CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT INFLUENCE ON STUDENT SELF-EFFICACY IN

MATHEMATICS

A Dissertation
by
HILLARY P. CROISSANT

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies

of Texas A&M University-Commerce
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2014

CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT INFLUENCE ON STUDENT SELF-EFFICACY IN

MATHEMATICS

A Dissertation
by
HILLARY P. CROISSANT

Approved by:
Advisor:

Gilbert Naizer

Committee:

Tami Morton

Katy Denson
Head of Department: Martha Foote
Dean of the College: Gail Johnson
Dean of Graduate Studies: Arlene Horne

Copyright 2014
Hillary P. Croissant

ABSTRACT
CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT INFLUENCE ON STUDENT SELF-EFFICACY IN
MATHEMATICS
Hillary P. Croissant, EdD
Texas A&M University-Commerce, 2014
Advisor: Gilbert Naizer, PhD

This study aimed to find the characteristics of public school math classrooms and how
they influence self-efficacy of students. Data were collected on math students in grades 4
through 12 in a North Texas school district. Two surveys were administered to students in the
district. Within 10 days, the students completed a classroom environment survey, followed by a
self-efficacy survey. Both surveys were electronic and administered during the school day.
Student data were analyzed by conducting a simple linear regression in order to determine if a
relationship existed between classroom environment and student self-efficacy. A multiple
regression was used in order to determine which dimensions under classroom environment could
predict a high or low self-efficacy. Data analysis was unable to generalize low self-efficacy in
mathematics and classroom environment correlation due to a small effect size. High selfefficacy in mathematics was found to increase as cohesion and satisfaction would increase and
high self-efficacy in mathematics would increase as friction and difficulty would decrease.

5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Teaching is a work of the heart is a sign I have up in my classroom that reminds me
that not only as a teacher can I make a difference, but I am impacted by all kinds of teachers
throughout my life. I want to thank the many mentors and supporters from whom I have had the
opportunity to be influenced by and taught. You have encouraged me, supported me, and given
me the strength to complete this journey.
I would like to thank my closest friends for supporting me throughout this journey. First,
to my friend Wendy Ulrich for encouraging me to continue on this path while being my work
spouse by ensuring me that I could be a teacher and student at the same time. Also, to Laura
Ahrens for reminding me how fortunate I am to be on this adventure and keeping me passionate
about the knowledge that I was gaining.
My inspiration comes from my teachers from the past. This great idea started with my
professors from Austin CollegeJane White, Julia Shahid, and Barbara Sylvesterand my goal
to be like them someday. I appreciate my mentors and support from administration and fellow
teachers in my school district for their extended support. A special thanks goes out to my
advisor Dr. Gilbert Naizer who has read and reread through my work, emailed and conferenced,
and helped me make sure that I am the best that I could be. Also thank you to Katy Denson and
Tami Morton for being a part of my dissertation committee and supporting my statistical and
literary efforts. Jane Braddock and Kelli Knight for bringing snacks to class and being the
perfect support system for this doctoral stage of life.
Lastly I would like to thank my family for their continued support. My mom and dad for
always being my number one fan as well as my parents-in-law who support any crazy idea I
come up with and ensure I have everything I need to be successful. Most of all I want to thank

vi
my husband Eric for putting up with the late nights, study sessions, and tears that come with the
crazy life of being a doctoral student. You are my greatest supporter and sounding board, and I
could not have done it without your continued love and motivation. Weston better be ready for a
wild ride as a part of this family.
This dissertation is dedicated to students who strongly dislike math in the hope that one
day they will be positively impacted by a classroom or a teacher who instills the love of math in
them so that it becomes a subject to be passionate about rather than despised.

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................1
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................3
Research Questions ..................................................................................................3
Research Hypotheses ...............................................................................................4
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................4
Significance of the Problem ...................................................................................10
Method of Procedure..............................................................................................11
Definitions of Terms ..............................................................................................13
Limitations .............................................................................................................14
Delimitations..........................................................................................................15
Assumptions...........................................................................................................15
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................16
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............................................................................17
Math Anxiety .........................................................................................................17
Classroom Environment.........................................................................................20
Self-Efficacy and Classroom Environment ..........................................................25
Self-Efficacy and Math ..........................................................................................30
Self-Efficacy and Achievement .............................................................................32

88
Student Attitudes and Achievement.......................................................................38
Anxiety and Achievement......................................................................................39
Teacher Attitudes ...................................................................................................42
Conclusions............................................................................................................46
3. METHOD OF PROCEDURE......................................................................................48
Research Design.....................................................................................................49
Population and Sample ..........................................................................................50
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................51
Procedures ..............................................................................................................55
Data Gathering .......................................................................................................57
Treatment of Data ..................................................................................................58
Summary ................................................................................................................58
4. ANALYSIS OF DATA................................................................................................60
Results....................................................................................................................60
Summary ................................................................................................................65
5. SUMMARY OF THE STUDY AND THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH......66
Summary of the Study ...........................................................................................66
Summary of the Findings .......................................................................................66
Conclusions............................................................................................................67
Implications............................................................................................................71
Recommendations for Further Research................................................................74
Summary ................................................................................................................75

9
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................76
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................107
Appendix
A. My Classroom Inventory .....................................................................................108
B. Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey .................................................................111
C. Parent Permission Form .......................................................................................115
D. Child/Minor Agreement to Be in a Research Study ............................................119
E. District Agreement ...............................................................................................122
F. Parent and Student Recruitment Letters ..............................................................125
G. Demographic Survey ...........................................................................................127
H. Video Script .........................................................................................................129
I. Spanish Translation of Parent Letter....................................................................132
J. Spanish Translation of Parent Permission Form..................................................134
K. Signed Site Letter.................................................................................................138
L. Tables 1-4.............................................................................................................141
VITA ............................................................................................................................................144

1
0
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1. Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations for High Self-Efficacy, Cohesiveness,
Friction, Satisfaction, Difficulty, and Competitiveness .....................................................62
2. Multiple Regression Analysis Summary for Variables Predicting High Math SelfEfficacy ..............................................................................................................................63
3. Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations for Low Self-Efficacy, Cohesiveness,
Friction, Satisfaction, Difficulty, and Competitiveness .....................................................64
4. Multiple Regression Analysis Summary for Variables Predicting Low Math Self-Efficacy
............................................................................................................................................65

1
1
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1. Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................5

1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Starting at a young age, people are very impressionable through interactions in their
environment including at home, at school, and with peers. These impressions can be reinforced
or changed throughout the students life. An impression that has been an epidemic in our society
is the negative attitude toward mathematics. Having a negative attitude in mathematics can lead
to lower achievement in mathematics and lack of interest in continuing to develop a knowledge
base of this topic. This study aimed to examine existing research and add to the body of
knowledge in order to create an environment for students that leads to an increase in
mathematics self-efficacy and ultimately improves attitudes and achievement in mathematics.
Statement of the Problem
A 2005 Associated Press poll found that nearly 40% of adults strongly disliked
mathematics in school, twice the percentage of adults who disliked other subjects (Philipp,
2007). The way individuals see mathematics can negatively or positively impact their attitude
toward the subject. While students learn mathematics, they acquire skills, understand maths
value, how it is learned, who should learn it, and what is needed for engagement in mathematics
understanding. Heller stated, Be careful how you interpret the world; it is like that (McFague,
2001, p. 39). This implies that the way that an individual makes sense of the world, not only
defines the person for the world, but also the world for that person.
The importance and need for math are emphasized in many areas of the world around us
and in our life and workplace. Math is a significant part of the scientific and technical
community our society has become, as well as our cultural heritage (National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000). The increase in the complexity of our everyday life

2
has raised the importance and significance of mathematics and the role it has in our society.
Unfortunately, the level of difficulty and abstractness of math are a large reason why people have
developed a negative view, attitude, or affect toward mathematics (Adeyemi, 2012). This
negative view of educators can trickle down to students and lead to unsatisfactory achievement
and participation in mathematics (Malmivuori, 2008). Lack of intrinsic motivation can lead to
resistance toward mathematics and the learners self-perception will decline and difficulties in
mathematics will increase (Royer & Walles, 2007). Students who have difficulties in math often
have lower confidence in math and lower achievement in mathematics.
Self-efficacy is defined by Bandura (1986) as peoples judgments of their capabilities to
organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances (p.
391) and can be easily confused with attitudes. Attitudes toward math have been defined as a
liking or disliking of mathematics, a tendency to engage in or avoid mathematics activities, a
belief that one is good or bad at mathematics, and a belief that mathematics is useful or useless
(Neale, 1969, p. 623). While both strongly reflect an individuals feelings toward an area of
focus, in this case mathematics, they are different through the fact that self-efficacy has a greater
emphasis on the performance that is associated with the attitude rather than just the feeling.
It is crucial that educators create learning environments that build students into adults that
approach challenging math and science tasks with full force. Times where students shy away
from these tasks should be limited. Educators need to be sure that they present environments
where students are getting a positive feeling about how they do mathematics and want to do
more. When students feel successful in a school setting, they are more likely to want to explore
it further into their adult life. Classroom environment is a topic that needs to be explored so we
can not only prevent students from avoiding math, but also encourage them to take it further.

3
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine how a classroom and the environment created
by the teacher and classmates can impact how students feel about their ability to do and be
successful in mathematics. It focused on how students perceived their classroom environment
and measured student attitudes toward mathematics in order to determine relationships between
the two. The relationship between how the students perceived their classroom environment and
their attitudes toward math was analyzed.
The quantitative data collected gave insight into the classroom environment
characteristics that foster negative and/or positive students self-efficacy in mathematics
classrooms. This study determined how different characteristics of a classroom correlates to
student self-efficacy in mathematics. The researcher sought to find what characteristics in a
classroom environment are predictors of negative and/or positive attitudes toward mathematics.
Emphasis was placed on examining how students feel about the environment created in a
mathematics classroom and how their feelings toward mathematics were affected. Another
emphasis of this research was to examine which classroom environment dimensions impact
negative and positive student self-efficacy in mathematics.
Research Questions
This study addressed the following questions:
1. Which dimensions of classroom environment (cohesiveness, friction, satisfaction,
difficulty, or competitiveness) are the best predictors of high self-efficacy for students
in mathematics?

4
2. Which dimensions of classroom environment (cohesiveness, friction, satisfaction,
difficulty, or competitiveness) are the best predictors of low self-efficacy for students
in mathematics?
Research Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses reflect the research questions:
1. No relationship exists among the dimensions of classroom environment
(cohesiveness, friction, satisfaction, difficulty, or competitiveness) and students high
self-efficacy in mathematics.
2. No relationship exists among the dimensions of classroom environment
(cohesiveness, friction, satisfaction, difficulty, or competitiveness) and students low
self-efficacy in mathematics.
Theoretical Framework
Individuals behaviors and attitudes are caused by multiple variables including their
environment, peer interactions, feedback from authority figures, and their personal experiences
(Battistich, Solomon, Kim, Watson, & Schaps, 1995). In a classroom, all of these variables
impact students and their behavior as well as self-efficacy toward the subject being taught. The
following historical and current theories support these findings. These theories include the social
cognitive theory, attribution theory, self-efficacy theory, person environment fit theory, and the
expectancy-value theory.
Each theory supports different variables in this study. Figure 1 shows a visual
representation of how each theory is directly connected to the current study. Self-efficacy is
connected to the social cognitive theory, attribution theory, and expectancy-value theory.
Classroom environment is supported by the person-environment fit theory. The social cognitive

5
theory is thinking about and reflecting over your behavior. Self-efficacy is impacted by the
social cognitive theory because thinking leads to judgments created about oneself which impact
individual future performance. The attribution theory causes individuals to think about why they
succeed or fail and these ideas can lead to future behaviors and performance. Expectancy-value
theory involves individual motivation in an area based on its value according to that individual.
This can impact future performance from that individual, as well as self-efficacy. Personenvironment fit theory is based on how the environment impacts behavior. This directly
connects to how a classroom is conducted, and the culture created within it can impact the
students in it.

Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive learning theorists view human functioning as reciprocal interactions
among behaviors of individuals, environmental variables, cognition, and personal factors
(Bandura, 1986). When individuals perform a task, the perceived importance of the task is a
large part of the result of the outcome expectation the individual has for the task. Bandura
(1986) stated that beliefs determine expectations; therefore people generally value what they feel

6
capable of accomplishing and do not value the activities in which they have little confidence.
Through self-reflection, individuals evaluate their own experiences and thought processes, which
powerfully influences how they will behave in future tasks (Pajares, 1996).
Banduras (1997) social cognitive theory proposed that self-efficacy is strongly affected
by previous performance and influenced by observing others, verbal persuasion, and
interpretation of physiological states, with possibilities that student perceptions of their learning
environment also affect their efficacy. People are self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting, selfregulating, non-reactive beings easily influenced by their environmental or inner impulses.
People interpret their own behavior, which impacts their environment and personal impulses and
can therefore alter their subsequent behavior. Pajares (2002) supported the idea that teachers can
work to improve their students perception of school and students emotional state in order to
self-correct false self-beliefs and develop habits to improve their academic skill and selfregulatory practices.
Additionally, society constructs values and standards that impact the ways students view
themselves, depending on their approach and success with given tasks in the education system
(Hickey & Granade, 2004). The social cognitive theory is based on the idea that people
purposefully engage in their own development and can make things happen through their actions.
Attribution Theory
The attribution theory emphasizes the thought that for individuals who believe success is
due to high ability and failure is due to lack of effort, motivation will remain constant. However,
students who believe success is luck and failure is expected are less likely to be motivated
(Diener & Dweck, 1978). Students or others who have always failed in the past in a specific
task, attribute that failure to themselves, especially if they see others succeeding (Weiner, 2004).

