriers may assist teachers and educators to overcome these barriers and become successful instructors.

47

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of studentengagement and teachers’ performance to student satisfaction.

A. Population and Sampling Techniques 1. Population

The study will be conducted in Bandung and it will focus on public high schools. According to Gravetter and Wallnau (2007), population is a set of all theindividuals of interest in a particular study and a sample isa set of individualsselected from a population, usually intended to represent the population in a researchstudy.

No School name

Grade X Boys Girls Total 1. SMA Negeri 1 Bandung 161 199 ₃₆₀ 2. SMA Negeri 2 Bandung 169 178 ₃₄₇ 3. SMA Negeri 3 Bandung 132 192 ₃₂₄ 4. SMA Negeri 4 Bandung 140 227 ₃₆₇ 5. Sma Negeri 5 Bandung 157 184 ₃₄₁ 6. SMA Negeri 6 Bandung 159 197 ₃₅₆ 7. SMA Negeri 7 Bandung 126 194 ₃₂₀ 8. SMA Negeri 8 Bandung 166 238 404

9. SMA Negeri 9 Bandung 165 205 ₃₇₀ 10. SMA Negeri 10 Bandung 169 227 ₃₉₆ 11. SMA Negeri 11 Bandung 202 230 ₄₃₂ 12. SMA Negeri 12 Bandung 148 176 ₃₂₄ 13. SMA Negeri 13 Bandung 122 171 ₂₉₃ 14. SMA Negeri 14 Bandung 163 195 ₃₅₈ 15. SMA Negeri 15 Bandung 132 172 ₃₀₄ 16. SMA Negeri 16 Bandung 188 249 ₄₃₇ 17. SMA Negeri 17 Bandung 140 211 ₃₅₁ 18. SMA Negeri 18 Bandung 185 210 ₃₉₅

48

19. SMA Negeri 19 Bandung 145 171 ₃₁₆ 20. SMA Negeri 20 Bandung 172 179 ₃₅₁ 21. SMA Negeri 21 Bandung 168 156 ₃₂₄ 22. SMA Negeri 22 Bandung 177 197 ₃₇₄ 23. SMA Negeri 23 Bandung 179 186 ₃₆₅ 24. SMA Negeri 24 Bandung 155 205 ₃₆₀ 25. SMA Negeri 25 Bandung 196 200 ₃₉₆ 26. SMA Negeri 26 Bandung 121 159 ₂₈₀ 27. SMA Negeri 27 Bandung 170 163 ₃₃₃

Total 4307 5271 9578

Table 3.1 Population (all SMAN in Bandung)

2. Sampling

There are two categories of sampling: random sampling and non-random sampling. Random sampling is the process of selecting sample that would be representative of the population of interest (Norazman et al, 2007). In contrast, non-random sampling does not provide an equal chance for every member of the population to be selected as sample in a research. Random sampling has been selected to conduct the survey of this research because in random sampling, every member of the population has an equal probability to be chosen to participate in the research. Another reason is that the results of the research would yield a representative sample.

In addition, the formula by Sugiyono (2006) will be used to calculate the sample in the study as below:

n= N N (d2) +1

n= Total sampling N=Total Population

49

Schools for samplimg

No School name Total No. of Students

1 SMAN 1 78

2 SMAN 5 77

3 SMAN 8 80

4 SMAN 9 79

5 SMAN 24 80

TOTAL 394

Table 3.2 Sampling (5 SMAN in Bandung)

The unit of analysis in this study will include feedback from high school students.

The following methods and techniques will be applied in data collection: Questionnaires will be organized which will focus on getting the whole information about teachers competency in integrating ICTs in education at high school level in Bandung.

B. Research design

The research design is a case study to be conducted in public schools in Bandung (City). The researcher will visit public schools in this region and observe, give questionnaires and interview teachers, students and Principals about the influence of student engagement and teachers’ performance to student satisfaction in their schools. The aim is to find out whether there is an influence of student engagement and teachers’ performance to student satisfaction in their schools. The study will be conducted in a quantitative methodology which will mainly focus on interviews and questionnaires. Teachers’ performance will also include the use of ICT in the process of learning.

Moreover, the overall structure for a quantitative design is based in the scientific method. It uses deductive reasoning, where the researcher forms a hypothesis, collects data in an investigation of the problem, and then uses the data

50

from the investigation, after analysis is made and conclusions are shared, to prove the hypotheses not false or false. With this stance, the basic procedure of a quantitative design is: making observations about something that is unknown, unexplained, or new by investigating the current theory surrounding the research problem or issue; hypothesizing an explanation for those observations; making a prediction of outcomes based on hypotheses by formulating a plan to test the prediction; collecting and processing data; and verifying the research findings by making final conclusions and presenting the findings in an appropriate form.

C. Operational Definition

1. _{Student satisfaction (Y)}

Student satisfaction is being presented asan important quality factor in educationalsettings. A key element in defining quality isthe capacity to show that the outcome fromthe process (teaching) is meeting user/clientneeds.Dill, D(2007) has described the application of acustomer satisfaction model to student evaluationof teacher performance. He has established a linkbetween student evaluation and student satisfaction. According to Sean B. Eom, (2011), student satisfaction can be defined as the following: student satisfaction refers to the student’s perception or attitude towards the learning activities. Where the student is happy with his/her studies or adopts an aggressive learning attitude, student is deemed to be satisfied; where the student is unhappy or adopts negative or passive attitude, student is deemed to be dissatisfied. On the same hand Student’ satisfactionis defined by Wiers-Jenssen, Stensaker, B. (2007)as students’ assessments of the services provided by Schools, universities and colleges.In this research student satisfaction means a fulfillment felt by students after following a certain program (Including integration of ICT in learning) and this fulfillment is connected to their expectations, beliefs and perceptions they had before joining the program/learning.

