The Role of Student-Teacher Relation on Science Self-Efficacy and Science Anxiety in Face-to-Face and Distance Education

Abstract

This study examines the role of student-teacher relations on science self-efficacy and science anxiety in face-to-face and distance education. The sample consisted of 309 students attending eighth grade in four different public lower-secondary schools in Turkey and was analyzed using a descriptive model. Student-teacher relation (STR), science self-efficacy (SSE), and science anxiety (SA) questionnaires were administered in both face-to-face and distance education. Gathered quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Pearson moment correlation, and a one-sample t-test. The results show that the mean scores of the STR and SSE in face-to-face education are higher than in distance education. The Pearson moment correlation analysis indicates that STR has a significant and positive association with SSE, and a significant negative association with SA, in face-to-face and distance education. In addition, the one-sample t-test found statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the STR and SSE in face-to-face and distance education. This difference is in favor of face-to-face education. Furthermore, the mean scores of SA in distance education are significantly higher than in face-to-face education.

Keywords

distance education face-to-face education science anxiety science self-efficacy student-teacher relation

Introduction

Previous studies have emphasized cognitive and non-cognitive factors’ effectiveness on students’ achievements (Semeraro et al., 2020). Cognitive factors include reasoning, problem-solving and intangible thinking, and understanding complex ideas (Gottfredson, 1997) and these factors affect the academic achievements of students (Boekaerts, 1995). However, although some students have high cognitive abilities, their academic achievement is low. These students compensate for this deficiency by showing more motivation (Komarraju et al., 2013). Therefore, it is also essential to evaluate non-cognitive factors in increasing academic achievements. These have been defined as untraditional predictors, including attitudinal, behavioral, and personality constructs (Allen et al., 2009), and can be listed as self-efficacy, attitude, anxiety, perception, interest, value judgment, personality, and motivation (Lipnevich & Roberts, 2012). Further, in a recent study by Ramirez et al. (2016), classroom and family environments, as well as STR, have been shown to impact academic achievement. Studies in the literature have found that students who have close relations with their teachers are likely to experience self-efficacy, anxiety, academic interest, and motivation more than students who have more distant relations with their teachers (Martin & Rimm-Kaufman, 2015; Niehaus et al., 2012; Pianta & Hamre, 2009; Roorda et al., 2011; Rudasill et al., 2010; Tosto et al., 2016; Wentzel et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2020, 2021). Based on the results of these studies, it is thought that the role of the STR on students’ SSE and SA will differ in various education systems. As far as we know, there is no study comparing the role of the STR on students’ SSE and SA in different educational settings. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the role of the STR on SSE and SA in face-to-face and distance education systems in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Science Self-Efficacy (SSE)

Self-efficacy is a non-cognitive factor associated with achievement (Chen & Usher, 2013; Gibbons et al., 2018). Self-efficacy is the key concept of the social learning theory developed by Bandura (1997). It argues that individuals must have self-confidence in the relevant field before using their skills effectively (Schunk & Pajares, 2002). The social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) asserts that internal and external factors influence students’ conduct (Honicke & Broadbent, 2016). One of the internal factors is self-efficacy, through which a person can perceive how to accomplish an assignment or solve a problem (Bandura, 1997), which is a strong factor in students’ success (Zhou et al., 2021). Besides assisting in performing a task, self-efficacy can also assist in effectively applying cognitive, social, emotional, and behavioral skills. Thus, self-efficacy relates to one’s belief in one’s skills and what one can do with them (Bandura, 1997). SSE plays a pivotal role in students’ achievement in science (Watt, 2006). Therefore, students with higher SSE are more likely to engage in science classes and to continue a career in science (Burns et al., 2021), which are generally perceived to be difficult. Hence, SSE is essential in assisting students in coping with the challenges inherent in science and succeeding academically (Patall et al., 2018). Researchers have generally examined anxiety as a negative predictor of self-efficacy in science (Chen & Usher, 2013; Usher & Pajares, 2008). Additionally, many studies have found a negative relationship between self-efficacy and anxiety (Britner & Pajares, 2006; Burns et al., 2021; Gibbons et al., 2018; Usher et al., 2019).

