Parents’ roles in young learners’ motivation and task engagement in Indonesian primary schools: Questionnaire development and validation

Parents’ roles in English language learning

Parental involvement is crucial in children’s English learning, influencing motivation and engagement (Liang et al., 2024) and enhancing academic passion, study habits, and grades (Shebani et al., 2025). Research indicates parental socioeconomic status (SES) combines education, income, and occupation (Ma et al., 2023; Sirin, 2005) and positively correlates with L2 achievements (Ma et al., 2023), academic results (Balsa et al., 2018), and English learning ability (Butler & Le, 2018).

University-educated mothers positively influenced their children’s English proficiency (Jalili, 2017; Tan & Caleon, 2022). Low parental education correlated with higher primary education drop-out rates (Ahsan et al., 2015). Family income affected children’s English learning engagement, with low-income children less engaged than those from middle-income families (Poon, 2020).

Various research papers have assessed the role of parental involvement in enhancing children’s academic achievements. The engagement of parents in their children’s English studies shows a significant link to the children’s proficiency in the language (Butler & Le, 2018). Support provided by parents at home plays a crucial role in boosting students’ academic performance (Tan & Caleon, 2022; Torrecilla & Hernández-Castilla, 2020). According to Kim et al. (2020), the psychological and behavioral participation of parents has a more profound effect on the motivation and accomplishments of children than the parents’ educational background. Communication between parents and teachers has been shown to augment students’ achievements (Tan & Caleon, 2022) as well as their engagement and motivation to master English (Fan & Williams, 2010). Involvement of parents in extracurricular activities and attendance at parent meetings has a notable influence on student performance (Torrecilla & Hernández-Castilla, 2020). Additionally, parental guidance is a positive predictor of students’ intrinsic motivation to advance their English skills (Fan & Williams, 2010), while parents’ academic expectations align positively with students’ English proficiency (Butler & Le, 2018), achievements (Tan & Caleon, 2022), engagement levels, and intrinsic motivation in English (Fan & Williams, 2010). Figure 1 illustrates some parents’ roles in young learners’ English learning based on the literature.

Figure 1. Parents’ role construct.

Motivation and task engagement in EFL contexts

Motivation is identified as a complex entity, consisting of three components: the aspiration to learn the language, perceptions regarding language learning, and the intensity of motivation demonstrated by continued effort in language acquisition (Gardner, 2010). In English language learning, especially at the primary school level, motivation has been shown to influence learners’ persistence, participation, and language outcomes (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). Motivation plays a pivotal role in language learning; it determines the rate and success of acquiring a new language (Gardner, 1985). This study conceptualizes motivation as the learners’ willingness, interest, and enthusiasm toward learning English. This study is based on self-determination in which motivation is divided into two types: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2020). Intrinsic motivation is defined as the interest or enjoyment in English tasks, while extrinsic motivation is encouraged by external rewards, pressures, or outcomes. These types of motivation are widely used in educational psychology and are appropriate for young learners’ development.

Task engagement refers to students’ involvement in completing tasks during the process of language learning (Philp & Duchesne, 2016). It is understood as a construct with four distinct dimensions: behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and social engagement (Philp & Duchesne, 2016). Behavioral engagement involves learners actively participating in tasks (Philp & Duchesne, 2016), which can be assessed through factors like time dedicated to tasks and responding to questions (Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000; Oga-Baldwin, 2019). Emotional engagement encompasses learners’ emotional connections and reactions to class activities (Sang & Hiver, 2021). Cognitive engagement relates to alertness, continuous attention, active mental processes, mental effort, and self-regulation techniques (Dao, 2021). Agentic engagement is defined by learners’ actions aimed at influencing classroom instruction (Oga-Baldwin, 2019). Social engagement refers to the extent to which a student follows written and unwritten classroom rules of behavior, for example, coming to school and class on time, interacting appropriately with teachers and peers (Finn & Zimmer, 2012).

Parents play a significant role in motivating young learners to learn English and in their engagement with tasks. Research indicates that parental involvement has a notable effect on children’s motivation (Choi et al., 2024; Liang et al., 2024; Sumanti & Muljani, 2021; Tong et al., 2021) and engagement (Liang et al., 2024). Interaction between parents and teachers is shown to enhance students’ motivation and engagement in English learning (Finn & Zimmer, 2012).

Parental questionnaires on young learners’ motivation and task engagement

Self-report questionnaires are the most frequently used tools to assess motivation and engagement in tasks. Some prior studies developed and adapted questionnaires to investigate motivation and engagement in tasks. For instance, Butler (2015b) and Butler and Le (2018) used parental survey that encompassed various aspects related to their children’s learning of the English language, which include: (a) the socioeconomic status (SES) of parents, such as household income and educational achievement levels of the parents; (b) indirect actions by parents aimed at supporting English learning, for instance, fostering a literacy-rich home environment and utilizing English at their workplace; (c) direct parental actions to facilitate English education, such as engaging in their children’s study process and arranging for private English tutoring post-school hours; (d) parental beliefs regarding English education, including the significance of English; and (e) specific beliefs parents have about their own child, like their expectation concerning the child’s success in learning English.