51

Student Satisfaction indicators 1. Academic advising 2. Social activities 3. Learning experience 4. Student support service 5. Library

6. Course content

7. Quality of instructions 8. Adaptability

2. _{Student Engagement (X1)}

Researchers have recently used the term engagement to refer to the extent to which students identifywith and value schooling outcomes, and participate in academic and non-academic school activities. Itsdefinition usually comprises a

psychological component pertaining to students’ sense of belonging at schooland

acceptance of school values, and a behavioural component pertaining to participation in school activities(Harris, 2008). The psychological component emphasises students’ sense of belongingor attachment to school, which has to do with feelings of being accepted and valued by their peers, and byothers at their school. Another aspect of the psychological component concerns whether or not studentsvalue school success – do they believe that education will benefit them personally and economically(Chen, Gonyea and Kuh, 2008). Students who do not feel they belong at school, or reject school values, areoften referred to in the literature as alienated or disaffected. The participation component of engagementis characterised by factors such as school and class attendance, being prepared for class, completinghomework, attending lessons, and being involved in extra-curricular sports or hobby clubs.

Stovall (2009) suggests that engagement is defined by a combination of students’ time on task and their willingness to participate in activities. Krause and Coates (2008) say that engagement is the quality of effort students themselves devote to educationally purposeful activities that contribute directly to desired outcomes. Additionally, Chen, Gonyea and Kuh (2008) say that engagement is the

52

degree to which learners are engaged with their educational activities and that engagement is positively linked to a host of desired outcomes, including high grades, student satisfaction, and perseverance. Other studies define engagement in terms of interest, effort, motivation, time-on-task and suggest that there is a causal relationship between engaged time, that is, the period of time in which students are completely focused on and participating in the learning task, and academic achievement (Bulger, et al., 2008).

In this research student engagement has come to refer to how involved or interested students appear to be in their learning and how connected they are to their classes, their institutions, and each other. The following are the indicators of student engagement: thoughts, level of responsibility, participation, motivation, interest, collaboration, and test readiness.

3. Teachers’ Performance _(X2)

Despite the great relevance of individual performance and the widespread use of job performance as an outcome measure in emprical research, relatively little effort hasbeen spent on clarifying the performance concept.However,during the past 10 to 15 years, one can witness an increasing interest in developing adefinition of performance and specifying the performance concept.Authors agree that when conceptualizing performance one has to differentiate betweenan action (i.e., behavioral) aspect and an outcome aspect of performance (Hanushek and Rivkin, 2006).Performance is what the organization hires one todo, and do well (Murray, J., 2009). Thus, performance is not defined by theaction itself but by judgemental and evaluative processes. Moreover, only actions which can be scaled, i.e.,measured, are considered to constitute performance. Performance is a multi-dimensional concept. On the most basic level, (Lavy, V. 2009) distinguish between task and contextual performance. Task performancerefers to an individual’s proficiency with which he or she performs activitieswhich contribute to the organization’s ‘technical core’. This contribution can be bothdirect (e.g., in the case of production workers), or indirect (e.g., in the case of managersor staff personnel). Contextual performance refers to activities which do not contribute tothe technical core but which support the organizational, social, and

53

psychological environmentin which organizational goals are pursued. Contextual performance includes notonly behaviors such as helping coworkers or being a reliable member of the organization,but also making suggestions about how to improve work procedures.

In this research, teachers’ performance means teaching activities which contribute to student satisfaction including integration of ICT in learning and these activities should have performative aspects of teaching, leading, testing, accountability, and policymaking.Teachers do not just become reliable members of school but also participate in the improvement of student satisfaction in ICT.

Teaching is a complex activity. Competent teachers apply broad, deep, and integrated sets of knowledge and skills as they plan, implement and revise instructions. Technology proficiency (including technical skills and instructional applications) is but one dimension of teacher competence.

Definition Dimension Indicators & Items Student

satisfaction

Dill, D (2007)has described the application of acustomer

satisfaction model to student evaluationof teacher performance. He has established a linkbetween student evaluation and student satisfaction.

Student’

satisfactionis defined by Sean B. Eom, (2011) as students’ assessments of the services provided by Schools, universities and colleges.

Student as a customer is the one who can tell how far he or she is satisfied not teachers.

Academic

 Academic advising & instructions

 Learning experience

 Course content:items 1-8 Social

 Social activities

 Student support service

 Attitude: items 9-11 Library

 Library equipment

 Quality of instructions

 Adaptability: items 12-14 ICT

 ICT’s facilities items:15-18

Adaptability

54

Douglas, J., McClelland, R., Davies, J. (2007)argued that satisfaction is an emotional

factor.Thus,

satisfaction can be considered as a reflection of life experience: it is a subjective view based on personal experience,

individual beliefs and relationships. Student

engagement

Stovall (2009) suggests that engagement is defined by a combination of students’ time on task and their willingness to participate in activities.

