Pedagogical Research

2022, 7(2), em0124

e-ISSN: 2468-4929
https://www.pedagogicalresearch.com Research Article OPEN ACCESS

Middle School Students’ Engagement in Mathematics and Learning

Approaches: Structural Equation Modelling
Emine Ozgur Sen 1*

1
Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Yozgat Bozok University, Yozgat, TURKEY
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Citation: Sen, E. O. (2022). Middle School Students’ Engagement in Mathematics and Learning Approaches: Structural Equation Modelling.
Pedagogical Research, 7(2), em0124. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/11908

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Received: 3 Jan. 2022 This study aims to investigate the effects of middle school students’ learning approaches and their attitudes
Accepted: 5 Mar. 2022 towards mathematics on their engagement in mathematics course. The research cross-sectional survey design
was used in the quantitative research model. The research was conducted with the participation of 5th-8th graders
who attended schools located in a city in the Central Anatolian region of Turkey. Thus, 383 students in total, 209
of whom were female and 174 of whom were male, were included in the research. Three different data collection
instruments were used in the study: student engagement in mathematics scale, approaches to learning
mathematics scale, and scale for assessing attitudes towards mathematics in secondary education. The data were
analyzed on structural equation modelling. As a result, significant correlations were found between participants’
engagement in mathematics course and their learning approaches while no significant differences were found
between their engagement in mathematics and their attitudes towards the course.

Keywords: engagement, learning approaches, attitudes, mathematics

INTRODUCTION

Learning mathematics is a complex process (Moenikia & Zahed-Babelan, 2010). Both cognitive and emotional factors are
influential in achievement in mathematics and in retention (Singh et al., 2002). Therefore, how students learn mathematics is an
issue as remarkable learning the course content (Cano & Berbén, 2009; Goktepe-Yildiz & Ozdemir, 2018; Segers et al., 2008).
Mathematics curricula were given prominence with this feature when emotional factors such as interest, attitudes and perception
which influenced learning in particular were noticed (NCTM, 2014). In addition to those components, several socioeconomic
factors, and factors such as the influence of families, peers, and schools which affect learning mathematics are also available.
Research on engagement, attitudes and learning approaches- which are influential in achievement in mathematics have received
interest in recent years due to the fact that it is difficult to change variables related to home and family (Cagirgan & Soyturk, 2021;
Singh et al., 2002). Besides, the above-mentioned influences are greatly important for students in learning mathematical concepts
(Liston & O'Donoghue, 2010). Hence, this paper sets out to investigate the correlations between learning approaches and attitudes
towards mathematics course, which affect students’ engagement in mathematics.
Engagement
Engagement is defined as a function of the factors for example participation, need, emotions, intention, interest, and so on
(Azevedo et al., 2012). Krause and Coates (2008) argue that engagement is a large phenomenon which is both academic and non-
academic and which also has social aspects. It involves a multi-dimensional structure. Accordingly, Willms (2003) considers it as
two-dimensional labelled as behavioral and psychological engagement while Fredricks et al. (2004) consider it as three-
dimensional labelled as behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement and some others consider it as four-dimensional
labelled as behavioral, cognitive, social, and academic engagement (Christenson et al., 2008) or labelled as behavioral, emotional,
cognitive, and agentic engagement (Reeve, 2012), or labelled as cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and social engagement (Wang
et al., 2016). For mathematics course, engagement is classified as emotional, social and cognitive engagement by Rimm-Kaufman
(2010). Emotional engagement involves interest, emotions, curiosity, enthusiasm, values, attitudes (Fredricks et al., 2004; Reeve,
2012), desire to participate in classes, motivation (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012), attitudes towards teacher and peer relations, and
emotions (Bingham & Okagaki, 2012). Besides, belongingness–that is to say, the fact that school is a significant part of life–involves
elements important for achievement outside school (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Besides, social engagement represents students’
potential to obey in-class written or unwritten rules. It contains, for instance, behavioral of whether or not they attend classes in
time or not, their communication with their teachers and classmates or hindering their friends’ studies. The degree of social

Copyright © 2022 by Author/s and Licensed by Modestum. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 / 11 Sen / Pedagogical Research, 7(2), em0124