Science Anxiety (SA)

Anxiety, another non-cognitive factor, is also related to academic achievement. Anxiety can be defined as fear and/or tension deriving from stressful situations or as a primary human emotion depending on fear or uncertainty (Lilley et al., 2014). In the education-teaching process, some subject areas cause students great anxiety. These have been related to science and chemistry (Eddy, 2000; Turner & Lindsay, 2003). SA is defined by Udo et al. (2004) as emotions that prevent science learning. Apart from this definition, SA weakens cognition and positive emotions toward learning science (Bryant et al., 2013). These feelings lead to sweaty palms, tension, fear, distress, and difficulty breathing (Oludipe & Oludipe, 2018). Chiarelott and Czerniak (1987) stated that SA could appear before or during learning science topics. In SA situations, students are expected to fear or perform poorly in science lessons (Mallow, 1986). More so, SA considerably affects students needing higher cognitive performance in their academic responsibilities. Furthermore, SA may influence students when they enter specific fields, such as mathematics, science and technology, depending on whether they have prerequisite skills. Mallow and Greenburg (1982) indicated that former negative experiences in science lessons and exposure to anxious science teachers in primary and secondary schools might be reasons for SA. Physics is one of the most prominent courses for SA (Udo et al., 2004). Many studies show that SA is negatively related to self-efficacy, attitude, and academic achievement (Ardasheva et al., 2018; Griggs et al., 2013). However, Mallow and colleagues indicated that SA is positively related to anxiety derived from other courses, such as humanities and social sciences (Mallow, 1994; Udo et al., 2004). While students’ self-efficacy is affected by their anxieties, it can also be affected by external factors. One of these external factors is also the relationship between student and teacher.

Learning Environments and Student-Teacher Relation (STR)

A learning environment is where teachers and students work together to achieve learning goals and do problem-solving activities (Wilson, 1996). Learning environments are created both in and out of the classroom. Learning is conducted face-to-face between the students and the teacher in the classroom and distance education outside the classroom. Therefore, the relation between student and teacher in these two learning environments is important. The STR is a two-way link between student and teacher in face-to-face and distance education systems (McCormick et al., 2013; Pianta, 1999; Zhou et al., 2020). This relation is promoted by attachment theory (Ainsworth, 1989), which states that attachment is an interpersonal emotional bond that creates a safe environment for children to explore the unknown world (Bergin & Bergin, 2009). Teachers can improve relations with their students by focusing on two complementary aspects of classroom interaction (Oludipe & Oludipe, 2018). Therefore, a positive STR not only creates a sound basis for students’ academic engagement (Zee & Roorda, 2018) but also promotes feelings of trust in students, leading to positive emotional changes (Ma et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2021). In addition, a positive STR makes it easier to teach students who have difficulty learning new or complex content (Hughes & Kwok, 2007). Hence, STR is positively related to students’ achievement and emotional changes (Sanchez Fowler et al., 2008).