Krause and Coates (2008) say that engagement is the quality of effort students themselves

devote to

educationally purposeful activities that contribute directly to desired outcomes.

It covers student willingness to do school work.

It cover the efforts that students devote for their work

All activities including high grades, student satisfaction, and

Affective (Student perception)

 Belonging/identification with school

 School connectedness: items 22-23

Cognitive

 Self-regulation

 Relevance of school to future aspirations

 Value of learning (goal setting): items 24-26

Behavioral

 Attendance (absences, skips)

 Participation (Classroom & extracurricular)

 Behavioral incidences (office referrals,

suspensions): items 27-28 Academic

55

Additionally, Chen, Gonyea and Kuh (2008) say that engagement is the degree to which learners are engaged with their educational activities and that engagement is positively linked to a host of desired outcomes, including high grades, student satisfaction, and perseverance.

perseverance  Time on task

 Homework completion rate

 Class grades: items 29-32

Teachers’

Performance

Performance is what the organization hires one todo, and do well (Hanushek and Rivkin, 2006). Thus, performance is not defined by theaction itself but by judgemental and evaluative processes. Moreover, only actions which can be scaled,

i.e.,measured, are considered to constitute

performance. Performance is a multi-dimensional concept. On the most basic level, Lavy, V. (2009),distinguish

It covers knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, motivations and beliefs

Contextual

 Interesting work

 Class discussions

 Allotted time

 Time to help: items 33-40 Techno-oriented

 The use of ICT

 Time for practice

 Preparedness of the teacher: items 41-44

56

between task and contextual

performance. Murray, J., (2009). Holds that performance is not defined by theaction itself but by judgemental and evaluative processes. Moreover, only actions which can be scaled,

i.e.,measured, are considered to constitute

performance

Table 3.3Operational definition (s)

D. Research Instrument

In view of the objective and purpose of the study, questionnaires with students will be organised.Close-ended questions will be formulated for each variable (Student engagement, Teachers’ performance and Student satisfaction) in order to get into the depth of each variable.

The research instruments used in data collection are questionnaires. In this sense, questionnaires are a number of written questions used to obtain information from respondents in terms of statements about personal or things that are known (Arikunto, 2010). Therefore, the questionnaires of the research instrument are given to respondents (students and teachers).Based on the reason above, the research instrument (questionnaires) will be used in the preparation of models of Likert Scale. According to Riduwan and Kuncoro (2007), Likert Scale is used to measure the attitudes, opinions and perceptions about a person or group social events or symptoms. By using a Likert Scale, the variables to be measured are

57

translated into dimensions, the dimensions are translated into sub-variables and sub-variables are translated into indicators. With measurable indicators can be used as a starting point to make the item instrument in the form of questions or statements that need to be answered by the respondents. Therefore, instrument is usedtoobtain informationfromsubjects in this studyisa questionnairewithanswer choices by usinga form of LikertScalewithfive weighted options.

- To know the level of the Influences of Students’ engagement (X1) in the day-to-day school operations, the Likert Scale questionnaire will be applied as below:

Student engagement

- To know teachers’ performance for student satisfaction (X2)

58

1. Instrument Development Process

Upon completion of data collection tool, then the next step is to test the form of a questionnaire-instrument or questionnaires disseminated throughout respondents to students in the targeted public senior High schools in Bandung city. In a test an instrument is used statistical analysis. Statistical test aims to test the validity and reliability so that it can be justified scientifically. The test validity and reliability are illustrated in the following following:

2. Test Validity of Data

Test Validity describes how the questionnaire will gauge intended variables, so the validity of test is the more appropriate tool of the planned target. Validity value is essential to the value of the correlation function to calculate the used items. The technique used in the total item correlation is consistency between the scores of items that can be seen overall magnitude of correlation coefficient between each item with an overall score, which is the basis of the Pearson Product Moment Correlation.

Related to the validity testing of the instrument according to Riduwan and Kuncoro (2008), it is explained that validity is a measure of the degree of reliability or correctness of a measuring instrument. A good questionnaire should be able to measure with a clear framework of the research to be measured. Validity means the extent to which the precision and accuracy of a measuring instrument in doing the measuring function. Test of validity means testing the

59

procedures to see whether in the form of questionnaires as a measuring instrument can measure carefully or not.

Validity is a measurement that indicates the validity of research instrument (Arikunto, 2006). To get data of the research, the instrument should be valid one. A test is be valid if the content of the test is consistent with the stated goal for which the test being administrated.

In order to test the validity of the instrument, the formula of Pearson Product Moment (Akdon & Hadi, 2005)will be used:



 







₂ 2





₂

 

2



n XY X Y

r

n X X n Y Y

 

 



 









Where:

r : Correlation Coefficient N : Number of Respondents

ΣXY : Number of products X and Y pair scores ΣX : Total score in distribution X

ΣY : Total score in distribution Y

ΣX2 : Total score squares in the distribution of X ΣY2 : Total score of squares in Y distribution

Then the number of T-test calculations with the formula:

2

2

1

r

n

t

r







Where:

t : Value T-Test Calculation r : Coefficient Correlation n : Total Respondents

60

For critical values of the t distribution (Table t), α = 0.05, and degrees of freedom (df = n - 2), the following formula will be followed:

If tcount> ttable means that the instrument is valid.