engagement affects students’ learning. Thus, students with higher social engagement learn easier whereas the opposite has
reverse effects (Finn & Zimmer, 2012).
Cognitive engagement involves internal motivation for learning, strategies (Bingham & Okagaki, 2012; Fredricks et al., 2004),
making efforts to learn within the framework of activities offered and participation in classes and activities (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012).
Students who have engagement in the course tend to give prominence to conceptual understanding and have tendency to use
self-regulation strategies instead of detailing such as adopting deep learning approaches or using individualized strategies
(Bingham & Okagaki, 2012; Reeve, 2012). Behaviors of cognitive engagement include asking greater number of questions,
performing challenging tasks, revising the learnt knowledge, searching for sources of knowledge and using strategies. Individuals
with higher cognitive engagement make more efforts to learn complicated subjects (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Engagement means
students’ awareness of their capabilities and thus setting up emotional ties with a course and taking on active roles in activities
(Nayir, 2015). Engagement in mathematics course expresses students’ motivation for learning mathematics, achievement,
confidence and their emotional states about mathematics. Their engagement in mathematics play critical roles in their acquisition
of mathematical knowledge and skills. Besides, the more engagement a student has in learning, the more he will be open to
learning (Moenikia & Zahed-Babelan, 2010). As a result, the student’s commitment to the mathematics lesson affects both affective
and cognitive status towards the mathematics lesson.
Learning Approaches
Learning approaches represent the strategies used depending on desires and motivation which stem from individual
differences (Diseth & Martinsen, 2003) and learners’ preferences for the point of learning (Biggs, 1979). Several studies
investigating students’ learning approaches were conducted especially in the late 1970s (Chan, 2003; Darlington, 2011; Diseth &
Martinsen, 2003; Ekinci, 2009). Learning approaches were suggested in a study conducted by Marton and Säljö (1976) which
investigated Swiss university students’ levels of information processing. The researchers analyzed how students’ comprehended
a reading passage and how they started to learn. While a group of the students considered the reading text as a separate unit of
grammar that might be asked in an exam and that needed memorizing, the other group considered the text as a whole and tried
to comprehend it and therefore the researchers described two different approaches called deep and surface. Later, they also
described strategic approach in addition to the two types they had described (Biggs, 1979; Entwistle & Waterston, 1988; Ramsden,
1979).
Deep approach was defined as the approach in which students aim to understand a subject and to search for meanings.
Students have internal interest in subjects in this approach and they enjoy studying. Thus, students who adopt the approach can,
for instance, easily communicate with others (Darlington, 2011; Lucas, 2001). Students with surface approach, however, consider
learning tasks as elements imposed on them and they adopt memorization-based strategies. They handle the parts of a subject
separately and fail to see the whole (Lucas, 2001). It is not likely to gain experience and skills consistent with high quality learning
outcomes through surface approach only (Hall et al., 2004). Generally, students who believe that knowledge is precise and
unchangeable can be said to adopt surface approach (Chan, 2003).
Strategic approach was recommended by Ramsden (1979) to describe test and achievement-oriented students’ learning
approaches because deep and surface approaches are suitable to more free environments. Competition–in other words,
achievement, is prominent in strategic approach. Students can use any strategy (procedures, comprehension, and memorization)
serving to their purpose to achieve success in this approach unlike in the other approaches. Students who adopt strategic
approach can reunite deep approach with surface approach (Diseth & Martinsen, 2003). Generally, students who would like to get
higher marks and who work in an organized way adopt this approach (Chirikure et al., 2019). Actually, learning approaches are
interaction between the student and the learning situation. Therefore, learning approaches can be shaped depending on the
student’s reaction to the learning environment (Fry et al., 2003; Ramsden, 1981).
Attitudes Towards Mathematics
Studies which investigate students’ attitudes towards mathematics in education date back to a long time (Di Martino & Zan,
2011; Yang, 2015). Attitude is an important concept in learning mathematics. Attitudes towards mathematics are regarded as bias
to give positive or negative response to the course (Moenikia & Zahed-Babelan, 2010). Attitudes towards mathematics is defined
as emotional inclinations (Di Martino & Zan, 2011), and the attitudes represent emotional responses, beliefs and behaviours (Primi
et al., 2020). According to Tapia and Marsh (2004), valuing mathematics, self-confidence, enjoying mathematics, and motivation
form the essence of attitudes towards mathematics. Students with positive attitudes towards mathematics, for example, will
display positive features such as gaining new experience and enjoying mathematics (Yenilmez et al., 2007).
In fact, Taylor (1992) stresses that the process of students’ developing an attitude towards mathematics is complicated
because attitudes are influenced by individuals’ feelings, thoughts and actions. Besides, several factors such as families, social
environments, school experience and role models and experiences at earlier ages also play roles in the development of attitudes
(Hemmings et al., 2010; Taylor, 1992). Soni and Kumari (2017), on the other hand, point out that students’ attitudes towards
mathematics affect their perceptions of efficacy in mathematics. In addition to that, several studies also demonstrated that there
were positive correlations between students’ positive attitudes towards mathematics and their academic achievement (Aiken,
1970; Chen et al., 2018; Lipnevich et al., 2016; Ma, 1997; Mohd et al., 2011; Tuncer & Yilmaz, 2020; Yang, 2015). Attitudes towards
mathematics have an important role in students’ learning of mathematics. It can be said that students with positive attitudes
towards mathematics have higher academic achievement.
 Sen / Pedagogical Research, 7(2), em0124 3 / 11

