See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327767659

Development of mathematics motivation scale: A preliminary exploratory

study with a focus on secondary school students

Article · February 2021

DOI: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.329.20

CITATION READS

1 1,370

2 authors:

Yusuf F Zakariya Massimiliano Barattucci

Universitetet i Agder University of Bergamo
49 PUBLICATIONS   403 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   923 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Risk perception, organizational factors and personality View project

Stigma at work during COVID 19 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yusuf F Zakariya on 08 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 17 Number 1, 2021
© 2021 INASED

Development of Mathematics Motivation Scale: A Preliminary Exploratory Study With

a Focus on Secondary School Students

Yusuf F. Zakariya i
Univeristy of Agder

Barattucci Massimiliano ii
E-Campus University, Novedrate (Co)

Abstract

The motivation for learning mathematics is an essential factor in predicting the performance of
secondary school students. Students who are intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to learn
mathematics generally demonstrate higher performance than others who are not motivated. However,
a properly designed instrument for the measurement of this construct has been sparsely reported in the
literature. The present study is carried out to develop an instrument of high psychometric properties
for measuring the construct. The study involved 439 students randomly selected across secondary
schools using a survey research design. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to
determine the factor structure and distribution of items in each of the mathematics motivation
subscales. The factors are extracted using principal component analysis, and the extracted factors are
rotated using varimax. The analysis results in a final 24-item mathematics motivation scale, which
contained five subscales with around half of the total variance explained of 48.99% explained
variance. A high-reliability coefficient was found for the whole instrument with some empirical
evidence of construct validity. The concise instrument is recommended for assessing the motivation of
secondary school students, and further studies are recommended for its confirmation of factor
structures in independent samples.

Keywords: Development of Instrument; Exploratory Factor Analysis; Mathematics; Motivation;

Secondary Schools.

DOI: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.329.20

-------------------------------
i
Yusuf F. Zakariya, Dr., Mathematical Sciences, Univeristy of Agder, ORCID: 0000-0002-5266-8227

Correspondence: [email protected]
ii
Barattucci Massimiliano, Assoc. Prof., Faculty of Psychology, E-Campus University, Novedrate (Co),
ORCID: 0000-0003-2650-3661

314
 International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 17 Number 1, 2021
© 2021 INASED

INTRODUCTION

The teaching and learning of mathematics, especially at the secondary school levels, have
been bewildered with a host of challenges in which poor students' performance is at the top of the list.
Several attempts have been made globally to alleviate these problems. Among the many factors that
have been shown empirically to predict students’ performance in mathematics is their motivation to
learn the subject. Students who are intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to learn mathematics
generally demonstrate higher performance than others who are not motivated (Murayama, Pekrun,
Lichtenfeld, & Vom Hofe, 2013). Motivation has been described as an ability of an individual to foster
instigations and sustainment of behaviours that are goal-directed (Pintrich & Maehr, 2002). In the
realm of mathematics learning, students with high motivation are generally assumed to outperform
others with less motivation (Singh, Granville, & Dika, 2002). Therefore, students’ motivation affects
their learning processes and outcomes (Abdurrahman & Garba, 2014; Barattucci, Pagliaro, Cafagna, &
Bosetto, 2017; Sartawi, Alsawaie, Dodeen, Tibi, & Alghazo, 2012). Everyone is naturally different.
As such, individuals with an equal amount of affective, cognitive, and psycho-motor characteristics
may not exit (Ersoy & Oksuz, 2015). Thus, it can be argued from this perspective that secondary
school students’ learning is led by motivation and that motivation also enables them in acknowledging
the relevance of mathematics to their lives after secondary school education.

Schunk and Mullen (2013) conceptualised motivation as a process at which individuals begin
and sustain their goal-directed activities. In the realm of educational settings, many researchers put
achievement motivation at a spotlight. For instance, Elliot and Church (1997) in their empirical study,
argued that achievement motivation is a pervasive feature of an individual that manifests through
strivings for competence on goal-oriented activities. A similar construct to achievement motivation is
“motivation to learn” which entails deliberate engagements in academic activities such that new skills
and knowledge are eventually acquired (Denzine & Brown, 2015). Students that are filled with
learning enjoyment are more probable to be interested in the learning activity, value it, and
demonstrate a commitment to such activity in a way that their persistence is enhanced coupled with
increased performance (Adao, Bueno, Persia, & Landicho, 2015). On the other hand, students that do
not enjoy learning mathematics are less probable to be interested in the learning activity. They have
less value for such activity and demonstrate less commitment in a way that their persistence is reduced
coupled with decreased performance (Denzine & Brown, 2015). Hence, motivation and its various
types are important factors in students’ academic performance.