The academic achievement of students is at the center of the educational process. Middle school achievement helps students reach their high school and college career goals. Therefore, the low academic achievement of students has worried parents, teachers, counselors, examination institutions, and psychologists. Especially teachers, parents, family members, and peer groups play a particular role in the development of the students’ academic achievement (Considine & Zappalà, 2002). Besides this, many studies in the literature have found that self-efficacy is associated with academic achievement in general and science disciplines (Honicke & Broadbent, 2016; Rittmayer & Beier, 2008; Usher & Pajares, 2008). However, students’ self-efficacy toward science tends to decline during late elementary and middle school (Rice et al., 2013; Rittmayer & Beier, 2008). For this reason, educators have tried to develop strategies to increase students’ self-efficacy (Sparks, 2014). In this context, it has been shown that developing a positive STR is a very effective approach (Jerome et al., 2008). Research has shown that a positive STR positively affects students’ perceptions and self-efficacy (Cadima et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2020). Therefore, the current study suggested that the STR would be related to students’ SSE. Also, motivation theories suggest that motivational beliefs may be related to students’ perceptions of learning (Shores & Shannon, 2007; Singh et al., 2002). In their studies, Maloney and Beilock (2012) and Ramirez et al. (2016) have shown that students’ negative learning perceptions and anxiety are associated with worse learning outcomes (Maloney & Beilock, 2012; Ramirez et al., 2016). In this context, the STR can also affect factors related to students’ emotions, such as anxiety, and factors related to their motivations, such as self-efficacy (Hattie, 2009; Tosto et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2020). In their study, Zhou et al. (2020) showed that a positive STR increases students’ math self-efficacy scores, and according to Zee and Roorda (2018), it decreases anxiety scores. In addition, it has been reported that a negative relationship between sixth-grade students and their teachers is related to the students’ anxiety levels (Jellesma et al., 2015). Studies with small samples or students with disabilities have shown that the positive STR is negatively related to the anxiety levels of fifth and sixth-grade students (Murray & Greenberg, 2001; Rey et al., 2007). It has been reported that the STR is not only related to self-efficacy and anxiety but also closely related to the learning environment. The STR, the essential element of the classroom environment, has been associated with learning outcomes, and various studies have been conducted (Barile et al., 2012; Wentzel, 2002). Researchers found that the supportive STR was positively related to the mathematics performance of students from grade 1 to grade 9 (Ang, 2005; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Roorda et al., 2011; Valiente et al., 2008).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, both face-to-face and distance learning environments were created. The two most important components of these learning environments are teachers and students. A positive relationship between teachers and students can increase students’ academic achievement by improving their motivation and self-efficacy. In addition to the role of general cognitive abilities and non-cognitive factors on science achievement, studies have shown that positive STR plays an essential role in students’ math achievement (Engle, 2010; Semeraro et al., 2020; Upadyaya & Eccles, 2014; Zhou et al., 2020, 2021). While similar studies have been widely researched for kindergarten and primary school, more research seems necessary for secondary school (Ahmed et al., 2010). Hence, during the COVID-19 pandemic, STR may also differ in face-to-face and distance learning environments. Few studies have been done on this subject. du Mérac et al. (2022) revealed that student satisfaction in distance education during the Covid-19 pandemic depends on the teachers’ ability to establish positive relations with their students. However, Vagos and Carvalhais (2022) found no difference between the STR in face-to-face and distance education. To our knowledge, there are no studies investigating the role of STR on SSE and SA for lower-secondary school students in face-to-face and distance learning environments. Determining the role of the STR in students’ SSE and SA perceptions in face-to-face and distance learning environments is essential for teachers to communicate with their students. Based on this thought, it is thought that the relationship between students and teachers in face-to-face and distance learning environments will change the perceptions of SSE and SA in lower-secondary school students. Therefore, this study examines the role of STR on SSE and SA of lower-secondary school students in face-to-face (e.g., classroom) and distance (e.g., online) education systems. We believe that the current study makes a significant contribution to the literature because there is no study for this purpose and the findings of the study reveal that the STR in face-to-face education has a positive role on lower-secondary school students’ SSE and SA. For this purpose, we ask, “What is the role of the STR on students' SSE and SA in the face-to-face and distance learning environment?”

Method

Study Design

This study uses a descriptive model with scales (STR, SSE, and SA) for data collection. The study participants are lower-secondary students in the first semester of the 2021 to 2022 academic year. The scales were distributed to participants using a Google form in distance education and by the researcher in face-to-face education. All participants were informed about the purpose of the study before completing the scales, and consent was given. Participants answered questions in the STR, SSE, and SA scales.

Sample

The sample was randomly selected from four different public lower-secondary schools in Turkey. For the application of the scales, permission was obtained from the school administrators by correspondence. The final sample consisted of 309 (180 females and 129 male) students attending the eighth grade with an age range from 14 to 16 years; the mean age was 15 years. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, students participating in the study took the science course for 7 weeks with face-to-face (in-class education) and 12 weeks with distance education (online education). The scales were applied to the same group by the researchers both during face-to-face and distance education (N = 309).

Measures

SA

Students’ SA scores were collected using the SA scale developed by Kağıtçı and Kurbanoglu (2013). This scale contains 18 items (e.g., “Before I go to science class, I get nervous and anxious,”“I feel restless in science class”), and each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was .89.

SSE

Students’ SSE scores were collected with the self-efficacy sub-scale of the science-adapted Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich et al., 1991). The original form of the scale was altered to Turkish by Büyüköztürk et al. (2004). The self-efficacy sub-scale consists of eight items (i.e., “If I study hard enough, I can understand the science class,”“I believe I will get perfect grades in science class”). Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true for me) to 7 (very true for me). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was calculated as.86.

STR

Students’ STR scale was taken from the PISA 2012 student questionnaire by Zhou et al. (2020). The perceptions of eighth-grade students about their science teachers were collected with a 4-item STR scale. This scale is a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). While Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the original STR scale was .93, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale for the current study was calculated as .80.