If tcount<ttable means that the instrument is invalid. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19, which serves to measure the validity of any item questionnaire will be used as a measure of research.

3. Test Reliability of Data

According to Arikunto (2006), reliability is reliable if the result shows constancy. It means if a test is tested in another time or place the result is still constant.

Reliability test is done to obtain the level of accuracy (reliability) of data collection tool (instrument) which is used. To measure the level of reliability of the instrument, the researcher will conduct an analysis of test instruments using the split second (odd-even) and calculate reliability throughout the test Spearman Brown formula premises, namely:

11

2

1

b b

r

r

r





Where:

r11 = Reliability Internal Whole Instrument

rb = Product Moment Correlation between the First and Second Hemisphere

For distribution α = 0.05, and test two parties with degrees freedom (Df = n-2), so that in rtable can beRule-making: If rcount<rcritic means not reliable. Tools Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19will also be used for processing, testing data analysis to know the reliability of the instrument. I will first use spreadsheet on excel then transfer all the data to SPSS 19 for analysis.

61

4. Measures of Variability

Variability indicates the spread of the scores in a distribution.Range, variance, and standard deviation all indicate the amount of variability in a distributionof scores. This information helps us see how dispersed the responses are to itemson an instrument. Variability also plays an important role in many advanced statisticalcalculations (Creswell, 2012).

5. Results of testing Instrument

Validity is determined by the value ofthe significanceof each itemwithan item,that is, rcount,comparingthe correlation valuewiththe criticalvalue of rcritical which is0.631897. Whenrcount issmaller thanrcritical(rcount<rcritical) itis concludedthatthe item is notvalid. On the same hand, if rcountis greater thanrcritical(rcount>rcritical) then the itemis valid.

No.

Item Rcount Rtable Results 27 0.81374 0.631897 Valid 28 0.838228 0.631897 Valid 29 0.625058 0.631897 Invalid 30 0.821872 0.631897 Valid 31 0.760073 0.631897 Valid 32 0.720804 0.631897 Valid 33 0.66998 0.631897 Valid 34 0.653983 0.631897 Valid 35 0.653672 0.631897 Valid 36 0.718939 0.631897 Valid 37 0.813747 0.631897 Valid 38 0.770674 0.631897 Valid 39 0.674743 0.631897 Valid 40 0.178947 0.631897 Invalid 41 0.729323 0.631897 Valid 42 0.833123 0.631897 Valid 43 0.853611 0.631897 Valid 44 0.719683 0.631897 Valid 45 0.238035 0.631897 Invalid 46 0.75188 0.631897 Valid 47 0.67082 0.631897 Valid 48 0.674641 0.631897 Valid 49 0.712919 0.631897 Valid 50 0.729664 0.631897 Valid 51 -0.21053 0.631897 Invalid Table 3.4 Test results of instrument No.

Item Rcount Rtable Results 1 0.762415 0.631897 Valid 2 0.8411 0.631897 Valid 3 0.750867 0.631897 Valid 4 0.702089 0.631897 Valid 5 0.833375 0.631897 Valid 6 0.678644 0.631897 Valid 7 0.062952 0.631897 Invalid 8 0.686331 0.631897 Valid 9 0.546403 0.631897 Invalid 10 0.69584 0.631897 Valid 11 0.634473 0.631897 Valid 12 0.678263 0.631897 Valid 13 0.690914 0.631897 Valid 14 -0.00794 0.631897 Invalid 15 0.731306 0.631897 Valid 16 0.696421 0.631897 Valid 17 0.696421 0.631897 Valid 18 0.755364 0.631897 Valid 19 0.692559 0.631897 Valid 20 0.814543 0.631897 Valid 21 0.776203 0.631897 Valid 22 0.696589 0.631897 Valid 23 0.656011 0.631897 Valid 24 0.72134 0.631897 Valid 25 0.869898 0.631897 Valid 26 0.797423 0.631897 Valid

62

From 51 items (questions) which were given to ten (10) respondents with the intention of testing the instrument (Validity and reliability) seven (7) items did not perform well hence they are invalid and therefore I cannot use them.

Meanwhile, fromthe calculations, the greatest value ofrcounton Student Satisfaction (Y) is .833. Thencheckedwithrtabelwheredf =(n-2) df =10-2=8at the5% levelis0.63. This means that thevariableYquestionnaireaboutStudent satisfaction isreliable, becausercount>rtable.

Student Satisfaction 1. Validity

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.939 24

According to Cronbach’s Alpha these results are reliable since the outcome is 0.939.