7
The attribution theory is based on causal attributions that people make about the success or
failure of their actions that will influence how they feel and how they expect to perform on future
tasks or activities of the same nature (Weiner, 1986). The effect of childrens own perceptions of
their ability to achieve success has a direct impact on their personal attitude toward math.
Attributions influence motivation and performance through the meditational role of self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1995; Schunk, 1991).
Self-Efficacy
Individuals self-efficacy influences how people feel, think, motivate themselves, and
behave. Bandura (1997) described four major processes that are impacted by self-efficacy
including cognitive, motivational, affective, and selection processes. Major focuses of cognition
included the impact of comparing, feedback, and amount of control over a
situation. Additionally, individuals that believe they will perform well will tend to perform well,
while those that feel inferior will perform poorly. Students with high self-efficacy seem to
participate more readily, work harder, persist longer, and achieve higher results.
Bandura (1986) defined self-efficacy as peoples judgments of their capabilities to
organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances (p.
391). Self-efficacy impacts almost every aspect of peoples lives and is the core of human
motivation, well-being, and personal accomplishment. It influences individual choices, goals,
emotional reactions, efforts, coping, and persistence (Gist, Mitchell, & Mitchell, 1992). When
individuals are faced with adversity, self-efficacy determines their behavior (Pajares, 2002).
Self-efficacy impacts motivation, affect, and actions based on the interaction of what the
individual believes rather than what is actually true (Bandura, 1997).

8
Self-efficacy influences the choices that people make and how much effort they put into
the tasks, their thought patterns, and their emotional reactions (Pajares, 2002). There are four
different sources through which self-efficacy can be developed including mastery experience,
vicarious experience, social persuasions, and somatic and emotional states. Mastery experience
is the most influential source and is the act of individuals engaging in the actual task or activity
and then interpreting the results of their actions. These interpretations are then used to develop a
personal belief about their capability to perform the task or activity and then act in line with the
beliefs they have created (Pajares, 2002). Researchers have shown that self-efficacy is related to
the career path and choices made by individuals along with other decisional behaviors (Betz &
Hackett, 1981, 1983; Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1987). Also, self-efficacy can predict success and
persistence in certain academic majors and is strongly related to achievement status (Multon,
Brown, & Lent, 1991).
Person Environment Fit Theory
The person-environment fit theory (Lewin, 1935; Murray, 1938, 1951) emphasizes the
idea that behavior is a function of the person and the environment. There is a mutual relationship
between the environment and person such that the environment influences behavior. Hunt
(1975) emphasized the need for a match between the person and the environment in the course of
learning. Early adolescents have an increase in a need for higher quality interactions with adults,
sense of autonomy, and a sense of belonging (Eccles, et al., 1993; Kuperminc, Leadbeater, &
Blatt, 2001; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989; Osterman, 2000). There is dual emphasis on
the person and the environment and behavior, attitudes, and well-being are determined by both
the person and the environment. Within the research under person-environment fit theory, the
feeling gained by the individual arises not from the person or environment but rather by his or

9
her fit or congruence with one another (Edwards, Caplan, & Harrison, 1998). Classroom
environments have a culture of their own created by the people within and surrounding it. The
environment created has an impact on the individuals that are a part of it, which include the
students. This theory supports the concept that the environment created has an impact on the
behavior of those that are a part of the environment, in this case, with emphasis on the students.
Expectancy-value Theory
The expectancy value theory emphasizes how motivation is a primary result of an
individuals belief about the outcome of a specific activity and the importance placed on that
outcome (Atkinson, 1957; McClelland, 1985; Rotter, 1982). Individuals will be motivated to
participate in tasks if they find value in the outcome of that particular task and will not be
motivated to take part in a task if they do not find value in the outcome. Researchers have
agreed that competence in completing a task plays a crucial role if the task will be valued by the
individual (Eccles, 1983; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). Bandura (1986) emphasized that outcome
expectation will have a stronger influence on the motivation and predicting behavior of the task
performed. Bandura stated that personal judgments of the individuals competence are different
than the individuals judgment of the likely outcome from the task. Those who expect success
will behave in such a way in order to achieve that goal. The opposite is also true; if individuals
expect failure, they will be more likely to fulfill that belief (Pajares, 1996).
According to Eccles (2009), achievement related behaviors like course selection and
occupational aspiration are most directly influenced by the individuals expectation for success.
Research has indicated that students who are most likely to take math courses and to aspire to
math focused careers place higher value and have greater confidence in their math abilities than
those who do not (Eccles, 2007).

10
The expectancy-value theory also shows that the feedback students receive on their
academic performance influences their motivational beliefs and academic choices (Eccles, 2009).
Wang (2012) concurred; he found that students who earned higher grades in math also reported
higher math expectancies and subjective task values, and were more likely to continue with
course work in math and have math-related jobs in the future.
Significance of the Problem
Students in our colleges are straying away from majoring in mathematics intensive fields
because of the lack of self-efficacy in this area (Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public
Policy, 2007). This shortage of math majors and graduates has put the United States behind in
mathematics, science, and technology development. The Industrial Revolution spawned a
multitude of engineering endeavors that spring boarded the economy in the United States
(Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 2007). Many areas of our life including
transportation, communication, agriculture, education, health, defense, and employment
opportunities are available due to the investment in scientific research and engineering (Popper
& Wagner, 2002). The United States has been considered a leader in science and engineering
activities since the early 1900s with 30% of the worlds scientists and engineers as well as 17 of
the worlds top 20 universities (Freeman, 2005). With the reputation so high in the US, other
countries have stepped up and increased their competitiveness with the US over the past 20
years. This changing global market requires the US to produce not only more engineers, but
higher quality engineers that are needed to be worldwide leaders in this high-tech production
market. High school graduates pursuing engineering degrees are declining (Noeth, Cruce, &
Harmston, 2003), and less than half the freshmen who begin college with engineering as their
major finishing with an engineering degree (Besterfield-Sacre, Atman, & Shuman, 1997). One

11
attempt to solve this problem is to increase the number of students choosing to study engineering
(Fantz, Siller, & Demiranda, 2011). Mathematics is a crucial piece of many fields, including the
engineering field. Without mathematics, problem solving, process formation, and application
would find disconnect within this field of study.
This research study helps to determine what characteristics of classrooms can lead to a
low or high self-efficacy in mathematics. Using this information, educators will be able to
determine what they can do in their classroom to encourage high mathematics self-efficacy in
their students and eliminate characteristics that tend to form a lower self-efficacy. This will lead
to improved math interest and achievement as well as an increase in students in mathematic
career fields. This boost in mathematics in America could jump start the society with
improvement in areas like Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields.
Method of Procedure
This research study sought to determine what characteristics of the mathematic classroom
environment could predict high or low student self-efficacy in mathematics. Two surveys were
administered to participants in order to collect data. The data were then analyzed using multiple
regression.
Selection of Sample
Participants for this study included students in fourth through 12th grade in a small North
Texas school district. Only participants with parent permission and student assent were included
in the data analysis. The school district superintendent gave prior permission for the researcher
to collect the student data. Approximately 400 students participated in this study.

12
Instrumentation
The Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale (PALS) (Midgley et al., 2000) instrument as a
whole is a tool used to measure a variety of learning aspects of the student. This study focused
solely on high and low self-efficacy, therefore, only parts of the PALS instrument were used in
data analysis to emphasize self-efficacy rather than the other student scales. The PALS
instrument was chosen because of its validity and reliability and there was no other appropriate
mathematics self-efficacy instrument.
Self-handicapping is associated with maladaptive behavior which leads to low selfefficacy (Patrick, Kaplan, & Ryan, 2011), therefore low self-efficacy was measured using the
statements under academic self-handicapping strategies (p. 368). Self-efficacy also has been
found to be positively related to mastery goal structure, personal mastery goal orientation, effort,
not cheating, satisfaction with learning, school-related effort, and achievement (Ames & Archer,
1988; Anderman, 1999; Kaplan & Midgley, 1999; Murdock, Hale, & Weber, 2001). Therefore,
high self-efficacy was measured by analyzing the statements that fall under mastery goal
orientation and academic efficacy.
Students also took the My Classroom Inventory (MCI) (Fraser, Anderson, & Walberg,
1982) which measured students perception of the classroom environment in their mathematics
classroom. The MCI measures five dimensions of social climate, including cohesiveness,
friction, satisfaction, difficulty, and competitiveness.
Collection of Data
Students took the two separate surveys, in an electronic version, during the regular school
day in their computer lab, the MCI. My Classroom Inventory (MCI) and the selected items from
the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS) (Midgley et al., 2000) were used to collect and

13
analyze data from the students. Students entered some demographic information on both
surveys, including their ID number in order for their surveys to be matched by a district
employee for analysis. The ID number is a school district issued number that students are
familiar with and use on a daily basis. Student ID numbers were removed before data were given
to the researcher.
Treatment of the Data
The data were collected and analyzed using Statistical Program for Social Sciences
(SPSS) through conducting two multiple regressions to determine which dimensions of
classroom environment can predict a high or low math self-efficacy. Student demographics were
reported.
Definitions of Terms
The following terms are used in the present study:
Classroom environment. Classroom environment involves interpersonal relationships
with peers, relationships between students and their teacher, the relationship between students,
the subject studied and teaching methods, in addition to student perceptions of structural
characteristics of the class (Fraser et al., 1982). In this study, classroom environment was
measured by My Classroom Inventory (MCI) (Fraser et al., 1982). The five subscales under
classroom environment are listed below:
Cohesiveness- extent to which students, know, help and are friendly toward each other;
Friction- amount of tension and quarrelling among students;
Satisfaction- extent of enjoyment of class work;
Difficulty- the extent to which students find difficulty with the work of the class; and
Competitiveness- emphasis is placed on students competing with each other.

14
High self-efficacy. High self-efficacy is defined as mastery goal orientation and
academic efficacy. High self-efficacy was measured by Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey
(PALS) (Midgley et al., 2000) using the mastery goal orientation and academic efficacy
scales.
Low self-efficacy. Low self-efficacy is defined as looking at student attribution through
academic self-handicapping strategies. Low self-efficacy was measured by Patterns of
Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS) (Midgley et al., 2000) using the academic self-handicapping
scale.
Mathematics self-efficacy. Self-efficacy of students specifically in the mathematics
classroom and academic area of math (Bagaka, 2011).
Mathematics classroom. Mathematics classrooms ranged from a self-contained
elementary classroom to a dual credit calculus classroom.
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was defined by Albert Bandura (1994) as the belief in ones
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective
situations (p. 72). It measures how people think, feel, and behave in certain situations and their
personal opinion of how they can succeed in that environment.
Students. Students are defined as children from fourth through 12th grades who were
approximately age 9 to 19.
Limitations
The limitations of this study were as follows:
1. The district selected has a small population and limited subgroups (ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, languages spoken).
2. The sampled participants were not an exact representation of the population of the

15
school district due to the requirements needed for students to participate.
3. Students completed the surveys on a computer-based survey system that could cause
students to make mistakes by incorrectly clicking an answer they do not want.
4. Previous experiences and events that occur prior to students taking the surveys were
not controlled by the researcher and could impact the results of the survey.
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study were as follows:
1. The data were collected from one school district.
2. The data were collected with limited student subgroups.
3. Only the student section of the PALS survey was used to measure students
perception of classroom environment in mathematics classrooms. No data were
collected using the teacher portion of the instrument.
4. The data were collected within a 10-day time period which could cause some
difference in data collection and change in attitudes of the participants.
5. Only grades four through 12 were analyzed.
6. The researcher chose the order in which the students completed the surveys.
Assumptions
This study is based on the following assumptions:
1. Students responded accurately and honestly.
2. Teachers administrating the surveys did not impact student responses.
3. Math teachers did not alter their teaching in order to gain specific results from the
data collected.

16
4. Both instruments are valid and reliable and the two surveys did not influence each
other.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 includes a statement of the
problem, purpose of the study, research questions, research hypotheses, theoretical framework,
significance of the study, definitions of terms, limitations, delimitations, and assumptions.
Chapter 2 includes related professional literature regarding self-efficacy and classroom
environment in mathematics. In Chapter 3 is a discussion of the research methodology. Chapter
4 includes the analysis of the data; Chapter 5 includes a discussion of the findings and
applications to education.