Procedure

The first term of the 2021 to 2022 academic year in Turkey is 19 weeks. Students attended science courses in both face-to-face and distance education due to the pandemic. Students (N = 309) attended science courses in face-to-face education for the first 7 weeks out of the 19 weeks and the scales were administered by the researchers. Later, due to the pandemic, the same students attended science courses in distance education for 12 weeks, and the scales were applied again by the researchers. Quantitative data gathered from the same student group were analyzed, and the role of STR on SSE and SA in face-to-face and distance education was examined.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data from the scales were analyzed using descriptive statistics, the Pearson moment correlation, and the one-sample t-test analyses. The descriptive data analysis assessed the role of the STR on students’ SSE and SA. The Pearson moment correlation and the one-sample t-test were used to determine whether there is a relation between SSE, SA, and STR and how significantly this relation can predict each.

Results

In this study, the total scores for STR, SSE, and SA of the lower-secondary school students in face-to-face and distance education were calculated depending on the STR, SSE, and SA scales. The total scores for each dependent variable were compared and discussed. The number of face-to-face and distance education students, the mean scores, and the standard deviations for each dependent variable are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of the Three Variables in Face-to-Face and Distance Education.

Procedure	Variables	N	Min.	Max.	$X^{-}$	SD
Face-to-face education	STR	309	7	16	13.82	1.57
	SSE	309	28	56	42.19	4.82
	SA	309	18	80	31.72	11.25
Distance education	STR	309	4	16	9.17	2.67
	SSE	309	13	51	31.51	7.17
	SA	309	18	90	52.22	15.79

Note. STR = student-teacher relation; SSE = science self-efficacy; SA = science anxiety.

The results of the descriptive statistics showed that the mean score of STR ( $X^{-}$ = 13.82) and SSE ( $X^{-}$ = 42.19) in face-to-face education is higher than the mean score in distance education ( $X^{-}$ = 9.17; 31.51, respectively). On the other hand, the mean score ( $X^{-}$ = 31.72) of SA in face-to-face education is lower than the mean score ( $X^{-}$ = 52.22) in distance education. The results of the Pearson moment correlation for STR, SSE, and SA are given in Table 2.

Table 2.

Correlation Coefficients of the Three Variables in Face-to-Face and Distance Education.

Procedure	Variables	STR	SSE	SA
Face-to-face education	STR	1
	SSE	0.196**	1
	SA	–0.189**	–0.217**	1
Distance education	STR	1
	SSE	0.180**	1
	SA	–0.356**	–0.241**	1

Note. STR = student-teacher relation; SSE = science self-efficacy; SA = science anxiety.

p < .01.

Table 2 shows that there are low, significant positive correlations between STR and SSE in face-to-face (r = .196) and distance education (r = .180). In addition, there are low, significant negative correlations between SSE and SA, in face-to-face (r = −.217) and distance education (r = −.241). The results reveal a low and significant negative correlation between STR and SA in face-to-face (r = −.189) education, while there is a moderate and significant negative correlation in distance education (r = −.356). According to these results, the role of the STR on students’ SA is higher in distance education. One-sample t-test was used to determine the role of the STR on lower-secondary school students’ SSE and SA in face-to-face and distance education (Table 3).

Table 3.

t-Test Results of the Three Variables in Face-to-Face and Distance Education.

Variables	Procedure	N	$X^{-}$	SD	T	df	p
STR	Face-to-face education	309	13.82	1.571	26.35	616	.001**
STR	Distance education	309	9.17	2.672	26.35	616	.001**
SSE	Face-to-face education	309	42.19	4.824	21.70	616	.001**
SSE	Distance education	309	31.51	7.177	21.70	616	.001**
SA	Face-to-face education	309	31.72	11.252	–18.58	616	.001**
SA	Distance education	309	52.22	15.795	–18.58	616	.001**

Note. STR = student-teacher relation; SSE = science self-efficacy; SA = science anxiety.

p < .01.

As shown in Table 3, the mean score of STR ( $X^{-}$ = 13.82) and SSE ( $X^{-}$ = 42.19) in face-to-face education is significantly higher than in distance education ( $X^{-}$ = 9.17; $X^{-}$ = 31.51, respectively). However, the mean score of SA ( $X^{-}$ = 52.22) in distance education is significantly higher than in face-to-face education ( $X^{-}$ = 31.72).

Discussion

Previous research has shown that SSE is related to students’ SA with varying degrees; however, there is also a need to examine the role of STR on SSE and SA, as the present investigation does. Relatively little is known about the role of the STR on non-cognitive factors (self-efficacy and anxiety) among lower-secondary school students in face-to-face and distance education. Therefore, the current study investigated the role of the STR on SSE and SA in face-to-face and distance education. The findings are presented and discussed below.