The relationship between motivation and academic performance of students cannot be

underestimated. Singh et al. (2002), in an empirical study, argued that motivation has a significant
contribution to the academic performance of students. Motivation contributes significantly not only to
learning outcomes of secondary school students but also across childhood learning through
adolescence (Tella, 2007). Multiple shreds of evidence in diverse fields of studies including
mathematics have been documented on the strong relationships between motivation, persistence on
learning in the face obstacles, learning curiosity, learning outcomes, approaches to learning, and
performance of students (Barattucci et al., 2017; Denzine & Brown, 2015; Zakariya, 2019).Despite
the influence of motivation to learn on students’ achievement in mathematics, a well-
developed measure of the construct with a focus on Nigerian secondary school students is
lacking in the literature. Considering the fact Nigerian secondary school students are highly
prone to performance attrition in mathematics (Zakariya, Ibrahim, & Adisa, 2016) coupled
with cultural sensitivity of personal factors such as motivation, one may argue that the
motivation scales developed elsewhere could lack validity and reliability in the Nigerian
context. As such, with a reliance on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985a, 1985b)
and on relevant literature (e.g., Keller, 1987; Pintrich, Smith, Duncan, & Mckeachie, 1991),
the present study is aimed at developing a measure that exposes motivation to learning
mathematics with a focus on secondary school students in Nigeria.

315
International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 17 Number 1, 2021
© 2021 INASED

A potential of the present lies in its ability to indigenise the measure of motivation to learn,
such that, a high prediction of students' performance in mathematics may be achieved. Further,
secondary school teachers, curriculum planners, policymakers and other education stakeholders will
benefit from the findings of the present as proxies toward the improvement of students' performance in
mathematics. It is important to remark that the present article reports only preliminary findings of an
ongoing project on students' motivation and its relationship with other personal factors. Therefore, the
results of initial exploratory factor analyses and reliability of the instrument are reported.

Conceptual framework

Academic motivation in self-determination theory

Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985a, 1985b) provides a theoretical framework for
motivation by providing a combination of both empirical and conceptual explanations to motives
behind individuals’ behaviours. Self-determination theory (SDT) postulated that the basis of
individuals' motivation is their psychological needs. In more specific terms, psychological needs as
competence, autonomy, and relatedness are crucial needs that enhance individuals’ motivation.
Empirical evidence has been reported to back these claims. For instance, Deci and Ryan (1985a)
reported that students’ competence, their perceived autonomy, and relatedness have direct effects on
motivation to learn. Several other educational researchers have demonstrated applications of SDT as a
theoretical structure to motivation in diverse areas such as curriculum instruction (Ryan, 1995), school
learning (Deci & Ryan, 1985), physical exercise, and health care (Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997).

The self-determination theory postulates three types of achievement motivation. These are
intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. Intrinsic motivation describes a situation
whereby an individual involves in an activity for the sake of the activity itself, the pleasure derived
from it, and satisfaction brought about in participating in such activity (Deci & Ryan, 1985b).
Achievement intrinsic motivation facilitates learning, fosters competence and stems from an
individual's psychological needs and determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). On the other hand, extrinsic
motivation has been described as something that “pertains to a wide variety of behaviors where the
goals of action extend beyond those inherent in the activity itself” (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992, p.
600). The third type of motivation, amotivation, involves a situation whereby a person is neither
motivated intrinsically nor motivated extrinsically. As it relates to academic settings, students that are
amotivated feel incompetent on learnings tasks, show lack of self-control, and ascribe their failures to
something beyond their capability (Ayub, 2010).