17
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This study aimed to determine what dimensions of classroom environment predict high
self-efficacy and low self-efficacy in mathematics. Students in a North Texas school district
participated in taking two surveys. One survey measured their perception of the classroom
environment of their math class while the other measured the high and low self-efficacy in
mathematics. Data were analyzed using a multiple regression in order to determine what
characteristics of the math class could predict high and low self-efficacy in mathematics.
Self-efficacy plays a major role in individuals everyday lives. Many different variables
can impact each individuals self-efficacy, especially in the area of mathematics (Hackett &
Betz, 1989). Students attitudes are influenced by many different things including parents, peers,
school, teacher, and classroom environment (Klassen & Usher, 2010). This literature review
examines the importance of a positive self-efficacy in students at all ages in the area of
mathematics and explains why classroom environment, in regard to self-efficacy, needs to be
studied further.
Math Anxiety
Mathematic anxiety is a worldwide concern. The root of the problem is in schools, where
students are developing negative attitudes toward mathematics at a very early age (Ashcraft,
2002). Math anxiety can be described as a feeling of tension that interferes with the
manipulations of numbers and the solving of mathematical problems in academic and ordinary
life situations (Sousa, 2008, p. 171). Math anxiety has been defined as the feeling of tension,
helplessness, mental disorganization and dread when one is required to work and manipulate
math problems (Ashcraft & Faust, 1994). Math anxiety can conjure up feelings of apprehension,

18
dislike, fear and dread (McLeod, 1994). It can prevent students from interacting with situations
that are math intensive and these students avoid upper level math courses (Akin & Kurbanoglu,
2011). Lazarus (1974) believed that mathematic anxiety developed in elementary and secondary
grades. Researchers have shown that negative math experiences can start around third or fourth
grade (Ashcraft & Ridley, 2005; Beilock, Gunderson, Ramirez, & Levine, 2010).
Math anxiety occurs in people from all different race, gender, and age group and can be a
product of the home, school, or society. Burns (1998) estimated that 60% of adults have a fear
of mathematics. Students develop a fear of mathematics (math anxiety) through negative
experiences in math classes or having a lack of self-confidence with numbers (Sousa, 2008).
These experiences and lack of confidence usually lead to fear of calculation, failure, and
difficulty in mathematics. The fear causes their minds to go blank and then causes frustration,
which leads to additional amnesia. Fear and anxiety is increased when time limits are added to
the mathematics activity. Students who have developed math anxiety need help to replace the
memory of failure with the possibility for success (Ashcraft, 2002).
The most obvious consequence of math anxiety is poor achievement and poor grades in
mathematics (Sousa, 2008). Poor performance can be caused by a chemical change happening in
the brain through the biology of the body. Any kind of anxiety causes the body to release
cortisol into the bloodstream. Cortisol is a hormone that refocuses the brain on the anxiety to
determine what action to take to relieve the stress. While this is happening, the frontal lobe is no
longer interested in learning or processing the mathematical operation while the brain is dealing
with a threat to the individuals safety. Therefore, the student cannot focus and has to cope with
the frustration of inattention. As well as their inability to manipulate and retain numbers and
expressions due to a disruption in the working memory (Ashcraft & Kirk, 2001).

19
Beilock, Gunderson, Ramirez, and Levine (2010) focused on how math anxiety can
impact students, specifically girls. This study looked at how female elementary teachers math
anxiety influences the female students achievement and how that compared to the male students.
Students were first and second grade students who were given math assessments throughout the
school year. Students were told two gender neutral stories about students who were good at
math and the other was good at reading and then the students drew a picture of what each looked
like. The pictures were coded and correlated with the math assessment finding that girls who
had confirmed gender ability roles (boys are good at math, and girls are good at reading)
performed worse on the math assessment than girls who did not. These girls also performed
worse than the boys with these differences related to the anxiety that the teacher had about math.
Harper and Daane (1998) studied the causes of math anxiety in preservice elementary
teachers and found that the cause usually stemmed from elementary school and included fear of
making mistakes, having the right answer, amount of time given for a task, word problems, and
problem solving. Philippous and Christou (2003) studied preservice teachers in Greece and
found that teachers with negative attitudes toward mathematics were slightly positively impacted
when they understood the usefulness of the skill while the deeply rooted anxieties about
mathematics did not seem to change.
Ma (1999) found that there is a significant relationship between math anxiety and math
achievement. Bretscher, Dwindell, Hey, and Higbee (1989) posited that students who learned
math because they wanted to, had higher math achievement, therefore the motivation toward
performing math increased the student achievement. Norwood (1994) found that the elements of
math anxiety included a mixture of truancy, poor self-image, poor coping skills, teacher attitude,
and the emphasis on learning math through drill practice rather than understanding. Zakaria and

20
Nordin (2008) found that students who had a high math anxiety also had a low math achievement
as well as the students with low math anxiety had high math achievement.
Classroom Environment
The term classroom environment refers to the social and psychological surroundings of
the classroom (Fraser, 1991). The teacher is a part of and contributes to the classroom
environment which influences choices and norms of the classroom (Shuell, 1996). Research has
shown that the quality of classroom environment is a significant determinant of student learning
(Fraser, 1994, 1998b). Early seminal work by Lewin (1935, 1936) and Murray (1938)
recognized that both the environment and its interaction with personal characteristics of the
individual are determinants of the human behavior. Students learn better when they perceive the
classroom environment positively (Dorman, 2003). Research on classroom environment has
been diverse and varied, but began with the work of Walberg (1979) and Moos (1974), who
spawned additional research programs all over the world. While questionnaires were used
greatly in the beginning of the classroom environment research, both quantitative and qualitative
methods are the more typical route of researchers. The majority of classroom environment
research has been done in science classrooms and very few have involved mathematics
classrooms (Spinner & Fraser, 2005).
Classroom environment has been shown to be the most significant factor in students
learning and attitudes in math and science (Fraser & Kahle, 2007). The classroom environment
is a critical context for promoting the development of students educational and career interests
(Simpkins, Davis-Kean, & Eccles, 2006). There is evidence to suggest that classroom
environment influences how well students achieve a range of desirable outcomes (Fraser, 2007).
Research has supported the fact that the social environment of classrooms can significantly

21
impact students motivated behavior, specifically the level of friendship students feel for each
other measured by students getting to know each other, helping each other, and working together
(Fraser & Fisher, 1983; Trickett & Moos, 1974). Students have been found to achieve better in
the types of classroom environments that they prefer (Fraser & Fisher, 1983).
Teacher techniques that include the focus on memorization rather than understanding the
concept are among the main sources of math anxiety. Math anxiety also stems from a classroom
culture that searches for one right answer with no recognition or appreciation for the thinking the
student goes through or their cognitive process. Flewelling and Higginson (2001) found that
students who have rewarding and successful learning experiences with math were able to
overcome their math anxiety. Math classrooms and teachers who focus on making sense of that
mathematical process and not memorizing or being correct cultivate students who avoid math
anxiety.
Having a positive classroom environment is a valuable goal of education (Fraser, 2001).
Describing the class through the actual participants, students are in a good position to make
judgments about classrooms because they have experienced many different learning
environments and have spent enough time in the class to form accurate opinions. While teachers
can be inconsistent in daily behavior, there is usually a consistent picture of the traditions and
features of the classroom environment. While observation is a strategy used to collect data on
classroom environments, it does not tell the whole story about the students perspective.
Classroom environment includes the relationships between students, teachers, and subject
material (Fraser et al., 1982). Five components of classroom environment will be emphasized in
this research including cohesiveness, friction, satisfaction, difficulty, and competitiveness.

22
Sinclair and Fraser (2002) conducted research that looked into three areas of classroom
environment. They worked on developing an instrument (Middle School Inventory of
Classroom Environments or ICE), collecting quantitative and qualitative data on typical
classroom environments, and used the information so teachers could positively impact their
classroom and students. Data were collected from about 745 students on their perceived and
preferred classroom environments, along with data collected from ten teachers on their perceived
and preferred classroom environments. Sinclair and Fraser also took part in classroom
observations of the participating teachers. Analysis of the data collected compared the teacher
and student preferred and perceptions of the classroom environment. A one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was used in order to analyze the data for each scale within the instrument.
After initial scores were collected on the teachers and students, the researchers met with the
teachers to share the information and determine what areas that the teacher wanted to improve
upon in order to increase student perceived classroom environment. One teacher aimed to
improve her students perceptions of involvement and teacher empathy in her class. The teacher
worked on including students in the science lab preparation as well as assistance with class pet
maintenance.
Research done on classroom social climates has shown that classrooms characterized by
cohesiveness, satisfaction, and goal directions are preferred by students and are associated with
positive outcomes for students (Fraser, 1991). Students sense of autonomy and participation in
decision making has also been shown to have positive effects for children (Lewin, Lippitt, &
White, 1939). Having a caring environment conveys a set of values such as mutual respect,
valuing individual members contributions, and obligation of each member to meet the needs of
the community (Battistich, Solomon, Kim, Watson, & Schaps, 1995). Fraser (1998a), with

23
support from Goh, Young, and Fraser (1995) found associations between students perception of
the classroom environment in mathematical classes and established that students with greater
cohesiveness were linked to higher achievement for math and teacher support: task orientation
and equity were linked with more positive attitudes and self-esteem.
Cooperative classroom strategies are associated with improved peer relations and
supporting mutual respect (Anderson, 2004). Johnson and Johnson (1991) found that
cooperative learning environments lead to productive classrooms where students exert high
effort to achieve positive and supportive relationships and psychologically healthy and socially
competent students. In a teacher-centered mathematics classroom that is controlled by rules,
routines, and individual drilling, there is little room for student autonomy or social belonging
within the mathematic learning. Student-centered classrooms with teamwork and emphasis on
meaning making give students many opportunities to have students needs met through a variety
of approaches (Hannula, 2006).
The degree to which a classroom is challenging can also influence academic selfefficacy. Challenging is defined as an environment where students are given progressively
difficult tasks as their proficiency increases. Some researchers have suggested that challenging
students can lead to a stronger belief in the students personal academic abilities (Battistich et al.,
1995; Pajares, 1996).
One of the essential ways to improve middle grade education is to establish a safe and
healthy school environment (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Students can be placed at academic risk
of failure because of the quality of their school and classroom learning environment
(Montgomery & Rossi, 1994). Ineffective and dysfunctional classrooms and instructional
learning environments have been uncovered in multiple middle schools (Midgley, Eccles, &

24
Feldlaufer, 1991; MacIver & Epstein, 1993; Waxman, Huang, & Padron, 1995). Middle schools
are usually structured, formal, and less personal than elementary schools and students frequently
become bored and alienated with an increase in teacher talk and lack of student involvement
(Waxman et al., 1995). Middle school classes tend to be more teacher-centered and discipline
focused where teacher student relations and student decision making are not a focus (Feldlaufer,
Midgley, & Eccles, 1988). Additionally, middle schools often do not encourage personal
relationships even though caring and supportive environments are critical for students (Baker,
1998; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996). Classroom environment needs to be a focus in the
middle grades in order to increase student cognitive and affective outcomes (Fraser, 1998;
Haertel, Walberg, & Haertel, 1981). Researchers have shown that cohesiveness, student
satisfaction, and teacher support are positively related to student increase in academic
achievement (Waxman, Read, & Garcia, 2008).
Research has been devoted to comparing the perception students have of their classroom
as one which is performance based or encourages mastery (Patrick, Kaplan, & Ryan, 2011).
Classrooms structured around mastery goals focus on effort put into a task as well as the intrinsic
value of learning. This is compared to the performance-based classroom that focuses on
competition and natural ability. Previous research has found that classrooms based around the
mastery goal model have higher academic self-efficacy (Friedel, Cortina, Turner, & Midgley,
2007). The degree to which students perceive their classroom as a caring environment also has
an influence on self-efficacy. Teachers in these classrooms express personal interest in the
students, provide emotional support, and create a comfortable atmosphere. Murdock and Miller
(2003) suggested that students who perceive their teachers as caring are more likely to view
themselves as more academically capable, set higher goals for themselves, and have significantly

25
higher self-efficacy. The effect of emotional support on math achievement was larger than on
quantity of math instruction.
Roeser et al. (1996) found that a greater sense of school belonging, along with an
emphasis on effort, understanding, and beliefs that all students can learn, were associated with
academic self-efficacy. Cowen, Work, Hightower, Wyman, Parker, & Lotyczewski (1991)
found those students who perceive high levels of classroom competition, friction, and difficulty,
felt less efficacy when approached with an academic challenge.
McMahon, Wernsman, and Rose (2009) examined 149 fourth and fifth graders from
diverse backgrounds in California that completed two self-reports on their perceived classroom
environment. The MCI (My Classroom Inventory) was used to collect data from the students on
their perceived classroom environment, school belongingness was measured using the
Psychological Sense of School Membership Scale, and self-efficacy in language arts and math
was also measured using a The Academic Self-Efficacy Scale. They found that satisfaction,
cohesion, and school belonging were significantly and positively correlated along with difficulty,
competitiveness and friction. Additionally, classroom environment and school belonging predict
self-efficacy and lower difficulty predicted higher math and science self-efficacy. School
belonging and satisfaction and cohesion did not significantly predict math and science selfefficacy.
Self-Efficacy and Classroom Environment
Consistent and convincing research gives evidence that the quality of the classroom
environment is a significant determinant of student learning (Fraser, 1994). A positive learning
environment can influence student academic achievement and attitudes (Fisher, Henderson, &