Student Engagement 1. Validity

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

Total

Total 1.000

p25 .870

p26 .797

p27 .814

p28 .838

p29 .625

p30 .822

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix Total

Total 1.000

p1 .762

p2 .841

p3 .751

p4 .702

p5 .833

p6 .679

p7 .063

p8 .686

p9 .546

p10 .696

p11 .634

p12 .678

p13 .691

p14 -.008

p15 .731

p16 .696

p17 .696

p18 .755

p19 .693

p20 .815

p21 .776

p22 .697

p23 .656

63

p31 .760

p32 .721

p33 .670

p34 .654

p35 .654

p36 .719

2. Reliabilitas

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.918 12

According to Cronbach’s Alpha these results are reliable since the outcome is 0.918

Teachers Performance 1. Validity

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

Total

Total 1.000

p37 .814

p38 .771

p39 .675

64

p41 .729

p42 .833

p43 .854

p44 .720

p45 .238

p46 .752

p47 .671

p48 .675

p49 .713

p50 .730

p51 -.211

2. Reliability

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.889 15

According to Cronbach’s Alpha these results are reliable since the outcome is 0.889

6. Testing analysis

a. Weighted MeansTestScored

This activity isscoringineveryalternative answersgiven bythe respondentsin accordancewith thepredeterminedweights. Any statement inthe thirdvariable hasthe answerwith5criteriawhichstartsfrom1,2,3,4,

and5withprovisionfordeclaration ofcalculation offigures.

Percentageofeachvariableaimstoidentify trends

ofgeneralrespondentsforvariablesnamely Student engagement (X1), teachers’ performance (X2) and Student satisfaction (Y) and Variablepercentagefigureis

65

calculated byusing thefollowingformula. General descriptionof eachvariableis describedbyan average scorethat obtained from thefollowing formula:

Description:

X: The average valuesought

X: totalcomposite score(frequency multiplied by theweighingforeachanswer alternativecategory)

N: Number of respondents

WeightedMeansclusteringcriteriondeterminesScored(WMS)tothe average scoreof eachpossible answer. In average score all respondents are represented with weighted means score. The followingcriteria or table will be used to determine the averages of all items in order to know the category in which they fall:

Results of Average Criteria/Category Interpretation

Variabel X1, X2 dan Y

4,01-5,00 Very good Always

3,01-4,00 Good Often

2,01-3,00 Good enough Sometimes

1,01-2,00 Low Rarely

0,01-1,00 Very low Never

Table 3.5WeightedMeans 7. Normality test

The purposeof thenormality testisto determine whethertreatment Datain this studyis usingParametricornonparametric analysis. Inthis studynormality the following formula will be used:

66

Description: 2 = Chi-square

f0=frequencyobservations fe=frequencyexpected

To knowwhether data isnormalornot, it can be determinedthetesting criteriaasfollows:

IfX2≥X²table, meaningAbnormalDataDistribution

IfX2<X2table, meaning thatdistribution of data is normal. E. Techniques of Data Collection

These are the tools and approaches used to collect data to answer the research question and hypothesis. More than one technique can be employed; the commonest are questionnaires and interviews. Technique of data collection is the way that can be used by the researcher to collect data (Arikunto, 2006). To collect the data, the researcher will use a questionnaires as an instrument. Questionnaire is a series of questions or exercises of other means of measuring skill, knowledge, intelligence, and capacities of aptitudes or an individual or groups (Arikunto, 2006).

Based on this, data from the field will be collected through questionnaires. The researcher will administer the questionnaires personally. And the researcher will also visit the schools for obtaining the opinions of students

F. Techniques of DataAnalysis

The data will be obtained in the field of research study (collected data:, internet sources, questionnaire responses, and observations) will be critically tabulated, analyzed, and interpreted by using the statistical techniques like mean

67

and standard deviation in order to test if those data are valid. Data analyzing technique involves three parts, namely, correlative analysis, comparative analysis, and descriptive analysis (Arikunto, 2010). Correlation methods of analysis aim to describe the correlation between the two variables. Correlation analysis attests the relation between two or more variables, but does not measure the causal relation between them. Correlation analysis may also indicate the intensity of the relationship between variables (KOPPA, 2013). Comparative analysis is the item-by-item comparison of two or more processes, qualifications and sets of data, system, products, comparable alternatives or the likes. Comparative analysis is meant to solve the mistakes made by casual inferences mainly on the basis of only small number of cases. The descriptive analysis is utilized in this research. In fact, the descriptive analysis is used if the researcher wants to know how, how far, and so on about the condition. In this research, the descriptive quantitative technique is used to measure the mean and the level of effectiveness of the influence of student engagement and teachers performance for student satisfaction.

In the implementationof thisresearchdata analysis, data processingis donethroughthe help ofthecomputerprogramStatistical Package fortheSocialSciences(SPSS) version19. The analysis techniqueusedin this studyisthe correlationanalysis(Pearson Product Moment) andmultiplecorrelations. This analysiswillbe usedtotestthe influenceof variablesX1andX2to variable Y.This analysisdetermines the effect of Influences of Students’ engagement(X1) and Teachers’ performance (X2) for Student satisfaction(Y) in the public senior high schools in Bandung. The formula ofPearsonProduct Moment(PPM) is shown as below:

Where:

r : correlationcoefficient Xi : Total scoreof items

68

Yi : Total scoretotal(all items) n: Number of respondents

x̄

:XAverage � :Y Average

: Summation

Correlationrwiththe provisions ofPPMisnotmorethanthe value of r(-1 ≤r≤+1). If thevalue of r=-1 meansa perfect negativecorrelation, r=0means nocorrelation. Meanwhile, r=1 means thatthe correlation isverystrong. Meaningthe

valuerwill be consultedwith

acorrelationcoefficientvalueinterpretationtabler(Riduwan, 2010).