The relationship between motivation and academic performance have been studied extensively
over the years. As such, empirical evidence has substantially established a positive correlation between
motivation and students’ academic performance (Kusurkar, Ten, Vos, Westers, & Croiset, 2013;
Lemos & Veríssimo, 2014; Sartawi et al., 2012; Singh et al., 2002). In a study involving 375 junior
secondary schools, Abdurrahman and Garba (2014) investigated the impact of motivation on students’
academic achievement in mathematics. One of the important findings of their study was a significant
difference that was found in the academic achievement of high motivated (M=48.23, SD = 23.11) and
low motivated (M= 28.05, SD = 17.00) students in mathematics (t(373) = 12.36, p < .05). It was also
revealed that there was a significant gender difference on effect motivation on academic performance
between males (M = 55.10, SD = 19.51) and female (M = 32.01, SD = 13.79) students (t(373) = 15.80,
p < .05). These findings are also corroborated in a more recent study on the effect of motivation on
academic performance was reported by Mercader, Presentación, Siegenthaler, and Molinero (2017).
The longitudinal research examined the predictive power of some dimensions of achievement
motivation on mathematics academic performance of school children. Thus, academic motivation may
be argued to not only influence students’ performance in mathematics but also varies across gender
among secondary students.

316
 International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 17 Number 1, 2021
© 2021 INASED

Measures of achievement motivation

Scale developments for measuring achievement motivation have attracted global attention, and
studies with this intention are well documented for more than thirty years. In an attempt to ensure
ways of establishing major determinants of students’ motivation to learn coupled with finding
systematic procedures of knowing these determinants, Keller (1987) developed the ARCS motivation
model. Keller identified four different constituents of the motivation of students. These constituents
are confidence, attention, relevance, and satisfaction. The ARCS model was utilised in developing
Keller's instructional material motivational scale. This survey instrument is a 36-item Likert scale type
with four factors: Confidence, attention, relevance, and satisfaction for promoting and sustaining
motivation (Keller, 1987). However, this instrument was explicitly developed for instructional design
purposes which to some extent limits its applicability to mathematics education research.

Another omnibus instrument designed to expose motivation is the motivated strategies for
learning questionnaire (MSLQ). This instrument was developed by Pintrich et al. (1991) and has been
adapted and validated by researchers in different countries. Some of the countries are Turkey (e.g.,
Karadeniz, Büyüköztürk, Akgün, Çakmak, & Demirel, 2008), Hong Kong (e.g., Lee, Yin, & Zhang,
2010), Czech Republic (e.g., Jakešová & Hrbáčková, 2014), and Pakistan (e.g., Nausheen, 2016).
MSLQ is made up of two subscales: motivation and learning strategies. Both the motivation and the
learning strategies subscales have several sub-components with evidence of construct validity and
internal consistency of its items (Pintrich et al., 1991).

Moreover, another crucial achievement motivation instrument is the Échelle de Motivation

enÉducation (EME) that was formerly available in French (Vallerand, Blais, Brière, & Pelletier, 1989)
and later translated to English language and renamed academic motivation scale (AMS) by (Vallerand
et al., 1992). The AMS was developed based on the self-regulated theory and consisted of 28 items.
These items that are further divided into seven subscales hypothesised to access three distinct types of
intrinsic motivation (intrinsic motivation to accomplish things, intrinsic motivation to know, and
intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation), three distinct types of extrinsic motivation (introjected,
external, and identified regulation), and amotivation. The sample for the study involved 745
undergraduate students from the province of Ontario, with a mean age of 21 years. The AMS has a
satisfactory level of item internal consistency (Cronbach alpha value = .81) and short-term stability
over a period of one month using the test-retest method (correlation coefficient = .79). This instrument
was embraced by mathematics educators worldwide, and a psychometric investigation of it can be
found, elsewhere (Cokley & Helm, 2001).

A cross-examination of the literature on mathematics-related motivation scales reveals that

very few direct mathematics motivation scales are available. Most of the available mathematics
motivation scales are adaptations from omnibus scales on motivation. Typical examples of these
adapted motivational scales into mathematics can be found in the literature (Liu & Lin, 2010; Yavuz,
Ozyildirim, & Dogan, 2012). After an extensive and to some extent exhaustive search of the literature,
it is observed that the only well-documented direct mathematics motivation scale is the primary school
mathematics motivation scale (PSMMS) reported by (Ersoy & Oksuz, 2015). As such, to the best of
the researchers’ knowledge, there is no scale specifically developed to measure secondary school
students’ achievement motivation in mathematics. This lack of direct measuring instrument for
achievement motivation in mathematics with a focus on secondary school students calls for the
development of a new scale. Further, we embark on developing a new scale because of its scarcity and
we opine that a complete adaptation of an existing scale might not be fruitful due to context and
cultural specificity of motivation.