26
Fraser, 1995). Fraser (1994) indicated that student perceptions of learning environments are an
important factor in explaining their cognitive and affective outcomes.
In terms of self-efficacy and classroom climate, these factors play important roles in the
learning environment (Pitkaniemi & Vanninen, 2012). Students are more likely to have greater
expectancy values in math which can lead to students taking more math courses and pursuing a
career in mathematics. These students can then encourage, cooperate, interact, and help their
classmates and view the curriculum and teaching as meaningful and relevant to their lives when
they perceive their teacher as understanding and supportive while having high expectations for
their learning achievement (Wang, 2012). Teacher and school practices that promote students
mathematical self-efficacy may not only promote mathematic achievements, but also could
narrow the achievement gaps in mathematics as found by gender, socioeconomic status, and
minority status (Bagaka, 2011).
Self-efficacy predicts students math achievement, and there are reasons to suspect that
the relationship between teachers classroom behavior and students academic performance are
also positively correlated (Weinstein & McKown, 1998). Students carefully observe teachers
verbal and nonverbal behaviors while developing self-beliefs and academic behaviors based on
these observations (Weinstein & McKown, 1998). When educators demonstrate a direct interest
in student care and concern, as well as respect for their thoughts, opinions, and ideas, the
outcome supports a decrease in student depressive symptoms and an increase in self-esteem
(Reddy, Rhones, & Mulhall, 2003). Further et al. (1998) determined that affective teacher
behavior including listening, respect, recognition, and fair treatment significantly influenced
young adolescent motivation. Muller, Katz, and Dance (1999) established that students 8-18
years of age desire a personal connection with their teacher and yearn for the instructor to

27
maintain high academic expectations. Fairness is an additional characteristic that students retain
from their educator in the classroom. Students identify with different ways teachers treat
students associated with success and ability (Weinstein & McKown, 1998).
The powerful relationship that grows between the teacher and student in the classroom
plays a crucial role in developing the emotional, motivational, and academic behaviors of the
student. Teacher support correlates directly with youth adjustment, achievement, social, and
motivational development. While educators have a specialized focus of specific academic
content, there needs to be an equal focus on student affect and social-emotional needs (Osterman,
2000). Through self-recorded data, students show a decline in teacher support throughout school
years (Reddy et al., 2003) as well as a decline in a sense of belonging over time (Anderman,
2003). The data from the mathematics self-reports suggest that students feel less valuable and
see a lower persistence in middle school years.
A supportive teaching style has been positively linked to student achievement. It has
been found that if teachers academic support (the teacher cares about their learning, tries to help
them learn, and wants them to do their best), academic press (the teacher checks for
understanding and engagement), and mastery goal (the teacher emphasizes learning and
understanding, focuses on student development) are all implemented in the classroom, student
achievement improves (Goodenow, 1993; Kaplan & Midgley, 1999; Wentzel, 1994, 1997).
Students who perceive that their math teachers take into account student relatedness and
competence, and enforce positive demands on students academic work show more positive
motivational beliefs and achieve higher grades. Students who perceive their teacher as
responsive, helpful and recognizant of good work tend to perform better than their peers whose
teachers are perceived as less supportive (Ambrose, 2004). These results support Slovenes

28
findings of early adolescents perceptions of their teachers and motivational beliefs (self-efficacy
and intrinsic motivation) (Puklek, 2001; Puklek, 2004).
Self-efficacy beliefs are created through the individuals interpretation of information
from different internal and external sources (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 2002). An external source
of self-efficacy beliefs is verbal judgments that others provide about their capabilities. Teachers
are a crucial element of the classroom environment. Students perception of affective teacher
support can influence their enjoyment in mathematics.
Math and science self-efficacy were significantly negatively correlated with difficulty,
and positively correlated with language arts self-efficacy (Pajares, 2002). Predictors of selfefficacy include satisfaction and cohesiveness; difficulty, competitiveness, and friction, and
school belonging. In terms of math and science self-efficacy, difficulty was the sole predictor
when a self-efficacy test was given for the second time. Other variables that can impact selfefficacy are parental influence, teacher-student and student-student interaction, teacher
instructional techniques, and appropriate teacher support. Kaplan, Gheen, and Midgley (2002)
suggested that students are more likely to have positive self-efficacy from mastering a subject
rather than from performing a standard. This could explain the finding that perceived difficulty
predicted math and science self-efficacy.
When students have a perceived high academic self-efficacy, they exhibit a positive
behavioral adjustment and social competence, greater self-concept, and stronger relationships
with peers and parents (Kuperminc, Blatt, & Leadbeater, 1997). Student academic self-efficacy
is a strong predictor of academic engagement, persistence, academic effort and performance
(Linenbrink & Pintrich, 1997). School environment significantly influences a students selfefficacy.

29
The relationship between academic effort and academic achievement in middle school is
important because it has been found to predict math achievement in high school, which will
directly impact the student in college (Wang & Goldschmidt, 2003). Previous theory and
research suggested a positive relation between academic self-efficacy beliefs and academic
outcomes of students (Bandura, 1997; Pajares & Graham, 1999). Lorsbach and Jinks (1999)
suggested that student perceptions of their learning environment are influenced by student
academic self-efficacy and can lead to an appreciation of what is happening in classrooms.
As expected, students who reported a greater sense of belonging in their mathematics
classroom were likely to report higher academic enjoyment (Wang, 2012). Researchers did not
find any statistical significance between academic enjoyment and academic hopelessness, or
between academic enjoyment and academic self-efficacy. Academic enjoyment proved to be a
powerful connection with academic effort. Students who reported higher teacher affective
support were likely to report lower academic hopelessness, which was associated with greater
academic self-efficacy (Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld, & Perry, 2011). Academic
hopelessness did negatively predict academic effort through its detrimental effect on academic
self-efficacy. Students who reported high academic hopelessness were likely to report low
academic self-efficacy belief and related to lower academic effort. Students who report higher
academic self-efficacy tended to report greater academic success in mathematics.
There was a positive correlation between teacher academic press and student
motivational beliefs; students self-efficacy and mastery goal orientation in math were positively
related to their math grade. Results also showed that level of parental involvement would predict
student math grades, while the math teaching measures were the most powerful predictors of
student self-efficacy in math (Battistich et al., 1995). The students ratings of math teachers

30
academic support contributed to student mastery goal orientation and math achievement. The
perceptions of teacher academic press predicted student self-efficacy and mastery goal
orientation in math and their math grade (Anderson, Hamilton, & Hattie, 2004).
Overall, it was found that classroom environment does have an impact on student
academic self-efficacy and the many different variables that can impact these relate to students
and their experiences (Weinstein & McKown, 1998).
Self-Efficacy and Math
Self-efficacy in mathematics has been studied, but not in great detail. Math self-efficacy
is a strong predictor of math performance (Pajares & Miller 1994, 1995). The self-efficacy
theory states that perceived self-efficacy influences and is influenced by thought patterns,
affective arousal, and choice behavior as well as task performance (Bandura, 1977, 1986).
According to the social learning theory, self-efficacy expectations are an important factor in
influencing math attitudes and math anxiety (Bandura, 1977; Hackett & Betz, 1981). Bandura
(1986), Pajares (1996), and Schunk (1991) found that self-efficacy beliefs predict student
performance in mathematics. Self-efficacy can also influence math performance as strongly as
general mathematics ability (Pajares & Kranzler, 1995). Across ability levels, students who have
high self-efficacy are more accurate in their mathematical computation and are more persistent
when faced with a challenge when compared to students with low self-efficacy (Collins, 1985).
Lloyd, Walsh, and Yailagh (2005) analyzed fourth and seventh graders in order to
compare their math grades, math foundation skills, performance attributions, and self-efficacy
looking specifically at gender differences. They found that boys and girls equally attributed their
success to effort and fourth graders were more likely to attribute their success to effort when
compared to seventh graders. Ability was the attribution that the majority of students believed

31
lead to success. Fourth graders were also more likely than seventh graders to attribute their
success to help from their teachers than seventh graders. Fourth graders were more efficacious
than seventh graders and girls tended to be under-confident while boys were over-confident;
however, girls achievement met or exceeded boys achievement.
Akin and Kurbanoglu (2011) examined the relationship between math anxiety and selfefficacy. Participants included 372 university students in Turkey who took the assessment RMARS (Revised Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale) to measure anxiety, Mathematics Attitudes
Scale to measure mathematic attitudes, and Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(MSLQ) to measure self-efficacy. They found that self-efficacy is a proximal determinant of
math attitudes and self-efficacy and that math anxiety was predicted by negative self-efficacy.
Overall, the stronger the self-efficacy, the more active are the individuals efforts and the longer
they will persist. Additionally, self-efficacy predicted negative attitudes and positive attitudes.
Pajares and Miller (1996) found that math self-efficacy has stronger direct effects on
mathematics problem solving than self-concept, perceived usefulness, or prior experience.
Judgments of individuals ability to solve math problems should be more strongly able to predict
their ability to solve those problems than their confidence in their ability on math related tasks.
Similarly, judgments of their ability to succeed in math related courses should predict their
choice to enroll in math courses than should their confidence in their ability to solve specific
problems or perform math tasks (Pajares, 1996). Schunk (1981) showed that teacher modeling
increased persistence and accuracy on division problems by arising student self-efficacy, which
had a direct effect on skill. Additionally, he found that student effort was attributed to feedback
of prior performance. This behavior raised student self-efficacy expectations in elementary

32
students. Later, he also discovered that ability feedback had a stronger effect on self-efficacy
and performance (Schunk & Gunn, 1986).
Self-Efficacy and Achievement
Self-efficacy contributes to personal goals individuals set for themselves, how much
effort they will exert in order to perform a task, how long an individual will persevere when
facing a challenge, and how resilient the individual is toward failures. Bandura (1982) found
that self-efficacy is more strongly related to future and actual task performance than past
performance. Self-efficacy is not concerned with specific skills an individual has but the
judgments and self-belief of what one can do with the skills they possess (Bandura, 1982).
Several studies have established the strong positive connection between student selfefficacy and their academic performance (Pajares, 1996; Pajares & Graham, 1999). Self-efficacy
has been shown to predict achievement outcomes in a variety of content areas including
mathematics, science, and writing (Klassen & Usher, 2010; Pajares, 1996; Pajares & Urdan,
2006). Self-efficacy is also a powerful predictor of student achievement (Al-Harthy, Was, &
Isaacson, 2010; Andrew, 1998; Bandura, 1993; Barkly, 2006; Paulsen & Gentry, 1995; Schunk,
1989; Zimmerman, 2000).
Bandura (1977, 1997) and Pajares (1996) found that higher self-efficacy scores leads to
better performance and persistence in engineering courses. Self-efficacy is a task-specific
capability (Gist, Mitchell, & Mitchell, 1992) and a dynamic construct. The self-efficacy
judgment from the individual changes over time as new information and experiences are gained
(Bandura, 1989). Personal efficacy beliefs help individuals determine how much effort people
will spend on an activity, for how long they will persevere when faced with a challenge, and how
resilient they are when the odds are not in their favor (Pajares, 1996). Self-efficacy also

33
influences the thought patterns and emotional reactions of individuals. Self-efficacy beliefs are
powerful predictors of the choices that individuals make on a daily basis, the level of effort that
they put on the task, and their persistence toward facing challenges (Multon, Brown, & Lent,
1991). Individuals with low self-efficacy may view a challenge and think that it is more difficult
than it really is, impacting their stress level, depression, and ability to best solve the problem. In
contrast, high self-efficacy helps individuals create a feeling of confidence when approaching
difficult tasks and activities (Pajares, 1996). Pekrun et al. (2011) found that focusing on
academic enjoyment in a college classroom positively impacted self-efficacy, intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation, academic effort, self-regulation, and academic performance.
There are four factors that influence self-efficacy: mastery experience, vicarious
experience, social persuasions, and somatic emotional state. Mastery experience, interpreting
ones own performance, is the most potent source of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Prior
experience will affect students initial belief in their personal capabilities. Those who perform
well on the activity believe they are capable of furthering their abilities in that area. Individuals
who experience challenge and difficulties may doubt their capabilities (Schunk, 1989). Actions
perceived by the individual as successful typically raise self-efficacy and perceived failure
lowers it. Positive feedback can enhance self-efficacy but can be short lived if efforts following
the feedback are poor as students are generally not motivated to behave in ways that they believe
will result in negative outcomes (Schunk, 1989). Research shows that mastery goal orientation is
linked to positive, adaptive pattern of attributions, whereas a performance goal orientation was
linked to a maladaptive, helpless pattern of attributions (Ames, 1992b; Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
Under mastery goal orientation, students are more likely to see a strong link between effort and
outcomes and make more effort attributions for success and failure (Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich,