Torrecilla and Hernández-Castilla (2020) used a parental survey concerning household assets, their connection with the student and school, and their general contentment with the school.

Wang et al. (2023) used the Chinese version of parental involvement scale adapted from previous study containing 23 items across three aspects: personal, cognitive, and behavioral involvement. Personal involvement, with 9 items, measures perceived care about school life and emotions (e.g., easing emotions during learning difficulties). Cognitive involvement, with 8 items, assesses exposure to stimulating activities and materials (e.g., buying study materials). Behavioral involvement, with 6 items, evaluates parents’ participation in school activities (e.g., controlling online time). Both children and parents rated each item from “1 = never” to “5 = very often”, with higher scores indicating greater involvement.

However, no research has been conducted in the Indonesian context on the development and validation of instruments to measure parents’ involvement in their children’s motivation and engagement with tasks. Therefore, it is necessary to develop and validate a questionnaire on young learners’ motivation and task engagement from the perspectives of their parents. By doing so, it aims to enhance local educational practices and add to the existing body of knowledge in English language learning research at a broader level.

Research design

The research study was quantitative in nature, meaning it involved the measurement and analysis of numerical data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Its main focus was on the development and validation of a research tool or instrument. The study took place in primary schools in Indonesia. To gather data, researchers used questionnaires that were administered to participants. We used a convenience sampling technique in selecting the sample. The collected data were then analyzed using the statistical software program, jamovi app version 2.3.28.0 (The jamovi project, 2022). This tool assists in performing complex data analyses and deriving meaningful conclusions from the collected data.

Context of the study

The research was carried out in Padang, Indonesia’s elementary schools, where English is taught as a foreign language and is a required subject for students at elementary school since grade 3. Students in both private and public elementary schools learn English for 70 minutes a week with English teachers who have an English educational background.

Participants

The study involved 270 parents of fifth-grade students, and their characteristics can be found in Table 1. The majority of respondents in this study were female (88.5%), with 48.9% aged between 38 and 44. Most parents (46.3%) reported their English proficiency as intermediate level, and they occasionally used English. They used it primarily for entertainment purposes (46.96%). More than half of the participants had a high school educational background (60.4%) and were housewives (64.4%). Then, 43% of respondents had a monthly income between IDR 1.000.000 and 5.000.000, while 38.1% chose not to disclose their incomes.

Data collection instruments

The authors developed the questionnaire, which focuses on parents’ roles, by drawing on empirical research concerning parental influence on young learners’ motivation and engagement in tasks (Butler, 2015a; Tan & Caleon, 2022; Torrecilla & Hernández-Castilla, 2020; Tseng, 2021) to ensure construct validity. This includes: 1) parental involvement (such as assisting with homework, attending school meeting, and actively engaging in their child’s educational journey), 2) parental expectations (setting high academic aspirations and offering encouragement), 3) access to educational resources (such as books, educational technology, and a study-friendly environment), and 4) exposure to enrichment activities (providing diverse experiences like travel, cultural events, and extracurricular programs). We developed the parents’ role questionnaire because the existing questionnaire did not relate to the study’s purposes. Table 2 presents the 19 items of the role of parents. The questionnaire employed a 4-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 4.

Procedure

Ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Doctoral School of Education at the University of Szeged (Reference number: 24/2023) was secured prior to data collection. All participants were informed about the study’s objectives, and written consent forms were signed by each prior participating in this survey. The development and validation of the questionnaire concerning the role of parents involved multiple phases: initially, all existing instruments in publications were reviewed; next, items were formulated based on the literature with input from experts. The questionnaire was evaluated by three experts (the co-author and two Indonesian teachers of English). Experts evaluated the content, clarity, and readability of the survey. The questionnaire was clear and covered the content related to the role of parents in motivating young learners to learn English and engage in English tasks. The questionnaire was then compiled and subjected to pilot testing to assess its validity and reliability. The questionnaire was translated to Indonesian language by two experts who fluent English and Indonesian languages and have expertise in teaching English to children. The questionnaire was piloted in November 2024 with parents of the fifth-graders. The online questionnaire in Google Forms was distributed via WhatsApp to the English teachers at primary schools, who forwarded it to parents. Finally, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA) were conducted utilizing the jamovi app (version 2.3.28.0).

EFA of the parents’ questionnaire

Before conducting EFA analysis, we ran the KMO of Measurement of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) and Bartlett’s sphericity test to make sure that these data are appropriate for factor analysis. The results showed that the data were appropriate for factor analysis (Kaiser, 1974) with MSA KMO = .911, and Bartlett’s sphericity test was chi-square = 2534, df = 171, and p = < .001. The fit indices showed that Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI = .976) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = .034), indicating a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Model test (χ² = 114, df = 86, p = .025).

Table 3 shows that five factors account for 58.1% of the total variance. Factor 1 (parental expectation) explains 16.03%, while factors 2 (access to resources), 3 (parental involvement), 4 (enrichment activities), and 5 (extracurricular activities) contribute 13.54%, 10.87%, 10.45%, and 7.25%, respectively.