The Purpose of the Study

Students’ engagement in mathematics course is influenced by several factors and leads to different learning outcomes. Some
of the students try to understand concepts while some memories the mathematical concepts and rules since cognitive
engagement is closely associated with learning approaches. In other words, students can show their engagement in mathematics
by using deep or surface approach (Kong et al., 2003). Wang et al. (2017) state that students may have more than one learning
approach at the same time instead of using a dominant concept while learning. They claim that it would be useful to exhibit the
mathematics learning profiles of students by characterizing them according to various critical concepts.
Being informed of factors which contribute to engagement in mathematics can be influential in raising mathematical
achievement (Martin & Rimm-Kaufman,2015). Therefore, Kong et al. (2003) recommend that the correlations between
engagement and deep approaches should be investigated in detail. Floyd et al. (2009), on the other hand, suggest that
engagement affects deep learning strategies in positive ways and therefore the variables probable to affect them should be
investigated in studies to be conducted. This current study aims to analyze the effects of middle school students’ approaches to
learning mathematics and their attitudes towards mathematics on their engagement in the course by using structural equation
modelling. In this context, the hypotheses listed below are tested in this study:
1. H0: Middle school students’ learning approaches in mathematics affect their engagement in mathematics in positive ways.
2. H1: Middle school students’ attitudes towards mathematics affect their engagement in mathematics in positive ways.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Students’ engagement in mathematics is of great importance in raising the effectiveness of mathematics learning and
teaching (Nayir, 2015). Trenholm et al. (2018) state that studies concerning students’ engagement in mathematics are limited in
number despite the increase in the number of studies on engagement. The majority of them focus on academic achievement. The
results obtained indicate that engagement in mathematics is influential in academic performance (Lijie et al., 2020; Reyes et al.,
2012; Singh et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2017).
Apart from the above-mentioned studies, there are also studies which investigate the correlations between self-efficacy (Liu
et al., 2018; Martin & Rimm-Kaufman, 2015; Sagkal & Sonmez, 2021), positive feelings about mathematics (Liu et al., 2018; Sagkal
& Sonmez, 2021), classroom emotional climate (Reyes et al., 2012), and teacher support (Liu et al., 2018; Martin & Rimm-Kaufman,
2015) by using structural equation modelling. One of them regarding the correlations between engagement in mathematics course
and attitudes was conducted by Lijie et al. (2020) with the participation of middle school students. As a result, the researchers
found that engagement in mathematics played a mediatory role between attitudes towards mathematics and academic
achievement. Nayir (2015) also contends that students with higher engagement can develop positive attitudes towards the course
and that it will raise academic achievement. Besides, Gopal et al. (2018), in a study conducted at university level, found that
students’ positive attitudes towards statistics course encouraged their engagement in the course.
Students’ learning approaches have significant effects on their learning outcome (Chirikure et al., 2019). Studies concerning
learning approaches can generally be said to focus on the classification of the approaches and on academic achievement
(Chirikure et al., 2019). The availability of positive correlations between deep approach and academic achievement in particular
was found in many studies (Cano, 2007; Davidson, 2002; Heikkilä & Lonka, 2006; Maciejewski & Merchant, 2016; Murphy, 2017).
Additionally, there are also studies which demonstrate that surface and strategic approaches are influential in academic
achievement (Diseth & Kobbeltvedt, 2010; Diseth & Martinsen, 2003). Moreover, students’ learning approaches were also analyzed
from various perspectives in mathematics education. Goh (2016), for instance, argued that deep approach was closely correlated
to skills such as critical thinking and problem solving.
Liston and O’Donoghue (2010), from a different perspective, found that students’ ways of learning mathematical concepts
might not be consistent with the learning approaches that they had adopted. In a similar vein, Maciejewski and Merchant (2016)
pointed out that studying mathematics required deep approach because the discipline had theorems, proof and logical system.
They found in their four-year study with undergraduate students in which they investigated the correlations between students’
marks they had received in mathematics classes and their learning approaches that deep approach was correlated to the marks
they had received in earlier years but that surface approach was negatively correlated to the marks they had received in later
years. The researchers concluded that deep approach will not result in higher marks and that surface approach will not result in
lower marks. Murphy (2017) found that surface approach had negative correlations with modelling and abstract concepts whereas
deep approach had consistent correlations with good mathematical performance and with organized learning approaches. Ekinci
(2009) found that university students mostly used surface and strategic approaches but that they used deep approach at higher
levels when they considered a learning point.
In a similar way, Darlington (2011) found that undergraduate students who received mathematics education adopted strategic
approach while studying on their own. Cano and Berbén (2009) found negative correlations between undergraduate students’
surface learning of calculus and algebra courses and their academic achievement. Chan (2003), however, found that prospective
teachers tended to achieve success through deep approach. The correlations between learning approaches and engagement were
investigated by Floyd et al. (2009). Accordingly, it was found that the students with higher engagement in a course were more likely
to use deep strategies.
4 / 11 Sen / Pedagogical Research, 7(2), em0124