34
2014). Students with performance goal orientation see effort and ability as inversely related, as
opposed to the positive relation under mastery goal (Schunk et al., 2014). Self-efficacy has been
found to be related to goal orientation and found that people with mastery goals have higher selfefficacy and better task performance than people with performance goals (Locke, Frederick, Lee,
& Bobko, 1984; Locke & Latham, 1990; Wood, Bandura, & Bailey, 1990).
Researchers have found links between mastery goals and judgments of self-efficacy are
generally positive (Sakiz, 2011). As mastery goals were formed, Dweck and Leggett (1988)
performed laboratory research that showed that students oriented toward mastery and learning
maintained positive and adaptive self-efficacy beliefs and perceptions of competence in the face
of difficult tasks. Mastery goals related positively to self-efficacy in college students enrolled in
statistics courses (Bandalos, Finney, & Geske, 2003). Bong (2009), Kaplan and Midgley (1997),
Middleton and Midgley (1997), Sakiz (2011), and Thorkildsen and Nicholls (1998) have also
shown the same general pattern.
Vicarious experience, observing the actions of others, is also another way that individuals
obtain information about what they can do (Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 1987). Students who
observe similar peers perform a task may believe that they are capable as well. This source of
self-efficacy is not as strong as mastery experience, but when individuals are uncertain of their
abilities or have little prior experience, they become more sensitive to it (Pajares, 2002). Selfefficacy can also be created through the result of social persuasions received from others in their
environment. Efficacy will increase when individuals are being told they are capable by a
trustworthy source. This can include verbal judgments from peers or adults and play an
important role in the development of an individuals self-beliefs. Individuals compare
themselves to others in their environment around them and evaluate themselves with those who

35
are similar in ability (Festinger, 1954). Lastly, anxiety, stress, arousal, and mood states fall
under that category of somatic and emotional states and can influence self-efficacy. Strong
emotional reactions to a task can foreshadow the anticipated success or failure of the outcome
(Pajares, 2002). Bandura (1997) found that people live in psychic environments that are of their
own making, so therefore, individuals have the capability to alter their own thinking and feeling
to enhance their self-efficacy beliefs. Self-efficacy can change as a result of learning,
experience, and feedback (Gist et al., 1992).
Self-efficacy can affect individuals psychological well-being and performance while
exerting some influence over their lives through the environments they select and environments
they create. Personal efficacy affects each individuals choices of activities to take part in.
Those who believe they are not capable of a task will avoid it, but the same individual will be
willing to take on an alternate activity they feel they are capable of completing or accomplishing
(Wood & Bandura, 1989). Perceived self-efficacy also has an impact on the choice of the
individuals career path with stronger self-efficacy connecting to more career options they
consider to be possible (Betz & Hackett, 1986; Lent & Hackett, 1987). Self-efficacy also
enhances students memory performance by enhancing persistence (Berry, 1987).
Academic self-efficacy can be seen as a part of student motivation and is defined as
students beliefs about their ability to learn or perform specific tasks (Bandura, 1986, 1997).
Students with high self-efficacy attempt difficult tasks and activities regularly and tend to
achieve higher than students with low self-efficacy (Pajares, 1996; Schunk, 1991). Students with
low self-efficacy generally give up on a learning activity when the results of success are not as
they preferred, which can lead to lower success, and a further reduced sense of academic selfefficacy. High self-efficacy has been linked to higher grade point averages, standardized test

36
scores, persistence on a challenging task, and enrollment in upper-level math courses (Pajares,
1996; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
Students with high self-efficacy have a variety of characteristics that help them increase
their achievement and success in the classroom (Schunk, 1981). These students try harder, and
persevere longer than their lower self-efficacy counterparts (Bandura, 1982; Bandura, 1986;
Pajares, 2003; Pajares & Schunk, 2001) while having a strong sense of responsibility. They are
more concerned with the subject, deeply involved in the classroom activities, and try different
strategies when they meet difficulties, which lead to greater effort and success (Morgan & Jinks,
1999). Students with high self-efficacy set high expectations for themselves and produce
behaviors to perform well (Maxwell, 1998) along with being comfortable and confidently
approaching tasks (Schunk, 1991; Bandura, 1993). When these students are faced with a
challenge, they put forth greater effort to overcome obstacles (Bandura, 1986, 1997) and spend
more energy when encountering difficulties (Schunk, 1990) while being more relaxed and
efficient when faced with a challenge (Bandura, 1993; Schunk, 1991). Students with higher
math self-efficacy persist longer on difficult tasks and are more accurate in computations
compared to students with lower math self-efficacy (Collins, 1985; Hoffman & Schraw, 2009).
The students with low self-efficacy in writing were easily distracted from activities,
wandered around the room, avoided writing tasks, gave up easily, and took a lot of time to write
(Kim & Lorsbach, 2005). Other characteristics of low self-efficacy include a lack of strong
achievement (Schunk, 1981), giving up easily and that leads to lower success (Morgan & Jinks,
1999). These students also may avoid specific choices (Bandura, 1982) and experience stress
and ineffectiveness when faced with a challenge (Bandura, 1986, 1997).

37
Efficacy cues include performance outcomes where success in a task raises the selfefficacy and failure will lower it. Individuals can perceive their success or failure using
attribution cues such as ability, effort, task difficulty, or luck (Frieze, 1980; Weiner, 1985).
Bodily symptoms like sweating and trembling can symbolize physiological cues for determining
efficacy.
Self-efficacy can also be assumed to be a motivating factor and is correlated with
characteristics of the learning environment such as goal orientation, high cohesion, satisfaction,
and a low level of disorder and conflict (Anderson et al., 2004). Bandura (1997), Nichols
(1996), and Pajares (1997) argued that student perceptions of self-efficacy have a positive impact
on student motivation and achievement. Self-efficacy determines individuals level of
motivation which is reflected in how much effort they will exert and how long they will
persevere. The stronger their self-efficacy, the more persistence, effort, and accomplishment
they have (Bandura & Cervone, 1983, 1986; Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979). Self-efficacy
can lead to self-aiding or self-hindering thought patterns, as well as personal goal setting. The
higher their self-efficacy, the higher goals are set and the firmer the commitments to those goals
(Locke et al., 1984; Taylor, Locke, Lee, & Gist, 1984).
Student perceived self-efficacy affects their academic interest and motivation as well as
management of stress (Bassi, Steca, Fave, & Caprara, 2007) while mediating the effect of skill,
previous experience, mental ability, or other self-beliefs on subsequent achievement (Pajares &
Schunk, 2001). Additionally, Eccles, Midgley, Wigfield, Buchanan, Reuman, Flanagan, and
MacIver (1993) suggested that achievement related activities selected by individuals are
influenced by social contexts of the individual, like the classroom and family.

38
Student Attitudes and Achievement
Student achievement in mathematics is impacted by environmental factors including the
emotional response to math (Sousa, 2008). Math and reading have been the standard in the
United States to determine the academic abilities of students. Over time, society has accepted
the stigma that particular individuals are not able to achieve in the area of mathematics. This
stigma stems from the interactions between parent, peer, and teacher (Sousa, 2008). Latterell
(2005) surveyed students and found that most feel it is much more embarrassing to make
nonmathematical mistakes than mathematical mistakes, therefore lessening the value of
mathematic achievement and success among students. Despite the push to encourage females in
the mathematical field, they still rate themselves less confident than their male peers (Morge,
2005). Researchers have shown that attitudes predict performance and students with positive
attitudes about what they are learning achieve more than students with poor attitudes (Singh,
Granville, & Dika, 2002).
Ma and Kishor (1997) conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the relationship between
student attitudes toward mathematics and student achievement in mathematics. They concluded
that the results were statistically significant, but not enough for educational practice. Attitudes
toward math and achievement were not strong in the elementary level, while the junior high level
tended to be the most important period during which students shape their attitudes toward
mathematics and then stabilize in high school (Ma & Kishor, 1997).
Achievement can be predicted by socioeconomic status, aptitude, and prior achievement
(Ma & Wilkins, 2007). Researchers have shown that there is a strong relationship between
mathematics coursework and mathematics achievement (Campbell, Hombo, & Mazzeo, 2000;
Meyer, 1998; Schmidt et al., 2001; U.S. Department of Education, 1997). Pajares (1996) stated

39
that students underestimating their mathematic capabilities, not their lack of skill, can lead to
student avoidances of mathematic courses and careers. Students claim that their academic
performance can be caused by certain factors within themselves (ability, effort, traits and
disposition) or factors outside themselves (luck, ease, difficulty of the task, and help from the
teacher) (Pajares, 1996). It is better for students to attribute their success to ability rather than
effort because ability is more strongly related to motivation, self-efficacy, and skill development
(Schunk & Gunn, 1986). Achievement affects interest; students who feel more competent may
become more interested in the subject taught (Koller, Baumert, & Schnabel, 2001). Interest in
mathematics clearly decreases from grade 7 to grade 12 (Baumert & Koller, 1998; Gottfried,
Fleming, & Gottfried, 2001). Students who have mathematical accomplishments frequently also
have higher levels of mathematics self-efficacy than students with fewer accomplishments.
Researchers who have examined the correlation between teacher support and its effect on
students have found that when teachers are perceived as supportive, students have greater
academic achievement, higher student engagement, less problem behaviors, and more positive
peer relations (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Hamre & Pianta, 2001: Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, &
Kindermann, 2008). Perceived support from teachers positively contributes to students
classroom functioning, motivation, and attitudes toward school (Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994;
Wentzel, 1997, 1998). A study conducted by Malecki and Demaray (2006) focusing on 7th and
8th grade students found that perceived teacher support was strongly related to grade point
average for students who were lower socioeconomic status (SES) then higher SES students.
Anxiety and Achievement
Math anxiety negatively affects students success (Thomas & Higbee, 1999) and learning
processes (Aiken, 1970, 1976; McLeod, 1988; Sloan, Daane, & Geisen, 2002; Vinson, 2001).

40
Math anxiety is a frequent problem faced by educators (Bursal & Paznokas, 2006; Singh et al.,
2002; Zettle & Raines, 2002). Smith (1997) defined math anxiety as students restlessness
during mathematical operations and their fear or fright of failing exams and experience of
physical stress that leads to negative math attitudes or dislike for mathematics (Akin &
Kurbanoglu, 2011). Richardson and Suinn (1972) described math anxiety as the feeling of
tension that hampers the use of numbers and solving mathematical operations in individuals
daily life and in their academic ambits (p. 551). Researchers have shown that math anxiety can
seriously harm the performance of an individual of all ages and is negatively related to
mathematical performance (Betz, 1978; Chiu & Henry, 1990; Frary & Link, 1983; Lee, 1992;
Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990; Quilter & Harper, 1988). The symptoms of anxiety can make
the individual seem as if he or she lacks the skills to perform well (Schunk, 1989) and have been
found to be closely related to mathematic attitudes and self-efficacy (Akin & Kurbanoglu, 2011).
Math anxiety is predicted negatively by self-efficacy (Hackett, 1985; Pajares & Graham,
1999) and can be considered a result of low self-efficacy, according to the social learning theory.
A student who feels anxious about math can almost feel incapable of doing mathematics and vice
versa. The stronger the self-efficacy, the more active the individual becomes in putting effort
toward the task and the longer they will persist. Therefore, math anxiety can be a predictor of
self-efficacy by the fact that higher anxiety in math has been related to lower levels of selfefficacy (Akin & Kurbanoglu, 2011).
Students with math anxiety tend to have poor attitudes about math and avoid math
courses, therefore the result is lower achievement scores (Beilcok, Gunderson, Ramirez, &
Levine, 2010). The influence toward math anxiety is the relationship between the math work,
the student, and the math class. When student math work is being assessed, math anxiety is

41
aroused. On the other hand, low achievement scores in math may not be connected to math
anxiety, but a deeper connection with test anxiety indicating it was not the material giving them
anxiety, it was the testing. Ashcraft and Faust (1994) compared achievement and anxiety as the
math problems increased in rigor. As problems became more challenging, student anxiety
increased. Anxiety also increased when students were performing the math assessment in an
online, timed lab format. Furthermore, advanced math concepts result in increased math anxiety
and more negative math attitudes (Betz, 1978).
Galla and Wood (2012) researched how anxiety can impair student academic
achievement. They included 139 children between the ages of 65 and 144 months old who were
interviewed and surveyed about their emotional self-efficacy and anxiety using the
Multidimensional Anxiety Scale of Children and Self-Efficacy Scale. Math performance was
measured using the Stanford Achievement Test. They found that anxiety is negatively associated
with performance on math assessments while revealing that students with a high-perceived
ability to cope with negative emotions were protected from anxiety related math impairments.
High levels of anxiety negatively predicted the performance on the standardized math test.
Additionally, this research indicated that high anxiety students who reported high levels of selfefficacy did not have evidence of anxiety during the math test; when students reporting a good
emotional self-efficacy, buffered against anxiety related performance on the math exam.
Shields (2005) suggested that five areas contribute to students math anxiety: teachers
attitudes, curriculum, instructional strategies, the classroom culture, and assessment. Teacher
attitudes greatly influence math anxiety and are the most dominating factor in molding student
attitudes about mathematics (Harper & Daane, 1998; Ruffell, Mason, & Allen, 1998). By fourth
grade, math anxiety surfaces because of the concrete to abstract curriculum shift (Sousa, 2008).

