The concepts of commitment and anxiety are essential components of the teaching process, and these concepts come across as the commitment to and concern of mathematics in the field of mathematics learning. This study aims to explore the effect of secondary school students’ mathematics class commitment and anxiety on mathematics success. Another subject studied is the direct and indirect effects of the mathematics class commitment and anxiety on mathematics success. The study is of the quantitative method and follows the survey method. The research was carried out with 488 pupils (257 female and 231 male), selected with simple random sampling, studying in a secondary school in a province in the Turkey’s Eastern Anatolia Region. “Personal Information Form”, “Student Engagement in Mathematics Scale” and “Mathematics Anxiety-Apprehension Scale” was applied to the secondary school students as data collection tools. Significant relationships and effects have been identified between the secondary school students’ mathematics class commitment and anxiety and their mathematics success. In addition, the direct and indirect effects of mathematics class commitment on success and anxiety in mathematics have also been calculated.
AinleyM. D. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional assessment of their relationship with strategy use and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 395–405.
2.
AshcraftM. H. (2002). Math anxiety: Personal, educational, and cognitive consequences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 181–185.
3.
BlumenfeldP. C.PuroP.MergendolterJ. R. (1992). Translating motivation into thoughtfulness. In MarshallH. H. (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change. Ablex.
4.
BodovskiK.FarkasG. (2007). Mathematics growth in early elementary school: The roles of beginning knowledge, student engagement, and instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 108(2), 115–130.
5.
BoutaH.RetalisS.ParaskevaF. (2012). Utilising a collaborative macro-script to enhance student engagement: A mixed method study in a 3D virtual environment. Computers & Education, 58(1), 501–517.
6.
BüyüköztürkŞ. (2016). Data analysis handbook for social sciences (22nd ed.). Pegem Academy.
7.
CanA. (2013). Quantitative data analysis in the scientific research process with SPSS. Pegem Academy.
8.
CareyE.HillF.DevineA.SzücsD. (2016). The chicken or the egg? The direction of the relationship between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1), 1–6.
9.
CareyE.HillF.DevineA.SzücsD. (2017). The modified Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale: A valid and reliable instrument for use with children. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(11), 1–13.
10.
ChangH.BeilockS. L. (2016). The math anxiety-math performance link and its relation to individual and environmental factors: A review of current behavioral and psychophysiological research. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10(1), 33–38.
11.
CoatesH. (2005). The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 25–36.
12.
CoatesH. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121–141.
13.
ConnellJ.WellbornJ. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivation analysis of self-system process. In GunnarM. R.SroufeL. A. (Eds.), Self process in development: Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 167–216). Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
DavisT. M.MurrellP. H. (1993). Turning teaching into learning: The role of student responsibility in the collegiate experience. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
15.
DoğanU. (2014). Validity and reliability of student engagement scale. Bartın University Journal of Education, 3(2), 390–403.
16.
DursunŞ.BindakR. (2011). The investigation of elementary school students’ mathematics anxiety. Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Letters Journal of Social Sciences, 35(1), 18–21.
17.
ErgünE.UsluelY. K. (2015). The Turkish adaptation of student’s engagements scale in online learning environment: A study of validity and reliability. Educational Technology and Theory and Practice, 5(1), 18–33.
18.
FinnJ. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. National Center for Education Statistics.
19.
FredricksJ. A.BlumenfeldP. C.ParisA. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
20.
HattieJ. (2009). Visible learning. Routledge.
21.
HelmeS.ClarkeD. (2001). Identifying cognitive engagement in the mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 133–153.
22.
HidiS. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 549–571.
23.
HuS.KuhG. D. (2002). Being (dis) engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43(5), 555–575.
24.
HughesJ. N.LuoW.KwokO. M.LoydL. K. (2008). Teacher-student support, effortful engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 1–14.
KaradağE.BaloğluN.KüçükE. (2010). The effects of the principal’ supervision perception to work motivation of teachers: A study of path analysis. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 8(2), 417–437.
27.
KeskinS. (1998). Path coefficients and path analysis [Master’s thesis, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ankara University].
28.
KocakayaS. (2008). Investigation of relations among the factors that affect physics course achievement of high school students using path analysis technique [Doctoral dissertation, Dicle University].
29.
KongQ. P.WongN. Y.LamC. C. (2003). Student engagement in mathematics: Development of instrument and validation of construct. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 4–21.
30.
KuhG. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the national survey of student engagement. Journal of Change, 33(3), 10–17.
31.
KuhG. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32.
32.
KuhG. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In GonyeaR.KuhG. (Eds.), Using student engagement data in institutional research (Vol. 2009, No. 141, pp. 5–20). New Directions for Institutional Research, Jossey-Bass.
33.
LindskogM.WinmanA.PoomL. (2017). Individual differences in nonverbal number skills predict math anxiety. Cognition, 159(1), 156–162.
34.
MahatmyaD.LohmanB. J.MatjaskoJ. L.FarbA. F. (2012). Engagement across developmental periods. In ChristensonS. L.ReshchlyA. L.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 45–63). Springer
35.
MaloneyE. A.AnsariD.FugelsangJ. A. (2011). Rapid communication: The effect of mathematics anxiety on the processing of numerical magnitude. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(1), 10–16.
36.
MartinA. J.WayJ.BobisJ.AndersonJ. (2014). Exploring the ups and downs of mathematics engagement in the middle years of school. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 1(46), 199–244.
37.
Mazman AkarS. G.BirginO.GöksuB.UzunK.GümüşB.PekerE. S. (2017). Adaptation of student engagement in mathematics scale. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 28–51.
38.
NewmannF. M.WehlageG. G.LambornS. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In NewmannF. M. (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secohry schools (pp. 11–39). New York Teachers’ College Press.
39.
NosekB. A.SmythF. L. (2011). Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1125–1156.
40.
ÖzdemirE.GürH. (2011). Validity and reliability study of mathematics anxiety-apprehension survey. Journal of Education and Science, 36(161), 39–50.
41.
RamirezG.ChangH.MaloneyE. A.LevineS. C.BeilockS. L. (2016). On the relationship between math anxiety and math achievement in early elementary school: The role of problem solving strategies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 83–100.
42.
ReeveJ.JangH.CarrellD.JeonS.BarchJ. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147–169.
43.
Rimm-KaufmanS. E. (2010). Student engagement in mathematics scale (SEMS) [Unpublished measure]. University of Virginia.
44.
RotermundS. L. (2011). The role of psychological precursors and student engagement in a process model of high school dropout. University of California.
45.
SinghK.GranvilleM.DikaS. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323–332.
46.
SkinnerE. A.BelmontM. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581.
47.
SorvoR.KoponenT.ViholainenH.AroT.RäikkönenE.PeuraP.TolvonenA.AroM. (2019). Development of math anxiety and its longitudinal relationships with arithmetic achievement among primary school children. Learning and Individual Differences, 69(1), 173–181.
TanyolaçG. (1996). The study of fear prevalence of children whose age ranged from 11 to 12 years for some variables [Master’s thesis, Graduate School of Social Sciences, Hacettepe University].
50.
WillmsJ. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: a sense of belonging and participation: Results from PISA 2000. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
51.
YairG. (2000). Educational battlefields in America: The tug-of-war over students’ engagement with instruction. Sociology of Education, 73(1), 155–174.
52.
YenilmezK.ÖzbeyN. (2006). A research on mathematics anxiety levels of the students of private school and the other schools. Journal of Uludağ University Faculty of Education, 19(2), 431–448.
53.
ZhaoC. M.KuhG. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115–138.
