Page 142 - Secondary school students’ university readiness and their transition to university Els van Rooij

5.6.2 Descriptions of the ve pro les, based on the engagement dimensions
e names of the pro les re ected their most striking characteristics, e.g., the class with very low intellectual engagement scores was named ‘intellectually highly disengaged’. Figure 5.2 shows the standardised scores on the indicator variables for each pro le. Table 5.4 o ers an overview of some background characteristics of these latent pro les.
13684.75 13344.73 13119.53 12927.25 12815.64
<.01 .77 40 <.01 .79 23 .08 .78 9 .02 .78 7 .76 .79 6
Pro les of student engagement
Table 5.3 Fit results of the 2- to 6-class solutions
Model Number of free
parameters
2-class 28 3-class 38 4-class 48 5-class 58 6-class 68
AIC
13647.87 13294.68 13056.31 12850.85 12726.07
BIC
13773.65 13465.39 13271.93 13111.40 13031.55
Adjusted VLMRT Entropy Percentage
BIC p-value
of students in smallest class
5
Figure 5.2 Students’ standardised scores on the indicator variables per latent pro le
Notes: beh eng = behavioural engagement; s-e e ort = self-e cacy in e ort; meta = metacognition; deep = deep learning; surface = surface learning; self-reg = self-regulated learning; nfc = need for cognition; interest = academic interest; s-e underst = self-e cacy in understanding.
141