Table 3.6 Interval coefficient

To measurethe size of theinfluencegiven bythe variableXto variable Y, then, the following formula will be used:

2

100%

KD r

Where:

KD : Determinants coefficient value r2 : correlation coefficient value

69

Meanwhile, to test the significance the following formula will be used:

2

2 1 hitung

r n t

r

 

 Where:

tcount : Value of t

r : Correlationcoefficientvalue n : Number of samples

Distribution(Table t) forα=0.05, anddegrees of freedom(df = n-2), thedecisionrule: iftcount>ttable, it means that significantandvice versa.

Determination of the effect ofvariablesX1andX2 tovariable Y is used with the multiplecorrelation formulaasbelow:

     

1 2 1 2 1 2

1 2

1 2

2 2

. . . . .

. . 2

.

2

.

.

1

X Y X Y X Y X Y X X X X Y

X X

r

r

r

r

r

R

r









Furtheranalysisusessimplecorrelation techniques. Ease ofcomputationusedinthe form of softwareof computerprogramStatistical Package fortheSocialSciences(SPSS) version19.

70

X1 = Students’ Engagement

X2 = Teachers’ Performance

Y = Student Satisfaction R = Coefficient Correlation

I will use SERVQUALas a way of trying to measure service quality; researchers have developed a methodology known as SERVQUAL – a perceived service quality questionnaire survey methodology. SERVQUAL examines five dimensions of service quality:

 Reliability  Responsiveness  Assurance;  Empathy, and

 Tangible (e.g. appearance of physical facilities, equipment, etc.) 

134

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. CONCLUSIONS

This study “The influence of student engagement and teachers’ performance to student satisfaction in public senior high schools” firstly aimed to

measure the influence student engagement to student satisfaction and teachers performance to student satisfaction. I collected data from five public senior high schools in the city of Bandung. I used excel and SPSS to analyze the data. I chose one school from every region (South, North, West, East and Centre) hence they are five in number.

In conclusion, student engagement was found to be in good enough category. It means that they sometimes take their engagement serious in their learning. This is good enough sign but they still need to improve in order to reach

the highest category. In details students’ engagement gave the following results: The results from respondents gave a total averagewhich is good enough or falls in strong enough categoryand there were questions which were meant to get the idea of how students consider their engagement in as far as affection is concerned. This average means that student engagement with affection as an indicator to student satisfaction falls under good enough category. This means that they sometimes experience these in schools. Therefore affective student perception with the sense of Belonging/identification with school andSchool connectedness is good enough in average and it is strong enough.

In as far as cognitive part is concerned results gave a total average which is strong enough. This has got more to do with the mental dimension since it is about Self-regulation, relevance of school to future aspirations and value of learning (goal setting). This average means that student engagement with cognitive part as an indicator to student satisfaction falls under good enough category. This means that in average they sometimes cognitively indulge into their

135

studies. When we look at their age one can conclude that it is a good sign in their learning process. Therefore cognitive Self-regulation, relevance of school to future aspirations and value of learning (goal setting) is good enough in average in SMAN in Bandung.

The part of students’ behavior is one of the lowest averages ehich falls in

strong enough but with the lowest mark.This has got more to do with the day-to-day activities of the school that concern students. Attendance (absences, skips), Participation (Classroom & extracurricular), Behavioral incidences (office referrals, suspensions) are but the few examples in this indicator which has influence in student satisfaction. This average means that student engagement with behavioral part as an indicator to student satisfaction falls under low category. This means that in average they rarely experience these in schools. This can be interpreted as a good sign of a good behavior that students have or portray. Therefore behavioral incidences in this school are low in average. This can mean that few students have

experienced referrals to principal’s office for misbehavior.

The academic element gave average which is good or strongand t_his

has got more to do with Time on task, Homework completion rate, Class grades. This average means that student engagement with academic part as an indicator to student satisfaction falls under good enough category. This means that in average they sometimes experience these in schools. Therefore academic engagement of students in this school on task, Homework completion rate, Class grades is good enough in average.

All in all student engagement has got average which is good enough. This is strong enough or good enough. As a result, students still need to improve and put their attention to their studies in order to get good results which will see them developing.

When we look at the total average in as far as teachers’ performance in being contextual when they teach is concerned,the average that we got from the

results is good enough. Therefore teachers’ performance in as far as contextual

teaching is concerned is strong enough in Public senior high schools in Bandung. This average means that teachers’ performance for being contextual when they

interesting for students things seem to be really good because results show that teachers often make classwork interesting for students. This is a good sign on the side of teachers and this call for a big round of applause for teachers for making learning interesting for students. It is also a kind of motivation for them.

Thetablein chapter four is about correlation, showed therelationshipbetween variables (Teachers performance, student engagement and

student satisfaction). Based onthattable we

caninterpretthatPearsoncorrelationvalueof teacher performancetostudent satisfactionis0.581andis in the interval0.4-0.599, which means the relationshipbetweenthevariablesis in the category of strong enough, so doesthe value ofthe Pearsoncorrelationstudent involvementonstudent satisfactionwith avalue of0.530andis in the interval0.4-0.599, which means the relationshipbetweenthevariablesin the category of strong enough. There is a strong enough relationship between these variables.