METHODOLOGY

In this study, cross-sectional survey design was used as one of the quantitative research methods. Survey research aims to
describe the characteristics of certain audiences. The survey models the relationships between the measured variables
(Buyukozturk et al., 2018).
The Study Group
383 students in total were included in this study. The research was conducted in a city located in the Central Anatolian region
of Turkey. The research data were collected from five different middle schools (schools in the city center, school with law and
medium socio-economic level). 55% (n=209) of the participants were female while 45% (n=174) were male students. Of them, 27%
(n=103) were the 5th graders, 28% (n=106) were the 6th graders, 26% (n=100) were the 7th graders, and 19% (n=74) were the 8th
graders.
Data Collection Instruments
This study employs three different data collection instruments. One of them is the “student engagement in mathematics scale”.
It was developed by Rimm-Kaufman (2010) and was adapted into Turkish by Mazman-Akar et al. (2017). The scale aims to
determine the factors which influence middle school students’ engagement in mathematics. The validation and reliability test of
the scale was done with middle school students. It consisted of 13 items and three factors. The factor of emotional engagement
contained five items whereas the factor of social engagement contained four items and the factor of cognitive engagement
contained four items. The Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficients for the sub-factors were found as .776, .722, and .752,
respectively while the Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient for the overall scale was found as .872. This study found
the Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient for the scale as .865. In addition to that, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
was also done in this study. The CFI values were calculated as χ2/df=3,745; RMSA=.085; GFI=.914; AGFI=.874; NFI=.874; CFI=.903.
Some of the samples for the items in the scale are as in the following:
1. I enjoyed solving problems in classes (emotional),
2. We had a conversation about mathematics in the classroom (social), and
3. I tried to learn as much as I could in classes (cognitive).
Another scale used in the study was “approaches to learning mathematics scale”. It was developed by Goktepe-Yildiz and
Ozdemir (2018) and aimed to determine middle school students’ approaches to learning mathematics. The validation and
reliability study for the scale was done with the participation of middle school students. The scale consisted of 33 items and three
factors. The factors of deep, surface, and strategic approaches each contained 11 items. The Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency
coefficient for the sub-factors were .838, .789, and .837, respectively; whereas the value for the whole scale was .789. The value
calculated in this study for the scale was .875. The CFI values found in this study were χ2/df=4,023; RMSA=.072; GFI=.854; AGFI=.832;
NFI=.910; CFI=.912. Some of the samples for the items in the scale are as in the following:
1. I think about each section of a subject of mathematics in detail while learning them and I try to understand them (deep),
2. It seems meaningless to me because I cannot associate the subjects of mathematics with each other (surface), and
3. I plan my study of mathematics in my mind beforehand (strategic).
The third scale used was “scale for assessing attitudes towards mathematics in secondary education”. The scale which was
developed by Yáñez-Marquina and Villardón-Gallego (2016) was adapted into Turkish by Sen (2019). The scale aimed to determine
middle school students’ attitudes towards mathematics. The validation and reliability study for the scale was done with the
participation of middle school students. It consisted of 18 items and three factors. Seven items were available in the factor of self-
concept whereas five items were available in the factor of the perceived usefulness of mathematics and 6 items were available in
the factor of interest. The Cronbach’s alpha internal coefficients for the sub-factors were .89, .87, and .89, respectively while the
value .91 for the overall scale. The Cronbach’s alpha internal coefficient was calculated as .92 in this study. The values for CFI
analysis done in this study for the reliability of the scale were found as χ2/df=5,046; RMSA=.068; GFI=.921; AGFI=.897; NFI=.941;
CFI=.952. Some of the samples for the items in the scale are as in the following:
a. I was not a born math learner (self-concept),
b. Mathematics is necessary for life (perceived usefulness of mathematics), and
c. I like studying mathematics (interest).
All the scales were in 5-pointed Likert type (ranging between 1-totally disagree, … 5-totally agree).
Data Collection
The necessary permissions were obtained from the provincial directorate of national education prior to data collection. The
relevant data were collected under the control of the researcher. Initially, the teacher of the class in which the data would be
collected was contacted and parents were sent written information about the research. The data were collected in the class hour
that the teacher chose. Before collecting the data, the students were informed of how to complete the questionnaire form and it
was explained that they might not complete the form unless they want to. They were allowed a class hour (40 minutes) to complete
the questionnaire and they completed it in 25-35 minutes. The forms which were not completed or which contained repeated
answers were excluded from the scope of the study. Thus, approximately 4% of the questionnaire forms which were considered
invalid were excluded from the study.
 Sen / Pedagogical Research, 7(2), em0124 5 / 11

Table 1. The results of descriptive statistics

Variables Min Max 𝐗̅ SD Sum Skewness Kurtosis
Emotional 1.00 5.00 3.85 0.92 1,478.30 -.886 .383
Social 1.00 5.00 3.36 0.61 1,288.25 -.648 .249
Cognitive 1.00 5.00 3.63 0.88 1,390.33 -.465 -.247
Surface 1.00 5.00 2.95 0.73 1,131.46 .688 -1.564
Deep 1.00 5.00 3.79 0.75 1,454.02 -.669 .361
Strategic 1.27 5.00 3.89 0.73 1,491.89 -.651 .258
Self-concept 1.00 5.00 3.60 1.03 1,382.38 -.648 -.360
Perceived usefulness of math 1.00 5.00 3.71 1.02 1,421.90 -1.758 .920
Interest 1.00 5.00 4.20 0.92 1,610.93 -.514 -.506
Note. SD: Standard deviation

Table 2. Fit indices for the measurement model and the structural equation model
Fit indices Measurement model SEM Perfect fit Acceptable fit Resources
Χ2/df 2.236 1.419 0≤χ2/df≤3 3≤χ2/df≤5 Byrne (1998)
RMSEA .057 .053 .05≤RMSA≤.08 .06≤RMSA≤.08 Browne and Cudeck (1993)
GFI .970 .984 .95≤GFI≤1.00 .90≤GFI≤.95 Hooper et al. (2008)
AGFI .944 .967 .90≤AGFI≤1.00 .85≤AGFI≤.90 Hooper et al. (2008)
Tabachnick and Fidell (2001);
NFI .964 .983 .95≤NFI≤1.00 .90≤NFI≤.95
Thompson (2004)
CFI .979 .995 .95≤CFI≤1.00 .90≤CFI≤.95 Thompson (2004)
Note. SEM: Structural equation modelling

Data Analysis
The data set was put to MS Excel programme before analyzing the data. The descriptive statistical results and normality and
skewness values for the data set were calculated on the IBA SPSS 22 programme. The skewness values of the variables ranged
between -1.758 and .688 whereas the kurtosis values ranged between -1.564 and .920. George and Mallery (2010) point out that
the values of ±1.0 are perfectly acceptable but that the values of ±2.0 are also acceptable. Therefore, the variables can be regarded
as having normal distribution.
Confirmatory factor analysis was done so as to test whether or not the data set was suitable for analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin (KMO) coefficient and the Bartlett sphericity values were also checked. The KMO value should be bigger than .60 and the
Bartlett sphericity test should be significant in factor analysis (Pallant, 2013). The KMO value for engagement in mathematics and
for learning approaches was found to be .89 at the end of the analysis, and it was found to be .90 for attitudes towards
mathematics. The Bartlett test results (p<.01) were found significant. Thus, the results indicated that the data were suitable for
factor analysis. The research hypotheses were tested with structural equation modelling. Table 1 shows the results for descriptive
analysis of the variables included in the structural equation modelling. The average scores of the variables included in the model
are on the mid-point of the range of scores. Accordingly, while the variable with the highest score is interest, the one with the
lowest average is surface approach.