According to the first finding of the present study, there is a difference between the mean scores of STR, SSE, and SA in face-to-face and distance education. The mean score of STR and SSE in face-to-face education is higher than in distance education. In addition, the mean score of SA in face-to-face education is lower in distance education. These findings indicate that STR had a role on students’ SSE in face-to-face education. Results of previous research have also shown that STR has a direct and positive effect on students’ self-efficacy (Ma et al., 2018; Xu & Qi, 2019; Zhou et al., 2021). The positive and supportive relationship between student and teacher facilitates the active participation of students in classroom learning and activities (Ma et al., 2018; Roorda et al., 2011) and thus plays a role in increasing their self-efficacy.

The second finding of the present study showed a significant and positive association between STR and SSE as well as a significant negative association with SA in face-to-face and distance education. According to these results, the role of the STR on students’ SA is bigger in distance education. In this context, reduced STR in distance education leads to an increase in students’ SA. In other studies, at the end of the term, the relation between student and teacher relates to anxiety (O’Connor et al., 2011). The outcome of the current study is the same in face-to-face and distance education. Based on these findings, teachers’ love, advice, and general interaction motivate students to read, participate, and interact, leading to high engagement in face-to-face education. Therefore, if students perceive their teachers as friendly, trustworthy, and helpful, then students’ SSE increase and their SA decrease. These results are consistent with prior studies documenting the positive role of STR (Den Brok et al., 2005; Roorda et al., 2011) and the supportive contribution of self-efficacy in learning activities, including math or science education (Wei & Onsawad, 2007). Likewise, Pianta and Nimetz (1991) reported that students who have positive opinions toward their teachers would have higher academic achievement than students with negative views toward their teachers.

The third finding of the present study indicated significant differences between the STR, SEE, and SA mean scores of students in face-to-face and distance education. These significant differences are in favor of students in face-to-face education. In other words, STR in face-to-face education significantly increased students’ self-efficacy by reducing their SA, which is significantly different from students in distance education. These results show that the quality of STR in face-to-face education directly contributes to SA through SSE. Therefore, improving STR may play an essential role in preventing SA and promoting SSE. As expected, this is consistent with previous research findings (Bergin & Bergin, 2009; Roorda et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2020, 2021); our findings revealed that SSE was predicted positively by the STR. In addition, as anticipated, the results demonstrated that SA was predicted by the STR negatively. This finding agrees with the results of earlier investigations (Domino, 2009; Hill et al., 2005; Zhou et al., 2020, 2021).

Conclusions and Implications

In conclusion, this study explored how STR increases students’ SSE and reduces SA in face-to-face education. According to the results of this study, the STR had a direct and positive role on students’ SSE in face-to-face education. Therefore, this study contributed by revealing the role of positive STR on SSE and SA in face-to-face education. Since positive STR in face-to-face education has a positive contribution to SSE, a workshop on STR can be organized for educators and administrators. Similarly, in distance education, positive teacher behaviors can increase students’ SSE and reduce their SA. Therefore, it is recommended to develop positive teacher behaviors in distance education. This study has some limitations. This study was carried out in the form of 7 weeks of face-to-face and 12 weeks of distance education with secondary school eighth-grade students. Future studies should consider a study group consisting of students from all grade levels of lower-secondary school and a longer learning-teaching process, which may affect the results of the study. At the same time, the role of STR on SSE and SA in face-to-face and distance learning environments was determined through scales applied to students. Through interviews with students, the role of STR on SSE and SA can be examined using other dimensions.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Namudar İzzet Kurbanoğlu

Zeynep Demirtaş

References

Ahmed

Minnaert

van der Werf

Kuyper

(2010). Perceived social support and early adolescents’ achievement: The mediational roles of motivational beliefs and emotions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9367-7

Ainsworth

M. D.

(1989). Attachments beyond infancy. The American Psychologist, 44, 709–716. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.4.709

Allen

Robbins

S. B.

Sawyer

(2009). Can measuring psychosocial factors promote college success? Applied Measurement in Education, 23(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340903423503

Ang

(2005). Development and validation of the teacher-student relationship inventory using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.74.1.55-74

Ardasheva

Carbonneau

K. J.

Roo

A. K.

Wang

(2018). Relationships among prior learning, anxiety, self-efficacy, and science vocabulary learning of middle school students with varied English language proficiency. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.008

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. https://www.worldcat.org/title/self-efficacy-the-exercise-of-control/oclc/36074515

Barile

J. P.

Donohue

D. K.

Anthony

E. R.

Baker

A. M.

Weaver

S. R.

Henrich

C. C.

(2012). Teacher-student relationship climate and school outcomes: Implications for educational policy initiatives. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(3), 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9652-8

Bergin

(2009). Attachment in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 141–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9104-0

Boekaerts

(1995). The interface between intelligence and personality as determinants of classroom learning. In Saklofske

D. H.

Zeidner

(Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 161–183). Springer.