42
Ashcraft (2002) indicated that student performance in mathematics improves when anxiety is
alleviated.
Teacher Attitudes
Teaching is cultural (Stevenson & Stigler, 1992) and it takes major impacts to make a
meaningful change within our education society. Even with a major reform initiative for
curriculum change, lasting changes would not occur without sustained professional development
designed to change teachers beliefs and attitudes (Philipp, 2007). Teachers beliefs can be
changed by examining students mathematical thinking, technology, curriculum, and gender
(Philipp, 2007).
Elementary teachers tend to have high levels of math anxiety (Brady & Bowd, 2005) and
their attitudes toward math have shown to influence their instructional techniques and student
attitudes toward math (Fennema, Peterson, Carpenter, & Lubinski 1990; Nespor, 1987).
Techniques teachers use to bring math anxiety to the forefront include lecturing, using textbooks,
lack of time to teach math, and lack of motivation to change their mathematic techniques
(Relich, 1996).
Elementary teachers care about children, but not necessarily about mathematics (DarlingHammond & Sclan, 1996). Professional development that aims to help teachers learn about
childrens mathematical thinking can help teachers create rich instructional environments. These
environments promote mathematical inquiry and understanding which can help decrease student
negative attitudes toward math (Philipp, 2007).
Ambrose (2004) studied the beliefs of preservice elementary school teachers who were a
part of a field experience linked to a mathematics course. Ambrose examined two primary
sources for beliefs - emotion packed experiences and cultural transmission. Emotion packed

43
experience includes a negative experience with a mathematical situation while a cultural
transmission includes hidden curriculum within the culture of the classroom and society.
Ambrose (2004) had preservice teachers interview kindergarten students and analyze their
problem solving skills. The preservice teachers were very impressed with the problem solving
skills of the kindergarten students and how much they had been taught in the first 2 weeks of
school, while in reality, these students had been developing these skills their whole life. All
children come to school with previous knowledge that educators build upon. This study
indicated that teachers are likely to misinterpret student abilities from the onset.
Teacher beliefs also have a great impact on student attitudes toward the content area.
What teachers do in their classroom is a direct reflection of their personal beliefs (Cooney,
2001). Teachers personal interest in and enjoyment of mathematics will magnify the
relationship between student achievement and student competence in mathematics (Harper &
Daane, 1998). Teachers with greater enjoyment and interest of mathematics have a greater
impact on student achievement and tend to reveal mathematical deficiencies of weaker students,
which will reduce their perceived level of competence in mathematics (Bagaka, 2011).
Identifying teachers with these characteristics could be one way to improve students selfefficacy and therefore, increase their performance in mathematics (Bagaka, 2011).
Gunderson, Ramirez, Levine, and Beilock (2011) conducted research under the
understanding that gender impacts math performance, math course selection, and math career
paths. They believe that girls have a more negative math attitude that has been formed by their
parents and teachers. Adult attitudes are likely to influence children and can cause
intergenerational transmission of math attitudes. They also found that first grade teachers tend to
perceive their best male students as more logical, more competitive, more independent, and

44
liking math more that their best female students. Elementary teachers attribute math success in
boys to ability and effort, attribute girls failure to lack of ability, and attribute boys failure to
lack of effort. In addition, they report teacher feedback delivered to students can lead students to
formulate their abilities according to the teacher beliefs. For example, a teachers approach to
praise, whether it is about intellect or non-intellect behaviors can lead to a positive or negative
attitude. Boys and girls receive the same overall feedback about their intellect but student
performance, behavior, neatness, and speaking clearly can differ by gender. They conclude that
boys see their intellect as their strength while girls see nonintellectual behaviors (neatness and
being good) as their strength. These gender differences begin as early as early elementary
school.
Many researchers have stated that teachers attitudes toward math can affect their
students math attitude and achievement, but few have directly tested this relation (Akin, &
Kurbanoglu, 2011; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989). Beilcok, Gunderson, Ramirez, and
Levine (2010) found that female teachers math anxiety was related to female student math
achievement. Findings suggested that teachers might show evidence of the dislike of math and
confirm the stereotype for students. Teachers with low math teaching self-efficacy and high
math anxiety could have behavior tendencies that reflect their perspectives in their classroom
(Swars, Daane, & Geisen, 2010). Girls might be more aware of attitudes from their teacher and
be influenced by the similarity in gender and viewing the teacher as a role model (Bussey &
Bandura, 1984). These studies were the first steps in bringing forth the idea that teachers could
be a main source of math anxiety and female negative attitudes toward math. It may be true,
though, that the teacher who has low math anxiety and high teaching self-efficacy can break
down these stereotypes for students.

45
Students will place high value, be motivated to engage in learning activities, and have
high expectations for success in classroom settings that provide opportunities for them to fulfill
their developmental needs; however, they tend to disengage from learning in classrooms that do
not provide such opportunities (Wang, 2012). Supportive teacher-student relationships and
classrooms where students are provided a variety of motivation and engagement opportunities
have shown to have a positive effect on students (Ryan & Deci, 2002; Wentzel, 1998; Wigfield,
Byrnes, & Eccles, 2006). Positive teacher-student relationships along with student sense of
belonging or relatedness lead to successful development in school for learners (Furrer & Skinner,
2003). Teachers characterized as trusting, caring, and respectful of students provide the
emotional support students need in order to approach, engage, and persist on academic learning
tasks (Roeser & Eccles, 1998) which can lead to positive academic self-efficacy and values
(Crosnoe, Johnson, & Elder, 2004). When students perceived teachers as being supportive,
students are more likely to view themselves as academically competent and set higher
educational goals (Wigfield, 2006). Additionally, students who perceive their teachers as caring
have higher levels of interest and enjoyment in their schoolwork (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles,
1989), more positive academic ability (Ryan & Patrick, 2001), and greater expectancies for
success in the classroom (Goodenow, 1993).
Teacher student relationships that are healthy and appropriate can be considered one of
the most important aspects of classroom environment (Doyle, 1986). Student perceptions of
teacher interpersonal behavior are strongly related to student motivation and achievement in all
subjects (den Brok, Brekelmans, & Wubbels, 2004; Wubbels & Brekelmans, 1998). Research on
teacher student interpersonal behavior has suggested that teachers in science and mathematics
class are perceived less favorably by students than teachers of other subjects (den Brok, Taconis,

46
& Fisher, 2010; Spinner & Fraser, 2005). Wubbles and Levy (1993) believed that the negative
perception toward these subjects is due to instructional choices made by the teachers including
whole-class teaching and small problem-solving tasks which require correcting behavior which
results in less favorable perceptions by students. Mathematics classes have also been perceived
by students as passive, inflexible, and having dominant and intimidating teachers with lack of
supportive academic atmosphere (Fauzan, Slettenharr, & Plomp, 2002). Multiple studies
conducted show a positive relationship between interpersonal behavior and subject-related
attitudes (Telli, den Brok, Cakiroglu, 2007; den Brok, Fisher, & Koul, 2005a). Teachers
categorized as leading, helpful/friendly, and understanding were considered to have more
positive ratings than teachers who were uncertain, dissatisfied, and admonishing (Maulana,
Opdenakker, den Brok, & Bosker, 2011). A healthy interpersonal relationship may be more
important for mathematics teachers than for any other subject because math teachers tend to be
rated less favorably than other content area teachers.
Conclusions
Math anxiety is a great problem in our society. It has become expected and causes a lack
of achievement for many individuals. These attitudes can come from many different aspects in
an individuals environment, including school experiences and home experiences (Akin &
Kurbanoglu, 2011). When a student is in a classroom with a teacher who has a negative attitude
toward mathematics, it can be transferred into the instruction, discussion, and time management
decisions that are made by the teacher. Students, especially girls, pick up on these clues
inadvertently given by the teacher and take it on as their own. Parents can reinforce this attitude
at home in discussion with the child, as well as priorities aligned with the family (Ambrose,
2004). When attitudes are developed to negatively think about math, achievement suffers. The

47
negative emotion sends negative signals to the brain and therefore blocks out learning of math.
Students begin to develop their attitudes toward learning starting in elementary school, but the
crucial time period to develop student positive attitudes of mathematics is in junior high and
solidifies in high school. Removing choice, timed tests, and emphasis on getting the right
answer, versus emphasis on the thinking and cognition behind their answer, create negative
attitudes toward mathematics in students (Akin & Kurbanoglu, 2011).
Additionally, classroom environment has been researched extensively, as well as selfefficacy, but very few studies have looked at the relationship between the two (Spinner & Fraser,
2005; Wang, 2012). This study aims to examine this potential relationship. In Chapter 3, the
research methodology is explained. In Chapter 4, the data collected is analyzed and results of the
analysis are explained. In Chapter 5, the data are explained and applied to implications of a
classroom setting.

48
Chapter 3
METHOD OF PROCEDURE
In order for students to have strong skills in mathematics and the opportunity to pursue
mathematics in their future, they must have a strong self-efficacy in that subject matter (Schunk
& Pajares, 2004). The purpose of this study was to compare students perception of their
classroom environment and their self-efficacy in mathematics. Classroom environment has been
shown to be one of the most significant factors in students learning and attitudes in math and
science (Fraser & Kahle, 2007). The classroom environment is a critical context for promoting
the development of students educational and career interests (Simpkins, Davis-Kean, & Eccles,
2006). Classroom environment that promotes a positive self-efficacy could lead to increased
success for more students. Few studies have been conducted comparing student self-efficacy to
perceived classroom environment (Spinner & Fraser, 2005; Wang, 2012). Self-efficacy can be
assumed to be a motivating factor and is correlated with characteristics of the learning
environment such as goal orientation, high cohesion, satisfaction, and a low level of disorder and
conflict (Anderson, Hamilton, & Hattie, 2004). Self-efficacy was found to affect goal level, task
performance, goal commitment, and choice to set specific goals (Patrick, Kaplan, & Ryan,
2011). This finding also supported Banduras (1982) theory that past performance determines
self-efficacy (Patrick et al., 2011). Self-efficacy has been found to be positively related to
mastery goal structure, personal mastery goal orientation, effort, not cheating, satisfaction with
learning, school-related effort, and achievement (Ames & Archer, 1988; Anderman, 1999;
Kaplan & Midgley, 1999; Murdock, Hale, & Weber, 2001). Pajares (1996) found that higher
self-efficacy scores lead to better performance and persistence in engineering courses. Selfefficacy beliefs are powerful predictors of the choices that individuals make on a daily basis, the

49
level of effort that they put on the task, and their persistence toward facing challenges (Multon,
Brown, & Lent, 1991).
Research Design
This quantitative study sought to describe the connection between classroom environment
and students self-efficacy in mathematics. The researcher determined if a relationship exists
between students mathematics self-efficacy and their perceived mathematics classroom
environment. The collected data were scores provided by the individual participants answers to
the My Classroom Inventory (MCI) (Fraser, Anderson, & Walberg, 1982) classroom
environment questionnaire and selected self-efficacy items from the Patterns of Adaptive
Learning Survey (PALS) (Midgley et al., 2000).
Students in grades 4 through 12 in a small school district in North Texas completed two
questionnaires. During November and December 2013, students were given the classroom
environment assessment (My Classroom Inventory- MCI) during their regular school day to
determine how they perceive their mathematics classroom environment. Approximately 7 to 10
days later, students took the self-efficacy assessment (Patterns of Adaptive Learning SurveyPALS). Data were taken from both of these questionnaires and analyzed using the statistics
program Statistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS). Data collected from students included
the items from both surveys and demographics. A multiple regression was used to answer
Research Questions 1 and 2 to determine if the five different dimensions of classroom
environment could predict high and low math self-efficacy.