Measurement Model
Data analysis was examined by using IBM AMOS V22 (Chicago, USA). First, the measurement models for the variables were
evaluated. Chi-square, p-value, and fit indices should be investigated in evaluating measurement models (Raykov & Marcoulides,
2000). In order to test whether the model is supported, the two-step method most commonly used in the literature was used. First,
the measurement model was tested and then the structural equation model was examined (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The results
of the fit indices found in the first analysis were found to be within the desired limits. Yet, the standardized route coefficient for
the sub-factor of surface approach of the approaches to learning scale was below .50 (0.067). Kline (1998) argues that standardized
route coefficients below .10 are considered to have small effects, values of .30 and around .30 are considered to have medium
effects and values of .50 and above are considered to have large effects. Modification indices were examined in this study because
the standardized route coefficient for surface approach had small effects. In consequence, the recommendation for correction in
relation to the variable was observed.
After the observation, the variable of surface approach was removed from the analysis and the analysis was repeated. As a
result, the other variables of the approaches to learning scale were found to be significantly correlated to all other variables
available in the model. The fit indices for the measurement model were found as Chi-square=53.655; df=24; χ2/df=2.236;
RMSA=.057; GFI=.970; AGFI=.944; NFI=.964; CFI=.979. Besides, all the route coefficients were statistically significant and had perfect
fit (Table 2). Table 2 presents information on the acceptable and perfect fit indices necessary for structural equation modelling.
Two hypotheses were analyzed in the structural model: “H0: Middle school students’ learning approaches in mathematics
affect their engagement in mathematics in positive ways” and “H1: Middle school students’ attitudes towards mathematics affect
their engagement in mathematics in positive ways”. The results obtained in the structural model indicated that the model had
perfect fit. Thus, the values for the model fit index were as in the following: Chi-square=24.125; df=17; χ2/df=1.419; RMSA=.053;
GFI=.984; AGFI=.967; NFI=.983; CFI=.995, which were within the desired limits (Table 2). It was found that the fit indices for the
structural model created had perfect fit and that the standardized route coefficients were above .50. The route coefficient between
6 / 11 Sen / Pedagogical Research, 7(2), em0124

Table 3. Measurement model and structural equation modelling

Measurement model β1 β2 SD CR p-value
Cognitive <--- Engagement .758 1.000
Social <--- Engagement .611 .566 .048 11.876 <.001
Emotional <--- Engagement .881 1.218 .069 17.694 <.001
Deep <--- Learning approach .949 1.000 <.001
Strategic <--- Learning approach .838 .854 .037 23.174 <.001
Interest <--- Attitudes .962 1.000 <.001
Self-concept <--- Attitudes .531 .542 .087 6.248 <.001
Perception <--- Attitudes .516 .476 .077 6.189 <.001
Structural equation modelling
Engagement <--- Learning approach .945 .877 .051 17.302 <.001
Engagement <--- Attitudes -.016 -.011 .021 -.511 .609
Note. SD: Standard deviation

Figure 1. Standard coefficients of the structural equations model

engagement in mathematics and approaches towards calculated in the model was statistically significant (β=.945; p<.001). Hence,
hypothesis H0 was confirmed. The route coefficient between engagement in mathematics and attitudes towards mathematics was
not found statistically significant (β=-.016; p=.609), and thus, hypothesis H1 was not confirmed. Table 3 shows both the
standardized and non-standardized route coefficient analysis results. Figure 1 shows standard coefficients of the SEM.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study analyzed the correlations between middle school students’ engagement in mathematics, their learning approaches
and their attitudes towards the mathematics with structural equation modelling. The model created for the purpose was tested
in this study. The effects of the students’ learning approaches in mathematics and their attitudes towards mathematics on their
engagement in mathematics were analyzed through route analysis in the model. First, the descriptive analysis values for the
variables were calculated in accordance with the purpose of the study. The highest averages for the variable of engagement in
mathematics were found in the sub-factors of emotional engagement, cognitive engagement and social engagement while the
highest averages for the variable of approaches to learning mathematics were found in the sub-factors of strategic approach, deep
approach and surface approach and the highest averages for the variable of attitudes towards mathematics were found in the
sub-factors of interest, the perceived usefulness of mathematics and self-concept, respectively.
According to the findings, the averages for all the sub-factors were above the mid-point. Thus, the students could be said to
have positive perceptions of all the variables. Another finding obtained in this study was that the model tested had perfect and
acceptable fit indices. The standardized route coefficient for surface approach was found to be below the desired level in the first
measurement result. Therefore, the factor was removed from the model and thus, the standardized route coefficients for all the
factors were found significant at the end of the analyses. The findings demonstrated that there were correlations between the
participants’ approaches learning and their engagement in mathematics. Significant correlations were available between the
engagement of students who adopt deep and strategic approaches. It may be said that there are no correlations between the
engagement of students who adopt surface approach. In fact, while strategic approach is more independent, the deep approach
and surface approach isolate each other because focusing and not focusing at the same time is impossible (Diseth & Martinsen,
2003). Therefore, Maciejewski and Merchant (2016) point out that consistent correlations should not be expected between deep
and surface approaches and quantitative evaluation.
 Sen / Pedagogical Research, 7(2), em0124 7 / 11