317
International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 17 Number 1, 2021
© 2021 INASED

The present research

Item Development

To develop Item development for mathematics motivation scale in the present study was based
on adaptations from the literature reviewed in the measures of academic motivation section. These
adaptations require changing of some item wordings and inclusion of mathematics in some items to
reflect the specificity of the subject. The initial MMS contains 26 items with the first two items about
student’s age and sex and the remaining 24 items capture statements on mathematics motivation of the
students. Likert scale format was utilised with five points subcategories. Such that students need to
rate their agreement or otherwise using one of the following codes: strongly disagree (SD), disagree
(D), neither agree nor disagree (N), agree (A), and strongly agree (SA). The 24 items are subjected to
exploratory factor analysis to determine its dimensions. Some mathematics education professors are
engaged to examine the face and content validity of MMS before data collection. Their
recommendations, suggestions, and comments are implemented to improve the validity of the
instrument. Sample items on the MMS are presented in the result section.

Research design

The research design adopted in the current study is a survey type. This entails a one-time
survey instrument administration to foster statistical analyses of the collected data (Jansen, 2010). The
construct (mathematics motivation of secondary school students) was studied in its natural form
without any manipulation of the construct by the researchers. The researchers simply collect the data
using the MMS, and the collected data are analysed to give an objective description of the construct.

Data collection and analysis

The MMS was initially administered to 460 senior secondary school students who volunteered
to take part in the study by given their individual consents. An adequate sample composed of 224
(51%) males and 207 (42.7%) females and eight students did not indicate their gender types to give a
total of 439. The age range of the student is between 12 to 25 years, with a mean of 17.12 years. The
survey instrument was administered with the assistant of five teachers in training distributed in various
schools. Appropriate permissions are sought and granted in line with the data protection regulations in
the country. The students are appropriately informed of the complete anonymous nature of the
instrument, and they voluntarily completed the MMS prior to their first lecture of the day. This survey
administration took only 10 minutes such that their lessons are not affected. Twenty-nine out of a total
of 460 copies of the instrument are excepted from the analysis because of incomplete and
inappropriate responses received from some students. The effective 439-sample was analysed using
statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) version 25.0.

RESULTS

Exploratory factor analysis

The analysis proceeded by conducting exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to explore the factor
structure and to investigate the number of factors to retain in the MMS subcategories. However, before
conducting the EFA, the sample adequacy, as well as multicollinearity of the data, are investigated by
running Bartlett's sphericity test (BST) and looking into the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index
coupled with the input correlation matrix determinant. The BST test was found to be significant (p <
.01) with the KMO index of .92 and the correlation matrix determinant of 0.002 was found which is
greater than the recommended value (0.00001) for ensuring an adequate EFA sample (Field, 2018).

318
 International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 17 Number 1, 2021
© 2021 INASED

Thus, the sample is adequate to conduct EFA. Further, it was found that the data do not contain any
multicollinearity with a significant approximate BTS chi-square (𝜒2 = 2387.87, 𝑑𝑓 = 276, p < 0.01).

Exploratory factor analysis was applied to the 24 items that are conceptualised to expose the
mathematics motivation with a principal component analysis for factors extraction. A total of five
factors are extracted with items loaded on separate factors without any substantial cross-loading,
accounting for a total of 48.99% variance. The variance explained was such that factor 1 explained
29.11%, factor 2 explained 6.32%, factor 3 explained 4.81%, factor 4 explained 4.48%, and factor 5
explained 4.27% of the total variance. In an attempt to enhance the interpretability of the factors
extracted varimax with Kaiser normalisation was used to rotate the extracted factors. The varimax
rotation converged after 13 iterations whose results are presented in Table 1. The communalities of
each item after the extraction are as well also presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Rotated component matrix and item communalities

Component Communality
1 2 3 4 5
Item 1 .724 .601
Item 2 .569 .455
Item 3 .612 .475
Item 4 .588 .517
Item 5 .445 .589
Item 6 .647 .473
Item 7 .454 .286
Item 8 .612 .492
Item 9 .385 .508
Item 10 .648 .614
Item 11 .543 .512
Item 12 .599 .432
Item 13 .508 .429
Item 14 .596 .483
Item 15 .655 .631
Item 16 .540 .501
Item 17 .427 .493
Item 18 .393 .425
Item 19 .656 .618
Item 20 521 .471
Item 21 .496 .382
Item 22 .411 .385
Item 23 .500 .490
Item 24 .661 .498