50
This dissertation study addressed the following questions:
1. Which dimensions of classroom environment (cohesiveness, friction, satisfaction,
difficulty, or competitiveness) are the best predictors of high mathematics self-efficacy
for students?
2. Which dimensions of classroom environment (cohesiveness, friction, satisfaction,
difficulty, or competitiveness) are the best predictors of low math self-efficacy for
students?
Population and Sample
Participants included students enrolled in a math class from grades 4 through 12 in a single
North Texas school district. The school district was chosen as a convenience sample. Parental
permission and student consent forms were collected in November and data were collected
during December 2013. Parental permission slips were available to parents electronically on the
school website as well as through email. Students were also given a paper copy by their teacher
and asked to take it home to have their parents sign. The researcher received the permission slips
from the teachers and office staff members who collected the slips from students. The student
assent letter was available to students the day they took both of the surveys. The researcher
collected the student assent letters from the teachers who gave the surveys. All grades 4 through
12 students enrolled in a math course in the fall of 2013 took the two surveys but only those who
had parent permission and student assent were included in the study. The school district
superintendent had given prior permission to the researcher to collect the data (see Appendix K).
The district includes students who are 73% White, 17% Hispanic, 6% Black, and 4% Other.
This population also includes 20% low socioeconomic status. All students enrolled in a math

51
class were able to participate including those in special education or any having been retained.
There were approximately 400 participants used in this research.
Instrumentation
In order to collect information from students perspectives, two surveys were given to the
sample being studied. Students provided data on how they perceived their mathematics
classroom environment as well as insight into their personal attitudes toward mathematics.
My Classroom Inventory (MCI)
Classroom climate instruments are used to describe naturalistic classrooms (Trickett &
Moos, 1974), compare student perceptions of their current and ideal classroom (Sinclair &
Fraser, 2002), compare classrooms that differ (Waxman, Anderson, Huang, & Weinstein, 1997),
evaluate effectiveness of different types of interventions (Johnson & Johnson, 1983), and
compare perceived classroom climate by gender (Sinclair & Fraser, 2002). In this study, the My
Classroom Inventory (Fraser et al., 1982) (see Appendix A) was used to collect data regarding
how students perceived their mathematics classroom environment.
My Classroom Inventory (MCI) was developed as a simplified version of the Learning
Environment Inventory (LEI) to be used for primary grades, but is also found to be useful for
students at the junior high level (Fraser, 2011). This instrument has been used for providing
teachers with feedback about their classrooms as well as the effects of classroom climate on
student learning. MCI was originally given as a paper and pencil survey; however, this study
presented the survey in an electronic format. Students took the survey as a class in their school
computer lab. The survey included 38 items and the estimated time for completion was about 30
minutes.

52
My Classroom Inventory measures five dimensions of social climate and was carefully
developed and extensively field tested (Fraser et al., 1982). The five dimensions include
cohesiveness, friction, satisfaction, difficulty, and competitiveness. Each item in the five
dimensions is answered with a simple yes or no and uses age appropriate wording. Cohesion is
the extent to which students know, help, and are friendly toward each other and was measured
using six items. Friction measures that amount of tension and quarreling among students and
was measured using eight items. Satisfaction is the extent to how satisfied students are in the
classroom and was measured using nine items. Difficulty is the extent to which students find
difficulty with the work of the class and was measured using eight items. Competition includes
the emphasis on students competing with each other and was measured using seven items.
MCI was used in 2002, 2005, and 2008 by Barry Fraser in many different locations and
subject areas in school to compare student actual and preferred classroom environment as well as
to compare the different dimensions among the students who participated. MCI has been used to
measure classroom environment in multiple cultures, ages and subject areas. MCI makes it
possible for teachers to obtain reliable feedback information about the climate of their own
classroom as perceived by their students. This instrument has been found to be reliable and valid
in many different school settings and it is especially applicable for ethnically and culturally
diverse students (Waxman & Chen, 2006).
Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS)
The Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (see Appendix B) was used to collect data on
student efficacy in mathematics. The student survey assesses personal achievement goal
orientations, perception of teacher goals, perceptions for the goal structures in the classroom,
achievement-related beliefs, attitudes and strategies, and perceptions of parent and home life

53
(Midgley et al., 2000). PALS focuses on goal orientation theory and examines the relationship
between learning environment, student motivation, affect, and behavior. Scales within the
instrument are based on mastery and performance goals associated with maladaptive patterns of
learning (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984).
There are two parts of this survey, a student section and a teacher section; however, only
portions of the 72 item student section were used for this research study. The items are measured
with a 5-point Likert scale including 1- not at all, 3- somewhat true, and 5- very true. While
students completed the entire instrument, only mastery goal orientation and academic efficacy
were analyzed to focus this instrument on high and low self-efficacy. A score for high math selfefficacy was computed as the mean of mastery goal orientation and academic efficacy items,
while a score for low math self-efficacy was computed as the mean of academic selfhandicapping strategy items.
The PALS instrument as a whole is a tool used to collect data on a variety of aspects of
the student, although, this study focused solely on high and low self-efficacy. Only parts of the
PALS instrument were used in data analysis in order to emphasize self-efficacy while the other
scales were omitted. The PALS instrument was chosen because of its validity and reliability and
there was no other appropriate mathematics self-efficacy instrument.
Levpuscek and Zupancic (2009) used PALS with Sloven eighth graders and found that
self-efficacy predicted students math achievement and that self-efficacy is a link to the
relationship between teachers classroom behavior and students academic performance. Bong
(2001) used PALS to measure the self-efficacy of 424 Korean middle and high school students.
PALS scores were positively correlated with all school subjects for both middle and high school
students, and found significant and positive correlation between mastery goal factors and self-

54
efficacy. Pajares, Britner, and Valiante (2000) used PALS to analyze middle school writing,
science and math students. They found that goals were associated with writing self-efficacy and
both writing and science self-concept in middle school students. Furthermore, task goals were
positively related to self-efficacy. Smith, Sinclair, and Chapman (2002) used PALS to correlate
achievement and self-efficacy in Australian secondary students while also looking at states of
depression, anxiety, and stress in students using an alternate tool. This study took place over the
course of one year. They found that self-efficacy decreased over the course of the year and was
found to be negatively related to ability goal orientation and positively related to task goal
orientation. Additionally they found that as self-handicapping strategies increased, self-efficacy
would decrease.
Validity and Reliability
Both surveys have been measured for reliability and validity in order to ensure that these
tools were appropriate for this study. Both instruments were altered only slightly to place the
emphasis on mathematics. Items in both surveys were changed to focus on the math class rather
than class. No other changes were made to the instruments. This change was very important for
the data collection of this study.
This study used the second version of MCI due to increased reliability over the previous
version. The 1982 version of MCI was standardized with 2,305 seventh grade students in
Tasmania, Australia using 100 classes (Fraser, Anderson, & Walberg, 1982). The reliability for
cohesiveness was 0.67, friction was 0.67, difficulty was 0.62, satisfaction was 0.78, and
competitiveness was 0.71. The alpha coefficient was used as the index of internal consistency
reliability and indicates that each MCI scale has satisfactory reliability (Fraser et al., 1982).

55
Fisher and Fraser (1983) explored predictive validity by using a multiple regression
analysis. The validity was adequate and was normed before controlling for pretest and general
ability (16 and 12.1) and then after controlling for pretest and general ability (6.5 and 4.6) using
p<0.05. These values support the instruments validity by showing the significant difference in
the decrease in the values after controlling for variables in the normed data collection.
The Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale (PALS) has been used in nine school districts in
three Midwestern states and administered to elementary, middle and high school levels. The
normed population includes students of low and middle socioeconomic status with equal
representation of males and females. The manual stated that the teacher and student surveys can
be used together or separate (Midgley et al., 2000). PALS reliability was analyzed under the
multiple scales included in the instrument and are as follows: mastery goal orientation was 0.85,
performance approach goal orientation was 0.89, performance-avoid goal orientation was 0.74,
classroom mastery goal structure was 0.76, classroom performance approach goal structure was
0.70, classroom performance avoid goal structure was 0.83, academic efficacy was 0.78,
academic press was 0.79, academic self-handicapping strategies was 0.84, avoiding novelty was
0.78, cheating behavior was 0.87, disruptive behavior was 0.89, self-presentation of low
achievement was 0.78, and skepticism about the relevance of school for future success was 0.83.
These alpha coefficients indicate the instrument has an adequate reliability level (Midgley et al.,
2000). Ross, Shannon, Salisbury-Glennon, and Guarino (2002) found that PALS can
successfully be used with students of younger and older grades.
Procedures
This research study began implementation in October 2013. Permission to move forward
with data collection was given by the school district superintendent in May of 2013 and the

56
Texas A&M University Commerce Institutional Review Board (TAMUC IRB) committee in July
of 2013. All fourth through twelfth grade students currently taking a math class at the time of the
data collection were participants, however only data from students with parental consent and
student assent were utilized in the study. The researcher met with the principals and teachers of
the three schools housing fourth through twelfth grade students in order to discuss the purpose of
this study and inform the educators about their part in supporting the study. In the beginning
of the school year, information about the study was communicated in several ways. The
researcher provided a video for teachers, parents, and students to watch for information on the
study. The parent permission slip was located on the district website, communicated through a
variety of emails, and given to students to hand deliver to their parents. Information used to
recruit students can be found in Appendices F and G. Students watched an informative video
about the study before receiving a parent permission slip. Teachers were asked to collect parent
consent forms and administer the surveys. The researcher gained consent from parents before
collection of data began. Consent form, assent form, and video script are found in Appendices
D, C, and H.
In November and December, 2013, students completed two surveys in the campus
computer labs. The first survey was the My Classroom Inventory (MCI), which measured
perceived classroom environment. Then within 10 days, students completed the Patterns of
Adaptive Learning Scale (PALS) to measure student self-efficacy in mathematics. Each survey
took participants about 30 minutes to complete. Data from students who did not have parent
consent or student assent were not included in the analysis.
Students took the surveys during the regular school day at a specified time. The survey
was given through a password protected website from a computer program provided by the

57
school district. Students watched an instructional video before taking the surveys to inform them
of the purpose of the study, expectations, and to put them at ease about taking the survey.
Students were instructed to write their district ID number on both surveys in order to directly
correlate the two surveys. Students who did not sign an assent form or have a signed consent
form were noted and were deleted from the analyzed data set.
Data Gathering
The data collected included the MCI survey, PALS survey, and students demographics
that included ID number, race, age, grade, gender, ethnicity, and math class currently enrolled
(for example, fourth grade, Algebra, Calculus). Students took the MCI survey during the regular
school day in a computer lab at a specified time and then within the next 10 days, the same
students completed the PALS during the regular school day, in the computer lab at a specified
time.
Students were instructed to enter their district ID number on parent permission slip,
student assent, and both surveys. ID numbers were used to match the two surveys and the
permission slips in order to analyze only the data with permission. Students who did not sign the
assent form and did not have parental permission to be in the study completed both surveys but
their data were excluded from the analysis. A list of students who did not give parental
permission or student assent was created using student ID number. This list of students was
given to a district employee who removed the data of students who did not receive parent or
student permission and generated a new coded ID number before providing the data to the
researcher. The identity of the participants was protected by keeping the data secured through
recoding of the ID numbers to prevent any future confidentiality concerns. The data collected
from the survey were accessible only to the researcher and the one district employee. Once the

58
data were collected and analyzed, they were saved on an external hard drive and will be kept in a
locked safe in the researchers house for three years and then deleted from the external hard drive
after that time.
Treatment of Data
Analysis of the data was completed in the spring of 2014. Data were analyzed using
SPSS, conducting multiple regressions to determine which of the dimensions of classroom
environment could predict high or low math self-efficacy. The different dimensions of the
classroom environment were represented by the independent variables while the high or low
math self-efficacy score was the dependent variable. For the classroom environment dimensions,
students scored each item as 1 = Yes and 0 = No, therefore, mean scores ranged from 0 to 1.
Statements categorized as mastery goal orientation and academic efficacy were grouped
to represent high self-efficacy and mean scores were computed. Academic self-handicapping
strategies were categorized as low self-efficacy statements and mean scores were computed.
Scores ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating not at all true and 5 indicating very true, therefore,
mean scores ranged from 1 to 5. Assumptions were checked for normality, homogeneity of
variance and multicollinearity. Effect size was assessed using R2.
Summary
In order to answer the research questions, fourth through twelfth grade math students in a
single North Texas school district completed two surveys. The MCI examined how they
perceived their classroom mathematics environment and the PALS measured student selfefficacy in mathematics. The data were analyzed in order to determine if there was a
relationship between perceived math classroom environment and high and low math selfefficacy.

59
The results provide teachers with more information about how to approach math students
within their classroom. The specific subgroups of classroom environment that are found to
predict a positive self-efficacy in math will aid teachers with the most appropriate way to prepare
lessons and conduct their class time in order to promote a positive self-efficacy and reduce
negative self-efficacy in mathematics.