One of the results obtained in this study was that deep and strategic approaches clearly had positive effects on engagement
in mathematics. In a similar vein, Floyd et al. (2009) state that engagement in the course is an important factor in learning but they
also say that there are no significant correlations between surface approach and engagement. It is because surface approach is
students’ technique of survival- that is to say, it is an effort to pass the exams given. In fact, it may not be said that different
approaches are a property of students (Lucas, 2001). What is expected of students is to adopt deep and strategic learning strategies
when mathematics is concerned. Deep approach contains the properties of surface and strategic approach contains the properties
of the other two learning approaches. Operant learning, for instance, may contain the elements of rote learning (Diseth &
Martinsen, 2003), a student may adopt deep approach for an issue and surface approach for another issue (Lucas, 2001), or it may
be inadequate to adopt only deep approach to solve a complicated problem (Davidson, 2002).
Students’ feeling of cognitive, emotional and social engagement in mathematics is effective when they adopt deep and
strategic approaches. As Skinner and Pitzer (2012) also point out, all these elements should be considered together for high quality
learning. Changes made in learning environments will affect students learning approaches, as Hall et al. (2004) contend. Moore
and Gilmartin (2010) found that using different learning approaches such as blended learning affected students’ engagement in a
course and their deep approaches in positive ways. Yet, the researchers emphasize that the correlations between the two need
further research. Cano and Berbén (2009) argue that the approaches adopted by students to learn mathematics are not related to
ways of understanding a subject or personal choice but are related generally to the quality of education. Therefore, it is important
to consider the strategies students use in learning the subjects of mathematics. It can be said that the engagement of students
who adopt deep and strategic approaches in learning mathematics is influenced positively by their choice.
Skinner and Pitzer (2012) claim that engagement influences students’ daily psychological and social experiences. High
engagement and the resultant learning and academic achievement contribute positively to students’ relations with their
environment. Besides, studies available in the literature also demonstrate that there are correlations between students’ levels of
engagement and their attitudes (Gopal et al., 2018; Lijie et al., 2020; Nayir, 2015). However, no significant correlations were found
between middle school students’ engagement in mathematics and their attitudes towards mathematics in this study. Singh et al.
(2002) point out that it is difficult to measure factors such as attitudes towards and engagement in mathematics with reliability
and validity.
It is widely known that attitudes and interest have direct effects on achievement (Singh et al., 2002). Despite the fact that the
studies which argue that there are positive correlations between attitudes towards mathematics and academic achievement are
in the majority, Yenilmez et al. (2007) claim that there is no much consensus in the literature on the correlations between attitude
and achievement in mathematics. Behaviors such as attitudes and motivation are generally influenced by experiences at earlier
ages, attitudes change over time and then they tend to be stable–as Hannula (2002) suggests. According to Mayes et al. (2008),
students’ inadequate preparation for mathematics or their negative attitudes towards it cause deficiencies in their engagement
in the course. for this reason, Singh et al. (2002) recommend that in-class activities to promote engagement in the course should
be done.
Hemmings et al. (2010) argue that interventions should be made at school to affect students’ attitudes towards mathematics
positively because attitudes are the factors which influence students’ mathematics learning and their engagement in the course.
Nayir (2015) found correlations between high school students’ engagement in school and their attitudes but stated that the
situation may differ according to courses. The middle school students’ emotional engagement and interest in mathematics course
in this study was higher than the other variables. In fact, interest in mathematics is an indicator of emotional engagement (Martin
& Rimm-Kaufman, 2015). Reeve (2012) states that feelings such as interest which facilitates tasks affect emotional engagement.
However, high interest cannot be expected everyday while learning difficult and new materials (Martin & Rimm-Kaufman, 2015).
Skilling et al. (2016) point out that it is impossible for teachers who have implementations related to short-term interest and
behaviors to encourage engagement in mathematic in the long term. It would be beneficial to investigate why there are not any
significant correlations between attitudes and engagement despite high levels of student interest.
Recommendations
Fredricks et al. (2004) suggest that the concept of engagement should be researched further. They think that there are gaps in
the literature although there is too much information on academic engagement and school engagement. Several studies
demonstrated that students’ learning approaches, attitudes and their engagement were important in learning mathematics and
in academic achievement. Yet, it may be said that the number of studies on the way the three components influence each other is
limited. Thus, it will be beneficial if the studies to be conducted investigate how students’ engagement in mathematics, their
learning approaches and their attitudes toward mathematics affect each other. Fredricks et al. (2004) insist that how the factors
which affect engagement should be illuminated with qualitative studies. According to Yang (2015), students’ attitudes will be more
positive in environments which they will discover and where possibilities to inquire and teacher support are available. Prospective
studies could investigate the way classroom environment affects engagement in and attitudes towards mathematics. Engagement
is thought to be a substantial factor in learning. The qualitative studies to be conducted could also investigate the effects of
attitudes towards mathematics and learning approaches it on engagement in the course. The correlations between them could
be investigated in depth and interpreted. This current study was conducted with the participation of middle school students.
Further studies are needed to exhibit the correlations between engagement in mathematics, learning approaches and attitudes
with the participation of students from differing grade levels.
Funding: No funding source is reported for this study.
Declaration of interest: No conflict of interest is declared by author.
8 / 11 Sen / Pedagogical Research, 7(2), em0124