10.

Britner

S. L.

Pajares

. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20131

11.

Bryant

F. B.

Kastrup

Udo

Hislop

Shefner

Mallow

(2013). Science anxiety, science attitudes, and constructivism: A binational study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 432–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9404-x

12.

Burns

E. C.

Martin

A. J.

Kennett

R. K.

Pearson

Munro-Smith

(2021). Optimizing science self-efficacy: A multilevel examination of the moderating effects of anxiety on the relationship between self-efficacy and achievement in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 64, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101937

13.

Büyüköztürk

Akgün

ÖE

Özkahveci

Demirel

. (2004). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Sciences Theory & Practice, 4(2), 207–239. https://silo.tips/download/the-validity-and-reliability-study-of-the-turkish-version-of-the-motivated-strat

14.

Cadima

Leal

Burchinal

(2010). The quality of teacher-student interactions: Associations with first graders’ academic and behavioral outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 48(6), 457–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.09.001

15.

Chen

J. A.

Usher

E. L.

(2013). Profiles of the sources of science self-efficacy. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.11.002

16.

Chiarelott

Czerniak

(1987). Science anxiety: Implications for science curriculum and teaching. Clearing House, 60, 202–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.1987.9959323

17.

Considine

Zappalà

(2002). The influence of social and economic disadvantage in the academic performance of school students in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 38, 129–148. http://jos.sagepub.com

18.

Pianta

R. C.

Nimetz

S. L.

(1991). Relationships between children and teachers: Associations with classroom and home behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12(3), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(91)90007-q

19.

Den Brok

Fisher

Scott

(2005). The importance of teacher interpersonal behaviour for student attitudes in Brunei primary science classes. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 765–779. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038488

20.

Domino

(2009). Teachers’ influence on students' attitudes toward mathematics. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 26, 32–54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42802340

21.

du Mérac

E. R.

Sensin

Livi

(2022). The importance of teacher-student relationship for distance learning during covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Educational and Psychological Studies, 25, 177–189.

22.

Eddy

R. M.

(2000). Chemophobia in the college classroom: Extent, sources, and student characteristics. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(4), 514–517. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed077p514

23.

Engle

(2010). Role of working-memory capacity in cognitive control. Current Anthropology, 51, S17–S26. https://doi.org/10.1086/650572

24.

Gibbons

R. E.

Villafañe

S. M.

Raker

J. R.

(2018). Testing a reciprocal causation model between anxiety, enjoyment and academic performance in postsecondary organic chemistry. Educational Psychologist, 38(6), 838–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1447649

25.

Gottfredson

L. S.

(1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-2896(97)90011-8

26.

Griggs

M. S.

Rimm-Kaufman

S. E.

Merritt

E. G.

Patton

C. L.

(2013). The responsive classroom approach and fifth grade students’ math and science anxiety and self-efficacy. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(4), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000026

27.

Hamre

B. K.

Pianta

R. C.

(2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00301

28.

Hattie

(2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

29.

Hill

H. C.

Rowan

Ball

D. L.

(2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002371

30.

Honicke

Broadbent

(2016). The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 17, 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.11.002

31.

Hughes

Kwok

O. M.

(2007). Influence of student-teacher and parent-teacher relationships on lower achieving readers’ engagement and achievement in the primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.39

32.

Jellesma

F. C.

Zee

Koomen

H. M. Y.

(2015). Children’s perceptions of the relationship with the teacher: Associations with appraisals and internalizing problems in middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 36, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.09.002

33.

Jerome

E. M.

Hamre

B. K.

Pianta

R. C.

(2008). Teacher-child relationships from kindergarten to sixth grade: Early childhood predictors of teacher-perceived conflict and closeness. Social Development, 18(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00508.x

34.

Kağıtçı

Kurbanoglu

N. İ

. (2013). Developing an anxiety scale for science and technology class: Reliability and validity study. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 10(3), 95–107. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287258223_Developing_an_anxiety_scale_for_scie,nce_and_technology_class_Reliability_and_validity_study

35.