Factor 1 is made up of ten items. These include items 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 20, 22 and 23.
The statements of these items describe students’ self-efficacy for learning and performance. Hence,
this factor was named self-efficacy for learning and performance motivation (SLPM). Factor 2 was
made up of four items; items 2, 4, 6 and 16. The statements of these items describe students’
intrinsically motivated goals. Hence, this factor was named intrinsic motivation (IM). Factor 3 was
made up of three items; items 10, 19 and 24. The statements of these items describe students’
perceived utility of mathematics. Hence, this factor was named the utility of mathematics motivation
(UMM). Factor 4 was made up of three items; items 1, 3 and 21. The statements of these items
describe students’ perceived importance of mathematics. Hence, this factor was named as the
importance of mathematics motivation (IMM). Factor 5 was made up of four items; items 9, 12, 15
and 18. The statements of these items describe students’ extrinsically motivated goals. Hence, this

319
International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 17 Number 1, 2021
© 2021 INASED

factor was named extrinsic motivation (EM). It is important to remark that the naming of each of the
emerged factors of the MMS is an offshoot from the item statements. The authors use their discretions
coupled with some insights from the theory and previous literature to come about these names. As
such, the names are descriptive of the items that form each factor and are subject to future
modifications. More so, the factors as well as the respective items capture only intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation as explicated under the conceptual framework section. Table 2 presents some sample
items in each respective MMS subscale.

Table 2 Sample items in each MMS subscale

Subscale Sample item
Self-efficacy for learning and performance Item 5: I am confident I can understand the basic concepts taught in
motivation mathematics
Item 8: I’m confident I can understand the most complex concepts presented
by the mathematics teacher
Intrinsic motivation Item 4: When I have the opportunity, I choose mathematics past questions and
solve on my own
Item 16: Understanding the topics of mathematics is very important to me
Utility of mathematics motivation Item 19: I think that learning mathematics is important because it stimulates
my thinking
Item 24: I want to know mathematics so that I can teach my friends and
younger ones
Importance of mathematics motivation Item 1: In a mathematics class, I prefer topics that really challenge me so I
can learn new things
Item 21: I study hard in mathematics because I want to represent my school in
mathematics competition
Extrinsic motivation Item 9: I want to do well in mathematics because it is important to show my
ability to my family, friends, employer, or others
Item 12: I can do well in mathematics if my parent and teachers can give
some gifts

Reliability of MMS

As evidence of reliability and internal consistency of the MMS and its five subcategories, we
computed Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. The ensuing results from this analysis are presented in Table
4. None of the values is less than .50, and the reliability coefficient of the 24 items MMS is .89, which
showed high internal consistency of the items (Field, 2018).

Table 1 Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of Items in each MMS subcategory

Factor Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items 
MMS 98.02 203.32 14.26 24 .89
SLPM 39.84 46.68 6.83 10 .80
UMM 12.42 6.27 2.50 3 .66
EM 16.70 9.48 3.08 4 .64
IM 16.42 8.49 2.91 4 .61
IMM 12.47 5.50 2.35 3 .53

CONCLUSION

Motivation is a central issue in the field of education, leading students to better study
approaches to learning and learning outcomes (Barattucci, 2019; Barattucci & Bocciolesi, 2018;
Zakariya, Bjørkestøl, Nilsen, Goodchild, & Lorås, 2020). However, despite the diverse applications
and importance of acts based on student’s motivation in mathematics, there are few instruments
developed to expose this construct with a focus on mathematics learning. The purpose of the present is
to develop a short-item scale that captures mathematics achievement motivation among secondary
school students. The sophistication of both theoretical and statistical procedures used in developing the

320
 International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 17 Number 1, 2021
© 2021 INASED

instrument is conjectured to foster generalisation. The study covers a total sample of 439 students in
their second year of secondary school education. Analyses of the psychometric properties of the
instrument provide promising results and confirmed its five-factor structure (self-efficacy for learning
and performance motivation, intrinsic motivation, the utility of mathematics motivation, the
importance of mathematics motivation, and extrinsic motivation).

Results showed that MMS could be improved, and a future confirmatory factor analysis
should follow. The reliability coefficient of the instrument was .89, even if some sub-scales (e.g., the
importance of mathematics motivation) showed not completely acceptable reliability value. The
established reliability coefficient of MMS is higher than that of some similar instruments reported in
the literature (e.g., Vallerand et al., 1992). The study contributes to the literature on the topic by
confirming the importance of multiple factors in motivation, and in particular, those supported by the
some of the reviewed literature like the utility of mathematics, and intrinsic motivation (e.g., Liu &
Lin, 2010; Yavuz et al., 2012).