Figure 2 presents the scree plot supporting the decision on five factors, displaying eigenvalues from a factor analysis. A steep initial decline and subsequent leveling indicate the optimal number of factors to retain, or eigenvalue > 1, due to their significant contribution to variance explanation (Kaiser, 1974).

Figure 2. Screen plot of factor analysis.

Table 4 presents the EFA results, applying the Maximum Likelihood extraction method accompanied by a varimax rotation. The factor loadings span from .496 to .881. Each item’s loadings are classified into five distinct factors: parental involvement, parental expectation, access to resources, enrichment activities, and extracurricular activities. Notably, the strongest indicator of the extracurricular activities construct is the factor loading associated with encouraging children to engage in activities outside of school (item 18, factor loading = .881) (Hair et al., 2019). Conversely, Item 2 exhibited the weakest loading, signifying a minimal contribution to the parental involvement factor.

CFA of parents’ questionnaire

Table 5 summarizes the findings from a confirmatory factor analysis examining various constructs associated with the influence of parents on students’ motivation and engagement with tasks. Constructs assessed include parental involvement, parental expectation, access to resources, enrichment activities, and extracurricular activities. Each construct is evaluated through multiple items, with factor loadings demonstrating the strength of association between items and their respective constructs. For example, item loadings for parental expectation range from .646 to .869, indicating moderate to strong representation of the construct (Hair et al., 2019). The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values span from .41 to .71, highlighting how much variance is captured by the construct in relation to measurement error, with higher values (such as .71 for extracurricular activities) signifying better convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Reliability is assessed for each construct using Cronbach’s alpha (α) and Composite Reliability (CR), with values above .70 deemed acceptable. Most constructs exhibit strong reliability, such as parental expectation (α = .86, CR = .87) and access to resources (α = .86, CR = .86) (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Even constructs like parental involvement with a slightly lower AVE of .41 have acceptable reliability (α = .73, CR = .74) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), indicating that the items reliably measure the underlying concept of each construct. In general, the results indicate that the measurement model is valid and reliable for evaluating the impact of parent-related factors on student motivation and task engagement.

The chi-square statistic (χ² = 276, df = 142, p < .001) for testing exact model fit reveals a statistically significant outcome, implying an imperfect data-model fit. Nonetheless, given the chi-square test’s sensitivity to large sample sizes, researchers frequently evaluate model adequacy using alternative fit indices. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI = .945) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI = .934) both surpass the standard threshold of .90, suggesting an adequate fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Further, the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR = .045) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = .059) fall within acceptable ranges (SRMR < .08 and RMSEA between .06 and .08), affirming that the model is reasonably well-fitting overall, despite the chi-square result.

Table 6 presents the correlations between five constructs that represent different aspects of how parents influence student motivation and engagement in tasks: parental involvement, parental expectations, access to resources, enrichment activities, and extracurricular activities. The correlations are all positive, indicating that improvement in one area generally corresponds to enhancements in others. Access to resource availability reveals strong correlations with both parental involvement (r = .798) and enrichment activities (r = .756), implying that families with greater resources are more likely to be involved in their child’s education and offer enriching experiences. Additionally, extracurricular activities are strongly associated with access to resources (r = .728) and enrichment activities (r = .705), emphasizing the interrelated nature of these supportive actions. On the other hand, parental expectations show more moderate correlations with the other constructs (ranging from .351 to .531), suggesting that although expectations are linked to other supportive behaviors, they may represent a distinct dimension of parental influence.

Figure 3 illustrates five latent variables or factors: parental involvement, parental expectations, access to resources, enrichment activities, and extracurricular activities. These factors are connected to various observed variables or indicators such as items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The arrows leading from latent variables to observed variables represent factor loadings, indicating the degree to which each indicator supports the underlying construct. For instance, item 6 exhibits a strong association with the factor of parental expectations, possessing a standardized estimate of .869. Similarly, items 18 and 19 show strong correlations with the extracurricular activities factor, with standardized estimates of .837 and .854, respectively. Double-headed arrows connecting multiple latent variables signify relationships among the constructs, such as the strong association between extracurricular activities and access to resources.

Figure 3. Structure of parents’ role.

Table 7 presents the descriptive statistics for the dimensions of parental roles, indicating generally high levels of agreement across all items, with means fluctuating between 3.06 and 3.73 on a 4-point scale. The highest mean scores were found in parental expectations (M = 3.65 to 3.73), reflecting strong convictions regarding the importance of English and significant aspirations for their children’s English proficiency. This dimension exhibited significant negative skewness and high kurtosis, implying a tendency for responses to cluster toward strong agreement. Parental involvement and access to resources displayed relatively high mean scores (approximately 3.15 to 3.35), accompanied by mild negative skewness and low to moderate kurtosis, indicating slightly skewed but closer to normally distributed responses. Meanwhile, mean scores for enrichment and extracurricular activities were somewhat lower (approximately 3.06 to 3.28), with more even distributions and less skewness, pointing to greater variability in the frequency of these activities. In conclusion, while parental expectations are consistently high, there is more variation in the level of actual involvement in enrichment and extracurricular activities.