Komarraju

Ramsey

Rinella

(2013). Cognitive and non-cognitive predictors of college readiness and performance: Role of academic discipline. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.007

36.

Lilley

J. L.

Oberle

C. D.

Thompson

J. G.

(2014). Effects of music and grade consequences on test anxiety and performance. Psychomusicology Music Mind and Brain, 24(2), 184–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/pmu0000038

37.

Lipnevich

A. A.

Roberts

R. D.

(2012). Noncognitive skills in education: Emerging research and applications in a variety of international contexts. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(2), 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.016

38.

Hau

K. T.

Liu

(2018). The association between teacher-student relationship and academic achievement in Chinese EFL context: A serial multiple mediation model. Educational Psychologist, 38(5), 687–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1412400

39.

Mallow

J. V.

(1986). Science anxiety: Fear of science and how to overcome it (revised ed.). H & H Publications.

40.

Mallow

J. V.

(1994). Gender-related science anxiety: A first binational study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3, 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01575898

41.

Mallow

J. V.

Greenburg

S. L.

(1982). Science anxiety: Causes and remedies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 11, 356–358. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42965923

42.

Maloney

E. A.

Beilock

S. L.

(2012). Math anxiety: Who has it, why it develops, and how to guard against it. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 404–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.008

43.

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://dpmartin42.github.io/extras/JSP_final.pdf

44.

McCormick

M. P.

O’Connor

E. E.

Cappella

McClowry

S. G

. (2013). Teacher–child relationships and academic achievement: A multilevel propensity score model approach. Journal of School Psychology, 51(5), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.05.001

45.

Murray

Greenberg

M. T.

(2001). Relationships with teachers and bonds with school: Social emotional adjustment correlates for children with and without disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(200101)38:1<25::aid-pits4>3.0.co;2-c

46.

Niehaus

Rudasill

K. M.

Rakes

C. R.

(2012). A longitudinal study of school connectedness and academic outcomes across sixth grade. Journal of School Psychology, 50(4), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.03.002

47.

Oludipe

B. D.

Oludipe

D. I.

(2018). Effect of gender and science anxiety on Nigerian Junior secondary students’ academic achievement in basic science. Journal of Education and Practice, 9(12), 80–86. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/viewFile/42206/43452

48.

O’Connor

E. E.

Dearing

Collins

B. A.

(2011). Teacher-child relationship and behavior problem trajectories in elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 120–162. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210365008

49.

Patall

E. A.

Hooper

Vasquez

A. C.

Pituch

K. A.

Steingut

R. R.

(2018). Science class is too hard: Perceived difficulty, disengagement, and the role of teacher autonomy support from a daily diary perspective. Learning and Instruction, 58, 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.07.004

50.

Pianta

R. C

. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10314-000

51.

Pianta

R. C.

Hamre

B. K.

(2009). Classroom processes and positive youth development: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of interactions between teachers and students. New Directions for Youth Development, 2009(121), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.295

52.

Pintrich

P. R.

Smith

D. A. F.

Garcia

McKeachie

W. J.

(1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning. School of Education Building. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338122.pdf

53.

Ramirez

Chang

Maloney

E. A.

Levine

S. C.

Beilock

S. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.07.014

54.

Rey

R. B.

Smith

A. L.

Yoon

Somers

Barnett

(2007). Relationships between teachers and urban African American children: The role of informant. School Psychology International, 28, 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034307078545

55.

Rice

Barth

J. M.

Guadagno

R. E.

Smith

G. P.

McCallum

D. M.

(2013). The role of social support in students' perceived abilities and attitudes toward math and science. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(7), 1028–1040.

56.

Rittmayer

A. D.

Beier

M. E.

(2008). Overview: Self-efficacy in STEM. In Bogue

Cady

(Eds.), Applying Research to practice (ARP) resources (pp. 1–12). A Product of SWE-AWE (www.AWEonline.org) and NAE CASEE (www.nae.edu/casee-equity) NSF Grant #01210642 and #0533520 Retrieved December 10, 2018, from http://aweonline.org/arp_selfefficacy_overview_122208.pdf

57.

Roorda

D. L.

Koomen

H. M. Y.

Spilt

J. L.

Oort

F. J.

(2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793

58.

Rudasill

K. M.

Reio

T. G.

Jr Stipanovic

Taylor

J. E.

(2010). A longitudinal study of student-teacher relationship quality, difficult temperament, and risky behavior from childhood to early adolescence. Journal of School Psychology, 48(5), 389–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.05.001

59.