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. R. Jr. (1970). Attitudes toward mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 40(4), 551-596. https://doi.org/10.3102/
00346543040004551
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Azevedo, F. S., diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2012). An evolving framework for describing student engagement in classroom
activities. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(2), 270-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.12.003
Biggs, J. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8(4), 381-394.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01680526
Bingham, G. E., & Okagaki, L. (2012). Ethnicity and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.),
Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 65-95). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_4
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural
equation models (pp. 136-162). SAGE.
Buyukozturk, S., Kılıc-Cakmak, E., Akgun, O. E., Karadeniz, S., & Demirel, F. (2018). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research
methods]. Pegem.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMP-LIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming.
Lawrence Erbaum Associates Publisher.
Cagirgan, D., & Soyturk, I. (2021). The relationship between math anxiety, student engagement in mathematics and responsibilities
towards learning among middle school students. Elementary Education Online, 20(1), 456-467. https://doi.org/10.17051/
ilkonline.2021.01.040
Cano, F. (2007). Approaches to learning and study orchestrations in high school students. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 22(2), 131-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173518
Cano, F., & Berbén, A. B. G. (2009). University students’ achievement goals and approaches to learning in mathematics. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 131-153. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908X314928
Chan, K. W. (2003). Hong Kong teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning. Research in
Education, 69(1), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE.69.4
Chen, L., Bae, S. R., Battista, C., Qin, S., Chen, T., Evans, T. M., & Menon, V. (2018). Positive attitude toward math supports early
academic success: Behavioral evidence and neurocognitive mechanisms. Psychological Science, 29(3), 390-402.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617735528
Chirikure, T., Govender, N., Sibanda, D., Kolobe, L., Good, M. A., & Ngema, S. (2019). Adding voices to physical sciences preservice
teachers’ approaches to learning. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 23(2), 195-
205. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2019.1654211
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Appleton, J. J., Berman-Young, S., Spanjers, D. M., & Varro, P. (2008). Best practices in fostering
student engagement. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 1099-1119). National Association
of School Psychologists.
Darlington, E. (2011). Approaches to learning of undergraduate mathematicians. In British Society for Research into Learning
Mathematics. Oxford, England.
Davidson, R. A. (2002). Relationship of study approach and exam performance. Journal of Accounting Education, 20(1), 29-44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0748-5751(01)00025-2
Di Martino, P., & Zan, R. (2011). Attitude towards mathematics: A bridge between beliefs and emotions. ZDM Mathematics
Education, 43(4), 471-482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0309-6
Diseth, Å., & Kobbeltvedt, T. (2010). A mediation analysis of achievement motives, goals, learning strategies, and academic
achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 671-687. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910X492432
Diseth, Å., & Martinsen, Ø. (2003). Approaches to learning, cognitive style, and motives as predictors of academic achievement.
Educational Psychology, 23(2), 195-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410303225
Ekinci, N. (2009). Learning approaches of university students. Education and Science, 34(151), 74-87.
Entwistle, N.J., & Waterston, S. (1988). Approaches to studying and levels of processing in university students. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 58(3), 258-265.
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie
(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97-131). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_5
Floyd, K. S., Harrington, S. J., & Santiago J. (2009). The effect of engagement and perceived course value on deep and surface
learning strategies. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 12, 181-190.
https://doi.org/10.28945/435
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review
of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (2003). A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education. Routledge.
 Sen / Pedagogical Research, 7(2), em0124 9 / 11

George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Pearson.
Goh, P. S. C. (2016). Preservice teachers’ approaches to learning and their learning outcomes: A Malaysian experience. In R. King,
& A. Bernardo (Eds.), The psychology of Asian learners (pp. 203-216). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-576-1_13
Goktepe-Yildiz, S., & Ozdemir, A. S. (2018). Determining the approaches to learning mathematics of middle school students.
Elementary Education Online, 17(3), 1378-1401. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2018.466358
Gopal, K., Salim, N. R., & Ayub, A. F. M. (2018, June). The influence of attitudes towards statistics on statistics engagement among
undergraduate students in a Malaysian public university. In AIP Conference Proceedings (p. 050004). https://doi.org/10.1063/
1.5041704
Hall, M., Ramsay, A., & Raven, J. (2004) Changing the learning environment to promote deep learning approaches in first-year
accounting students. Accounting Education, 13(4), 489-505. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963928042000306837
Hannula, M. S. (2002). Attitude towards mathematics: Emotions, expectations and values. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
49(1), 25-46. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016048823497
Heikkilä, A., & Lonka, K. (2006). Studying in higher education: Students’ approaches to learning, self‐regulation, and cognitive
strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 31(1), 99-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500392433
Hemmings, B., Grootenboer, P., & Kay, R. (2010). Predicting mathematics achievement: The influence of prior achievement and
attitudes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 691-705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9224-
5
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic
Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
Kong, Q. P., Wong, N. Y., & Lam, C. C. (2003). Student engagement in mathematics: Development of instrument and validation of
construct. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217366
Krause, K. L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first‐year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5),
493-505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698892
Lijie, Z., Zongzhao, M., & Ying, Z. (2020). The influence of mathematics attitude on academic achievement: Intermediary role of
mathematics learning engagement. Jurnal Cendekia: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika [Scholar’s Journal: Journal of Mathematics
Education], 4(2), 460-467. https://doi.org/10.31004/cendekia.v4i2.253
Lipnevich, A. A., Preckel, F., & Krumm, S. (2016). Mathematics attitudes and their unique contribution to achievement: Going over
and above cognitive ability and personality. Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 70-79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.027
Liston, M., & O’Donoghue, J. (2010). Factors influencing the transition to university service mathematics: Part 2 a qualitative study.
Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 29(2), 53-68.
https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrq005
Liu, R. D., Zhen, R., Ding, Y., Liu, Y., Wang, J., Jiang, R., & Xu, L. (2018). Teacher support and math engagement: Roles of academic
self-efficacy and positive emotions. Educational Psychology, 38(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1359238
Lucas, U. (2001). Deep and surface approaches to learning within introductory accounting: A phenomenographic study. Accounting
Education, 10(2), 161-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280110073443
Ma, X. (1997). Reciprocal relationships between attitude toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics. The Journal of
Educational Research, 90(4), 221-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1997.10544576
Maciejewski, W., & Merchant, S. (2016). Mathematical tasks, study approaches, and course grades in undergraduate mathematics:
A year-by-year analysis. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(3), 373-387.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2015.1072881
Martin, D. P., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2015). Do student self-efficacy and teacher-student interaction quality contribute to
emotional and social engagement in fifth grade math? Journal of School Psychology, 53(5), 359-373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.07.001
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I-Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 46(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
Mayes, R., Chase, P. N., & Walker, V. L. (2008). Supplemental practice and diagnostic assessment in an applied college algebra
course. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(2), 7-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2008.10850306
Mazman-Akar, S. G., Birgin, O., Goksu, B., Uzun, K., Gumus, B., & Peker, E. S. (2017). Adaptation of student engagement in
mathematics scale into Turkish. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 28-51.
https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.286926
Moenikia, M., & Zahed-Babelan, A. (2010). A study of simple and multiple relations between mathematics attitude, academic
motivation and intelligence quotient with mathematics achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1537-
1542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.231
Mohd, N., Mahmood, T. F. P. T., & Ismail, M. N. (2011). Factors that influence students in mathematics achievement. International
Journal of Academic Research, 3(3), 49-54.
10 / 11 Sen / Pedagogical Research, 7(2), em0124