B. RECOMMENDATIONS

In order to provide further understanding of how various dimensions of studentengagement and teachers’ performance are linked to student satisfaction there are several future directions forresearch. To address gaps in the literature, future research should examine therelationship between the various dimensions and indicators of student engagement and teachers’ performance and student satisfaction over time (e.g., mental health, academic achievement). Such studieswould help build empirical rationales for where to intervene and how to improve studentengagement and teachers’ performance in order to improve students’ satisfaction.

Another direction for future research is to further explore the differences inengagement between students in various levels and teachers’ performance. More studies are needed to determine if thedifferences found in the current study are replicable across different groups over time.It may also be prudent for researchers

sample inorder to permit comparisons between students enrolled in public senior high school.

Moreover, one of the limitations of this study is that the context of the respondents is only in five schools which are owned by the government. Further study is suggest to make a comparative study to investigate whether there are any differences in student engagement, teachers’ performance and student satisfaction between public senior high schools and private private senior high schools.Further study should also take serious consideration in terms of accessibility to the data collection because most ofthe schools have been very reluctant in giving good cooperation. A serious preparation towards the unexpectedsituation is needed thus that it is in the ability researcher to face and in control of the situation. The most obvious problem is bureaucracy in Indonesia which makes things difficult with many steps to take. You will be taken from one office the other just to get recommendation letter for making research.

References:

Abbott, C. (2009). ICT: Changing Education, London, Routledge

Abdullah, Firdaus (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education:

MarketingIntelligence & Planning, 24(1), 31-47.

Akbulut, Y. (2009). Investigating underlying components of the ICT indicators measurement scale: the extended version. Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 40(4), 405-427.

Akdon, & Hadi, S. (2005). Aplikasi Statistika dan Metode Penelitian untuk

Administrasi & Manajemen. Bandung: Dewa Ruchi.

Applegate, C., & Daly, A. (2005). The impact of paid work on the academic

performance of students: A case study from the University of Canberra. The

Centre for Labour Market Research, 1–12.

Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Fallu, J.-S., & Pagani, L. S. (2009). Student engagement and its relationshipwith early high school dropout. Journal of

Adolescence, 32 (3), 651–670.

Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T.,& Stuedemann, R. (2006). Cultural influences onknowledge sharing through online communitiesof practice. Journal of Knowledge Management,10(1), 94–107.

Areti, V. (2006).Satisfying distance education students of the Hellenic Open

University, E-mentor, 2(14), 1-12.

Bryant, J. L. (2006). Assessing expectations and perceptions of the campus experience: The Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory. New Directions

for Community Colleges, 134. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bulger, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Almeroth, K. C., & Blau, S. D. (2008). Measuring Learner Engagement in Computer-Equipped College Classrooms. Journal

of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(2), 129-143.

Carmel, A., & Gould, S. S. (2006). The effects of course deliver modality on

student satisfaction and retention and GPA in on-site vs. hybrid courses.

International Education Journal, 6(4), 387-394.

Clarke, P. J. (2007). Exploring the use of computer technology in a Caribbean context: Views of pre-service teachers. International Journal of Education

and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 3(1), 23-38.

Chen, P.-S. D., Gonyea, R., & Kuh, G. (2008). Learning at a distance. Journal of

online education, 4(3).

Chen, D., &Guo, W. Y. (2005).Distance learning in China. Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 3(4), 1-5.

Coates, H. (2006). Student Engagement in Campus-based and Online Education http://www.cqu.eblib.com.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/EBLWeb/patron/

Creswell J. W., 2012, Educational Research, Planning, Conducting,

andEvaluating Quantitative andQualitative Research, Fourth Edition,Pearson Education, Inc, Boston

David J. Shernoff, 2013, Optimal LearningEnvironments to PromoteStudent

Engagement,Springer Science and Business Media, New York

Dill, D. D. (2007). Will Market Competition Assure Academic Quality? Quality

Assurance in Higher Education. Higher Education Dynamics vol. 20, 47-72.

Douglas, J., McClelland, R., Davies, J. (2007). The development of a conceptual model of student satisfaction with their experience in higher education.

Quality Assurance in Education vol. 16, 19-35.

Falowo, R. O. (2007). Factors impeding implementationof Web-based distance learning. AACEJournal, 15(3), 315–338.

Filaka, V. F., & Sheldon, K. M. (2008). Teacher support, student motivation,

student need satisfaction, and college teacher course evaluations: Testing a

sequential path model. Educational Psychology, 28, 711-724.

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008).Blended learning in higher education:

Framework,principles, and guidelines. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gordon, J., Ludlum, J. and Hoey, J.J. (2006) Validating the National Survey Goktas, Y., Yildirim, S., & Yildirim, Z. (2009). Main barriers and possible

enablers of ICTs integration into pre-service teacher education programs.

Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 193–204.

http://www.unescobkk.org/education/

Harris, L. R. (2008). A Phenomenographic Investigation of Teacher Conceptions ofStudent Engagement in Learning. The Australian Educational Researcher,

5(1), 57-79.

Harris, Douglas N. and Tim R. Sass 2011. “Teacher Training, Teacher Quality and Student Achievement.” Journal of Public Economics 95: 798-812.

Hossain, S.Z. (2010), Perceptions of library services by Gender-a study in Bangladesh. Libri,Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 331-338.

Jamelske, xx (2009). Measuring the impact of a university first-year experience program on student GPA and retention. Higher Education, 57(3): 373-391. Johnson, M. K., Crosnoe, R. and Elder, G. H. (2001). Students‟ attachment and

academic engagement: The role of race andethnicity. Sociology of

Education 74: 318–40.