However, some of the various limitations of this research need to be mentioned. The study
sample was of convenience. We did not collect any other important socio-demographical information
to look for relations between variables, and we did not measure any other learning outcome or learning
variables to look for discriminant validity or convergent validity. Further research is recommended to
confirm the factorial structure of the MMS using confirmatory factor analysis.

The instrument for measuring students’ mathematics motivation with 24 items and five
subcategories can be profitably used in different contexts. The instrument would be useful to
education stakeholders who are directly involved in teaching and coordinating affairs related to
secondary school mathematics such as mathematics classroom teachers, educators, psychologists, etc.
Even though the data utilised for the current study are collected from northern Nigeria, its ensuing
findings are presumed to have high generalisation as a result of the level of sophistication in statistical
tests applied. This instrument is therefore recommended to measure students’ mathematics motivation
at the secondary school levels. The current study underlines the importance of investing more on
monitoring students’ motivation in learning mathematics, in order to manage teaching context factors
(teaching methods, course organisation, laboratories, activities, etc.), approaches to learning, attitudes
toward mathematics, and improve achievement (Zakariya, 2017; Zakariya, Goodchild, Bjørkestøl, &
Nilsen, 2019). The final 24 – item mathematics motivation scale will be available whenever requested
from the corresponding author of this article.

REFERENCES

Abdurrahman, M. S., & Garba, I. M. (2014). The impact of motivation on students’ academic
achievement in Kebbi State junior secondary school mathematics. International Journal of
Advance Research, 2(12), 1-15.

Adao, R. M., Bueno, M. B., Persia, J. M., & Landicho, L. C. (2015). Academic motivation among
college students with math anxiety: Basis for an enhancement program. Asia Pacific Journal
of Education, Arts and Sciences, 2(3), 58-62.

Ayub, N. (2010). Effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on academic performance. Pakistan
Business Review, 1(1), 363–373.

Barattucci, M. (2019). Predicting learning outcomes in distance learning universities: Perspectives

from an integrated model. In B. D. e. al. (Ed.), Higher Education Learning Methodologies
and Technologies Online. HELMeTO 2019. Communications in Computer and Information
Science (Vol. 1091, pp. 30–40): Springer, Cham.

321
International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 17 Number 1, 2021
© 2021 INASED

Barattucci, M., & Bocciolesi, E. (2018). Phenomenography in the student learning perspective: A
review of studies in academic contexts. Encyclopaideia, 22(50). doi:10.6092/issn.1825-
8670/7900

Barattucci, M., Pagliaro, S., Cafagna, D., & Bosetto, D. (2017). An examination of the applicability of
Biggs’ 3P learning process model to Italian university. Journal of e-Learning and
Knowledge Society, 13(1). doi:10.20368/1971-8829/1277

Cokley, K. O., & Helm, K. (2001). Testing the construct validity of scores on the multidimensional
inventory of black identity. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development,
34(2), 80-95. doi:10.1080/07481756.2001.12069025

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in
personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109-134. doi:10.1016/0092-
6566(85)90023-6

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior:
Springer US.

Denzine, G., & Brown, R. (2015). Motivation to learn and achievement. In R. Papa (Ed.), Media Rich
Instruction: Springer, Cham.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72(1), 218-232.

Ersoy, E., & Oksuz, C. (2015). Primary school mathematics motivation scale. European Scientific
Journal, 11(16), 37–50.

Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). London: SAGE
Publication Ltd.

Jakešová, J., & Hrbáčková, K. (2014). The Czech adaptation of motivated strategies for learning
questionnaire (MSLQ) Asian Social Science, 10(12), 72–78. doi:10.5539/ass.v10n12p72

Jansen, H. (2010). The logic of qualitative survey research and its position in the field of social
research methods. Qualitative Social Research, 11(2), 1-21. doi:10.17169/fqs-11.2.1450

Karadeniz, S., Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Çakmak, E. K., & Demirel, F. (2008). The Turkish
adaptation study of motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) for 12 – 18 year
old children: Results of confirmatory factor analysis 1. The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 7(4), 1303–6521.