Moore, N., & Gilmartin, M. (2010). Teaching for better learning: A blended learning pilot project with first-year geography
undergraduates. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(3), 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2010.501552
Murphy, P. E. L. (2017). Student approaches to learning, conceptions of mathematics, and successful outcomes in learning
mathematics. In L. Wood, & Y. Breyer (Eds.), Success in higher education (pp. 75-93). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-
10-2791-8_5
Nayir, K. F. (2015). The relationship between students’ engagement level and their attitudes toward school. The Anthropologist,
20(1-2), 50-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891723
NCTM. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematics success for all. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education.
Primi, C., Bacherini, A., Beccari, C., & Donati, M. A. (2020). Assessing math attitude through the attitude toward mathematics
inventory-short form in introductory statistics course students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64, 100838.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100838
Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment. Higher Education, 8(4), 411-427.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01680529
Ramsden, P. (1981). A study of the relationship between academic learning and its context [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. University
of Lancaster.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A first course in structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.),
Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149-172). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7
Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and
academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700-712. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0027268
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2010). Student engagement in mathematics scale (SEMS) [Unpublished measure]. University of Virginia.
Sagkal, A. S., & Sonmez, M. T. (2021). The effects of perceived parental math support on middle school students’ math engagement:
The serial multiple mediation of math self-efficacy and math enjoyment. European Journal of Psychology of Education.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00518-w
Segers, M., Gijbels, D., & Thurlings, M. (2008). The relationship between students’ perceptions of portfolio assessment practice and
their approaches to learning. Educational Studies, 34(1), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690701785269
Sen, O. (2019). Turkish adaptation study of attitudes towards mathematics in secondary school students. International Journal of
Social and Educational Sciences, 6(11), 62-74.
Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic
engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323-332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596607
Skilling, K., Bobis, J., Martin, A. J., Anderson, J., & Way, J. (2016). What secondary teachers think and do about student engagement
in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(4), 545-566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-016-0179-x
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S.
Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), The handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21-44). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_2
Soni, A., & Kumari, S. (2017). The role of parental math anxiety and math attitude in their children’s math achievement.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(2), 331-347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9687-5
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
Tapia, M., & Marsh, G. E. I. I. (2004). An instrument to measure mathematics attitudes. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8(2), 16-21.
Taylor, L. (1992). Mathematical attitude development from a Vygotskian perspective. Mathematics Education Research Journal,
4(3), 8-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217243
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10694-000
Trenholm, S., Hajek, B., Robinson, C. L., Chinnappan, M., Albrecht, A., & Ashman H. (2018). Investigating undergraduate
mathematics learners’ cognitive engagement with recorded lecture videos. International Journal of Mathematical Education in
Science and Technology, 50(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1458339
Tuncer, M., & Yilmaz, O. (2020). Relations attitude towards mathematics lessons: Anxiety and academic success. REDIMAT – Journal
of Research in Mathematics Education, 9(2), 173-195. https://doi.org/10.17583/redimat.2020.4061
Wang, M. T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engagement scales: Scale development,
validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43, 16-26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008
Wang, Y. L., Liang, J. C., Lin, C. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). Identifying Taiwanese junior-high school students’ mathematics learning
profiles and their roles in mathematics learning self-efficacy and academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences,
54, 92-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.01.008
 Sen / Pedagogical Research, 7(2), em0124 11 / 11

Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation: Results from PISA 2000. Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/programmeforinternationalstudent
assessmentpisa/33689437.pdf
Yáñez-Marquina, L. & Villardón-Gallego, L. (2016). Attitudes towards mathematics at secondary level: Development and structural
validation of the scale for assessing attitudes towards mathematics in secondary education (SATMAS). Electronic Journal of
Research in Educational Psychology, 14(3), 557-581.
Yang, X. (2015). Rural junior secondary school students’ perceptions of classroom learning environments and their attitude and
achievement in mathematics in West China. Learning Environments Research, 18(2), 249-266.
https://doi.org/101007/s10984015-9184-3
Yenilmez, K., Girginer, N., & Uzun, O. (2007). Mathematics anxiety and attitude level of students of the faculty of economics and
business administrator: The Turkey model. International Mathematical Forum, 2(41), 1997-2021.
https://doi.org/10.12988/imf.2007.07181