Sanchez Fowler

L. T.

Banks

T. I.

Anhalt

Der

H. H.

Kalis

(2008). The association between externalizing behavior problems, teacher-student rapport quality, and academic performance in young urban learners. Behavioral Disorders, 33(3), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290803300304

60.

Schunk

D. H.

Pajares

(2002). The development of self-efﬁcacy. In Wigﬁeld

Eccles

J. S.

(Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 16–31). Academic Press. https://www.uky.edu/∼eushe2/Pajares/SchunkPajares2001.PDF

61.

Semeraro

Giofrè

Coppola

Lucangeli

Cassibba

(2020). The role of cognitive and non-cognitive factors in mathematics achievement: The importance of the quality of the student-teacher relationship in middle school. PLoS One, 15(4), e0231381.

62.

Shores

M. L.

Shannon

D. M.

(2007). The effects of self-regulation, motivation, anxiety, and attributions on mathematics achievement for fifth and sixth grade students. School Science and Mathematics, 107(6), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2007.tb18284.x

63.

Singh

Granville

Dika

(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

64.

Sparks

S. D.

(2014). An age-old problem gets new attention. Education Week, 33(34), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231381

65.

Tosto

M. G.

Asbury

Mazzocco

M. M.

Petrill

S. A.

Kovas

(2016). From classroom environment to mathematics achievement: The mediating role of self-perceived ability and subject interest. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.07.009

66.

Turner

R. C.

Lindsay

H. A.

(2003). Gender differences in cognitive and non-cognitive factors related to achievement in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(5), 563–568. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed080p563

67.

Udo

M. K.

Ramsey

G. P.

Mallow

J. V.

(2004). Science anxiety and gender in students taking general education science courses. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(4), 435–446. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40186735?seq=1

68.

Upadyaya

Eccles

J. S.

(2014). How do teachers’ beliefs predict children’s interest in math from kindergarten to sixth grade? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 60(4), 403–430. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.60.4.0403

69.

Usher

E. L.

Ford

C. J.

C. R.

Weidner

B. L.

(2019). Sources of math and science self-efficacy in rural Appalachia: A convergent mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 57, 32–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.10.003

70.

Usher

E. L.

Pajares

(2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751–796. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321456

71.

Vagos

Carvalhais

(2022). Online versus classroom teaching: Impact on teacher and student relationship quality and quality of life. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 828774–828777.

72.

Valiente

Lemery-Chalfant

Swanson

Reiser

(2008). Prediction of children’s academic competence from their effortful control, relationships, and classroom participation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.67

73.

Wang

M. T.

Degol

J. L.

Amemiya

Parr

Guo

(2020). Classroom climate and children's academic and psychological wellbeing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 57, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2020.100912

74.

Watt

H. M. G.

(2006). The role of motivation in gendered educational and occupational trajectories related to maths. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610600765562

75.

Wei

Onsawad

(2007). English teachers’ actual and ideal interpersonal behavior and students’ outcomes in secondary schools of Thailand. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 4(2), 95–121. file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/AsiaTEFL_V4_N2_Summer_2007_English_Teachers_Actual_and_Ideal_Interpersonal_Behavior_and_Students_Outcomes_in_Secondary_Schools_of_Thailand%20(2).pdf

76.

Wentzel

K. R.

(2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00406

77.

Wentzel

K. R.

Battle

Russell

S. L.

Looney

L. B.

(2010). Social supports from teachers and peers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.002

78.

Wilson

B. G.

(1996). What is a constructivist learning environment? In Wilson

B. G.

(Ed.), Constructing learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 3–8). Educational Technology Publications. https://cepa.info/7148

79.

(2019). The relationship between teacher-student relationship and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-efficacy. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 15(10), 1–7. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1302577

80.

Zee

Roorda

D. L.

(2018). Student–teacher relationships in elementary school: The unique role of shyness, anxiety, and emotional problems. Learning and Individual Differences, 67, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.08.006

81.

Zhou

Hau

K. T.

Luo

Feng

Liu

(2020). Teacher-student relationship and mathematical problem-solving ability: Mediating roles of self-efficacy and mathematical anxiety. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1696947

82.

Zhou

Liu

(2021). On the different effects of teacher–student rapport on urban and rural students’ math learning in China: An empirical study. Psychology in the Schools, 58, 268–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22446