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of
Instructional Development, 10, 2–10. doi:10.1007/BF02905780

Kusurkar, R. A., Ten, C. J., Vos, C. M., Westers, P., & Croiset, G. (2013). How motivation affects
academic performance: a structural equation modelling analysis. Advances in Health
Sciences Education, 18, 57–69. doi:10.1007/s10459-012-9354-3

Lee, J. C., Yin, H., & Zhang, Z. (2010). Adaptation and analysis of motivated strategies for learning
questionnaire in the Chinese setting. International Journal of Testing, 10(2), 149–165.
doi:10.1080/15305050903534670

322
 International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 17 Number 1, 2021
© 2021 INASED

Lemos, M. S., & Veríssimo, L. (2014). The relationships between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, and achievement, along elementary school. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 112, 930-938. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1251

Liu, E. Z. F., & Lin, C. H. (2010). The survey study of mathematics motivated strategies for learning
questionnaire (MMSLQ) for grade 10 – 12 Taiwanese. The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 9(2), 221–233.

Mercader, J., Presentación, M., Siegenthaler, R., & Molinero, V. (2017). Motivation and mathematics
performance: a longitudinal study in early educational stages. Revista de Psicodidáctica
(English ed.), 22(2), 1–14. doi:10.1387/RevPsicodidact.16466

Murayama, K., Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., & Vom Hofe, R. (2013). Predicting long-term growth in
students' mathematics achievement: the unique contributions of motivation and cognitive
strategies. Child Development, 84(4), 1475-1490. doi:10.1111/cdev.12036

Nausheen, M. (2016). An adaptation of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) for
postgraduate students in Pakistan: Results of an exploratory factor analysis. Bulletin of
Education and Research, 38(1), 1-16.

Pintrich, P. R., & Maehr, M. L. (2002). Advances in motivation and achievement: New directions in
measures and methods. Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Duncan, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the
motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, Michigan: National
Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

Sartawi, A., Alsawaie, O. N., Dodeen, H., Tibi, S., & Alghazo, I. M. (2012). Predicting mathematics
achievement by motivation and self-efficacy across gender and achievement levels.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 59–77.

Schunk, D. H., & Mullen, C. A. (2013). Toward a conceptual model of mentoring research:
Integration with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 25(3), 361–389.
doi:10.1007/s10648-013-9233-3

Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of
mathematics and science achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323–
332. doi:10.1080/00220670209596607

Tella, A. (2007). The impact of motivation on student’s academic achievement and learning outcomes
in mathematics among secondary school students in Nigeria. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science & Technology, 3(2), 149–156. doi:10.12973/ejmste/75390

Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of
behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60(3), 599–620. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.1992.tb00922.x

Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., & Pelletier, L. G. (1989). Construction et validation de
l'échelle de motivation en éducation (EME) [Construction and validation of the Motivation
toward Education Scale]. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des
sciences du comportement, 21(3), 323-349. doi:10.1037/h0079855

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieries, E. F. (1992).
The academic motivation scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in

323
 International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 17 Number 1, 2021
© 2021 INASED

education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(1), 1003–1017.

doi:10.1177/0013164492052004025

Yavuz, G., Ozyildirim, F., & Dogan, N. (2012). Mathematics motivation scale: a validity and
reliability. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46, 1633-1638.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.352

Zakariya, Y. F. (2017). Development of attitudes towards mathematics scale (ATMS) using Nigerian
data – Factor analysis as a determinant of attitude subcategories. International Journal of
Progressive Education, 13(2), 74-84.

Zakariya, Y. F. (2019). Study approaches in higher education mathematics: Investigating the statistical
behaviour of an instrument translated into Norwegian. Education Sciences, 9(3), 191.
doi:10.3390/educsci9030191

Zakariya, Y. F., Bjørkestøl, K., Nilsen, H. K., Goodchild, S., & Lorås, M. (2020). University students’
learning approaches: an adaptation of the revised two-factor study process questionnaire to
Norwegian. Studies in Education Evaluation, 100816. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100816

Zakariya, Y. F., Goodchild, S., Bjørkestøl, K., & Nilsen, H. K. (2019). Calculus self-efficacy
inventory: Its development and relationship with approaches to learning. Education Sciences,
9(3), 170. doi:10.3390/educsci9030170

Zakariya, Y. F., Ibrahim, M. O., & Adisa, L. O. (2016). Impacts of problem-based learning on
performance and retention in mathematics among junior secondary school students in Sabon-
Gari area of Kaduna state. International Journal for Innovative Research in
Multidisciplinary Field, 2(9), 42-47.

324

View publication stats