Jhurreev, V. (2005). Technology integration in education in developing countries:

Guidelines to policy makers. International Education Journal, 6(4):

467-483.

Kelly, S., & Price, H. (2014). Changing patterns of engagement in the transition to high school. InD. J. Shernoff, & J. Bempechat (Eds.), Engaging youth in

schools: Evidence-based models toguide future innovations: An NSSE Yearbook . New York: NSSE Yearbooks by Teachers CollegeRecord.

Kuh, G.D. (2005a) Promoting Student Success: What Campus Leaders Can Do. Bloomington, IN: National Survey of Student Engagement.

Lavy, V. 2009. Performance Pay and Teacher‟s Effort, Productivity, and Grading Ethics. American Economic Review 99(5): 1979–2021

Lee, H.-J., & Rha, I. (2009). Influence of structureand interaction on student achievement andsatisfaction in Web-based distance learning.Journal of

Lim, C. P., Lee, S. L., & Richards, C. (2006).Developing interactive learning objects for acomputing mathematics module. InternationalJournal on

E-Learning, 5(2), 221–244.

Lui, Y., & Wang, H. (2009). A comparative studyon e-learning technologies and products: From theEast to the West. Systems Research and BehavioralScience, 26, 191–209

Lu, H., & Chiou, M. (2010). The impact of individual differences on e-learning system satisfaction: A contingency approach. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 41, 307-323.

Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in theelementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational

ResearchJournal, 37(1), 153-184.

Martin, A. J. (2009). Motivation and engagement across the academic life span: Adevelopmental construct validity study of elementary school, high school, anduniversity/college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(5),794-824.

Murray, J. (2009). The wider social benefits of higher education: What do we know about them? Australian Journal of Education, 53, 230-244

Muralidharan, K. and V. Sundararaman. 2011. „„Teacher Performance Pay: Experimental Evidence from India.‟‟ Journal of Political Economy 119: 39–

77

Nasser, R. N., Khoury, B., & Abouchedid, K. (2008). University students‟ knowledge of services and programs in relation to satisfaction. Quality

Assurance in Education, 16, 80-97.

Neal, D. 2011. “The design of performance pay in education.” In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, &L. Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education, vol. 4. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Norazman, Masdinah, Tina, Sahirah, Zanariah, Faruk, Siti and Rohayah. (2007).

Academic Report Writing. (2nd Ed.). Selangor-Malaysia: Prentice Hall.

Olitsky, S. (2007). Promoting student engagement in science: Interaction rituals and the pursuit ofa community of practice. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 44 (1), 33–56

Özgüngör, S. (2010). Identifying Dimensions of students' ratings that best predict students' self efficacy, course value and satisfaction. Eurasian Journal of

Educational Research, 38, 146-163.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering Quality Service, The Free Press, 23-25.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third

decade of research, Vol. 2. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Rothsein, Jesse, 2010. “Teacher quality in educational production: tracking, decay and student achievement.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 125(1): 175–

214

Sahin, I. (2006). Predicting student satisfaction in distance education and

Schubert- Irastorza, C., & Fabry, D. L. (2011). Improving student satisfaction with online faculty performance. Journal of Research in Innovative

Teaching, 4, 168-179.

Sean B. Eom, (2011), Learning Outcomes inE-Learning:An Introduction to EmpiricalResearch, USA, IGI Global

Solinas, G. , Masia, M. , Maida, G. & Muresu, E. (2012). What Really Affects Student Satisfaction? An Assessment of Quality through a University-Wide Student Survey. Creative Education, 3, 37-40.

Shinn, M., & Yoshikawa, H. (Eds.). (2008). Toward positive youth development:

Transformingschools and community programs . Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Stensaker, B. (2007). Quality as Fashion. Exploring the Translation of A Management Idea into Higher Education. Quality Assurance in Higher

Education. Higher Education Dynamics vol. 20, 99-118

Stovall, I. (2009). Engagement and Online Learning. UIS Community of Practice

for E-Learning. http://otel.uis.edu/copel/EngagementandOnlineLearning. Thomas, E. H., & Galambos, N. (2004). What satisfies students: Mining student

opinion data with regression and decision tree analysis. Research in Higher

Education, 45, 251-269.

Wang, Q. Y., & Woo, H. L (2007). Systematic planning for ICT integration in topic learning. Educational Technology and Society, 10(1),

Willms, J. D., Friesen, S. & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today?

Transforming classrooms through social, academic and intellectual engagement.

(FirstNational Report) Toronto: Canadian Education Association.

Wu, H.-K., & Huang, Y.-L. (2007). Ninth-grade student engagement in teacher-centered and studentteacher-centeredtechnology-enhanced learning environments.

Science Education, 91( 5), 727–749

Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2010). Charting the path from engagement to achievement: Areport on the 2009 High School Survey of Student Engagement. Bloomington, IN:Center for Evaluation & Education Policy.

Yelland, N. J. (2007). Shift to the future: Rethinking learning with new technologies in education. New York: Routledge.

Xu, Zeyu, Jane Hannaway and Colin Taylor. (2011). Making a Difference? The Effects of Teach for America in High School. Journal of Policy Analysis