60
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The person-environment fit theory states that an individuals behavior is a function of the
person and the environment (Lewin, 1935; Murray, 1938, 1951). Therefore, in a classroom,
students are directly impacted by the environment created around them and their personal beliefs
about themselves are impacted through it. Self-efficacy has been found to be a strong predictor
of student performance in mathematics (Pajares & Miller, 1994). This study sought to determine
if different constructs within a classroom environment can predict high and low math selfefficacy.
Self-efficacy was measured using selected items from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning
Scale (PALS) instrument (Midgley et al., 2000). High self-efficacy was measured using mastery
goal orientation and academic efficacy statements from this instrument while low self-efficacy
was measured using academic self-handicapping strategies. Classroom environment was
measured using the My Classroom Inventory (MCI) (Fraser, Anderson, & Walberg, 1982)
survey, using five dimensions including cohesiveness, competitiveness, friction, difficulty, and
satisfaction. All dimensions were created by the instrument authors and stated in the manual.
Results
Data were analyzed from approximately 400 students in a North Texas school district.
The researcher was given permission from the school district, parents, and students to collect and
analyze the data. Participants were 53% females (N = 217) and 47% males (N = 192). The
sample included grades 4-12 with 46% of participants being fourth and fifth graders, 22% were
in seventh and eighth grades, and 19% were high school students in ninth to 12th grade. Seventy-

61
five percent of participants were White, 10% were Hispanic/Latino, 6% were African American,
2% were Asian, and 6% were Other.
Multiple regression analyses were used to answer both research questions. The five
dimensions of the classroom environment surveycohesiveness, competitiveness, friction,
difficulty, and satisfactionwere used as the predictor variables for both analyses. These five
measures were used to predict high math self-efficacy for question 1 and low math self-efficacy
for question 2. Assumptions were checked for normality, homogeneity of variance, and
multicollinearity. Effect size was assessed using R2.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked Which dimensions of classroom environment (cohesiveness,
friction, satisfaction, difficulty, or competitiveness) are the best predictors of high self-efficacy
for students in mathematics? Of the classroom environment dimensions, students scored the
highest on satisfaction (mean = 0.67, s.d. = .20) and competitiveness (mean = 0.60, s.d. = .22)
(see Table 1). The scores of the classroom environment scale were 0 and 1, therefore the mean
falls between 0 and 1, with 1 being the highest score. The mean high self-efficacy score was
3.918 (s.d. = .85). Self-efficacy was scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest score.
Four out of the five predictor variables were significantly correlated with the criterion variable
(see Table 1). The only predictor variable that was not significantly correlated to high selfefficacy was competitiveness (r = .068, p = .086). Cohesion, satisfaction, and competitiveness
showed a positive correlation with high math self-efficacy, while friction and difficulty were
negatively correlated with high math self-efficacy.

62
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations for High Self-Efficacy, Cohesiveness,
Friction, Satisfaction, Difficulty, and Competitiveness (N = 409)

Variable
Mean
SD
High Self-Efficacy
3.91
0.85
Predictor variables
1. Cohesiveness
0.49
0.24
2. Friction
0.39
0.27
3. Satisfaction
0.67
0.20
4. Difficulty
0.42
0.17
5. Competitiveness
0.60
0.22
*p < .05; **p < .01, ***p < .001.

1
.231***

Predictor Variables
2
3
4
-.318*** .407*** -.193***
-.472*** .238***
-.096*

.036
.128**
-.119**

5
.068
-.043
.320***
.173***
.179***

The regression procedure showed that the model significantly predicted high math selfefficacy [F (5, 403) = 30.141, p< .001]. The adjusted R2 of .263 indicated that, of the total
variability that existed in high math self-efficacy, 26.3% was associated with variability in
cohesiveness, friction, satisfaction, difficulty, and competitiveness. The standardized beta
coefficients were all statistically significant except for cohesiveness (see Table 2). Satisfaction
had the highest standardized beta value, making it the most significant predictor of high math
self-efficacy. Tolerance values indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem in this
analysis.

63
Table 2
Multiple Regression Analysis Summary for Variables Predicting High Math SelfEfficacy (N = 409)
Standard Error
Variable
B
of B

Cohesiveness
.074
0.181
.021
Friction
.958
0.164
.301***
Satisfaction
1.397
0.189
.334***
Difficulty
.684
0.216
.139**
Competitiveness
.510
0.180
.132**
Constant
3.294
0.190
2
Note. R = .263; F (5, 403) = 30.141, p< .001. *p < .05; **p < .01,***p < .001.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked Which dimensions of classroom environment (cohesiveness,
friction, satisfaction, difficulty, or competitiveness) are the best predictors of low self-efficacy?
Of the classroom environment dimensions, students scored lowest on friction (mean = 0.39, s.d =
0.27) and difficulty (mean = 0.42, s.d = 0.17) (see Table 3). The mean low self-efficacy score
was 2.11 (s.d = 0.97). All of the predictor variables were significantly correlated to low selfefficacy (see Table 3). Cohesiveness and satisfaction showed a negative correlation with low
math self-efficacy, while friction, difficulty, and competitiveness were positively correlated with
low self-efficacy.

64
Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations for Low Self-Efficacy, Cohesiveness,
Friction, Satisfaction, Difficulty, and Competitiveness (N = 409)

Variable
Mean
SD
Low Self-Efficacy
2.11
0.97
Predictor variables
1. Cohesiveness
0.49
0.24
2. Friction
0.39
0.27
3. Satisfaction
0.67
0.20
4. Difficulty
0.42
0.17
5. Competitiveness 0.60
0.22
*p < .05; **p < .01, ***p < .001.

1
-.088*

Predictor Variables
2
3
4
.193*** -.137**
.190***
-.470***

.238***
-.096*

.037
.127**
-.119**

5
.127**
-.039
.317***
.173***
.178***

The regression procedure showed that the model significantly predicted low self-efficacy
[F (5, 402) = 7.063, p< .001]. The adjusted R2 of .081 indicated that, of the total variability that
existed in low self-efficacy, 8.1% was associated with variability in cohesiveness, friction,
satisfaction, difficulty, and competitiveness. The standardized beta coefficients were all
statistically significant except for cohesiveness and competitiveness (see Table 4). Difficulty had
the highest standardized beta value, making it the most significant predictor of low math selfefficacy. Tolerance values indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem in this analysis.

65
Table 4
Multiple Regression Analysis Summary for Variables Predicting
Low Self-Efficacy (N = 407)
Standard
Variable
B
Error of B

Cohesiveness
.020
0.231
.005
Friction
.507
0.210
.140*
Satisfaction
.578
0.242
.122*
Difficulty
.802
0.276
.144**
Competitiveness
.344
0.230
.079
Constant
1.751
0.243
Note. R2 = .081; F (5, 402) = 7.063, p< .001. *p < .05; **p < .01,
***p < .001.

Summary
The data collected for this study were analyzed through multiple regression using
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Question 1 asked if high self-efficacy can be
predicted by classroom environment and question 2 focused on the predictability of low selfefficacy in mathematics using five dimensions of classroom environment. Classroom
environment was divided into five dimensions in order to determine which would predict low or
high self-efficacy in mathematics. The five dimensions included cohesiveness, friction,
satisfaction, competitiveness, and difficulty. Various dimensions of classroom environment
predicted either high or low mathematics self-efficacy. All dimensions except cohesiveness
predicted high math self-efficacy with an adjusted R2 of .263. All dimensions except
cohesiveness and competitiveness predicted low math self-efficacy with an adjusted R2 of .081.

66
Chapter 5
SUMMARY OF THE STUDY AND THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The data collected in this study were shown in the previous chapter. In the current
chapter, data will be explained, conclusions will be made from the data, and findings will be
applied to a classroom setting using implications of the data. The information collected will be
summarized and future research will be suggested.
Summary of the Study
This study sought to find which dimensions of the classroom environment could predict
low and high mathematics self-efficacy in students in the fourth through twelfth grade. The
sample group consisted of approximately 400 students from a North Texas public school district.
Two surveys were administered to all fourth through twelfth grade students enrolled in a math
class to collect data on their perception of their classroom environment as well as their selfefficacy towards mathematics. Students completed the surveys during the regular school day on
the computer in an electronic format. Only participants who completed both surveys and
returned a student assent and parent consent form were analyzed in this study. Data were input
into SPSS and multiple regressions were used to analyze the data.
Summary of the Findings
Research Question 1 asked which dimensions of classroom environment could predict
high self-efficacy in mathematics. The data analysis showed that the model was statistically
significant and the adjusted R2 was .263, meaning that 26% of the variance in high math selfefficacy could be predicted from the combination of classroom environment predictors

67
(cohesiveness, friction, difficulty, competitiveness, and satisfaction). According to Cohen
(1988), this is a large effect size.
The positive predictors that were statistically significant included cohesion and
satisfaction which means that as these variables increase, high math self-efficacy also increases
in students. The negative predictors that were statistically significant include friction and
difficulty which means that as these variables decrease, high self-efficacy will increase.
Research Question 2 asked which dimensions of classroom environment could predict
low self-efficacy in mathematics. The model was statistically significant and the R2 was .081,
meaning that 8% of the variance in low math self-efficacy could be predicted from the
combination of classroom environment predictors (cohesiveness, friction, difficulty,
competitiveness, and satisfaction). According to Cohen (1988), this is a small effect size.
The positive predictors that were statistically significant included friction,
competitiveness, and difficulty which means that as these variables increase, so does low math
self-efficacy in students. The negative predictors that were statistically significant included
cohesiveness and satisfaction which means that as these variables decrease, low self-efficacy will
increase.
Conclusions
Self-efficacy has been widely studied and refers to an individuals beliefs that he or she
can succeed at a particular type of task (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy has to do with ones
belief that he or she has the ability to perform these actions well enough to succeed and is
believed to relate to learners mathematic achievement and course enrollment (Adeyemi, 2012).
Students with higher math self-efficacy persist longer on difficult tasks and are more accurate in
computations compared to students with lower math self-efficacy (Collins, 1985; Hoffman &

68
Schraw, 2009). Person-environment fit theory states that an individuals behavior is a function
of the person and environment (Lewin, 1935; Murray, 1938, 1951). The data collected in this
study supports this theory through emphasizing the relationship between the math classroom
environment and individual self-efficacy in mathematics.
Research Question 1
The mean of high math self-efficacy for all students was 3.91, very close to 4 on a scale
of 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest. Therefore, the majority of students rated themselves as having
a fairly high math self-efficacy. Competitiveness and satisfaction were the positive predictors of
high self-efficacy in mathematics, which means that as competitiveness and satisfaction increase,
high math self-efficacy increases. Friction and difficulty were negative predictors of high math
self-efficacy, indicating when friction and difficulty decrease, high math self-efficacy increases.
Satisfaction was defined as students liking or enjoying their math class. The satisfaction
scale was found to have a high mean and was the most significant predictor of high self-efficacy
in mathematics. If students feel satisfied with their mathematics classroom and work, they
should have a high self-efficacy and a positive attitude towards mathematics. When students are
satisfied with their math class, their attitude toward the content mirrors the satisfaction (Fraser &
OBrien, 1985). The expectancy-value theory supports this finding through the emphasis that as
students have the expectation of a positive outcome, there will be a stronger influence on their
motivation and value of the task (Bandura, 1986). As a classroom is created with students
experiencing satisfaction, the students will continue to be motivated through experiencing
continued satisfaction in that classroom. Competitiveness was also a dimension of classroom
environment that had a high mean score, and it was a significant predictor of high math selfefficacy. Teachers can conduct activities in the class where students compete against each other

69
or themselves, however, competitiveness can be perceived differently among all students (Fraser
& OBrien, 1985). This study found competitiveness to be an element of the classroom that was
significant in predicting high self-efficacy; this is in contrast to Fraser and OBrien (1985).
Excessively high levels of competitiveness are likely to be undesirable, but a reasonable amount
of competitiveness could be considered desirable to motivate and challenge students (Fraser &
OBrien, 1985). Competitiveness can be presented to students in a variety of ways whether they
compete against each other, themselves, or the clock. More research needs to be done in order to
determine exactly what is going on in this North Texas school district to find out how
competitiveness is being used to increase high self-efficacy.
In classrooms where there is disagreement and tension among students, friction is high
(McMahon, Wernsman, & Rose, 2009). This promotes an environment of negativity towards the
math class and high self-efficacy in mathematics is reduced. Friction was negatively correlated
with high math self-efficacy so students with high math efficacy perceive their classrooms to
have little friction (Fraser & OBrien, 1985). Difficulty also was negatively correlated to high
math self-efficacy. This could show that students with high math self-efficacy do not find the
math work difficult, while students with low math self-efficacy do find the math work difficult.
Students with high math self-efficacy are able to see that they are capable of difficult tasks while
students with low math self-efficacy struggle to confront a challenge (Collins, 1985). This data
analysis supports the attribution theory where success is viewed by the individual to be caused
by high ability while failure is due to lack of effort (Weiner, 2004). The difficulty in the
classroom could be linked to these connections as well. More data need to be collected on
participants in order to determine this correlation.

70
Cohesion was positively correlated with high math self-efficacy but was not a significant
predictor of high math self-efficacy. Classrooms that promote a cohesive environment where
students get along and work together encourage different styles of thinking and approaches, but
this does not necessarily predict a high self-efficacy in the math students. Anderson (2004)
stated that high academic self-efficacy and greater achievement are typically associated with
classrooms that rate high in cohesiveness, satisfaction, and goal direction and low in
disorganization and friction. The results support the findings from this study that high
mathematic self-efficacy increases when cohesiveness and satisfaction increase, and friction
decreases. Additionally, this supports the social-cognitive theory that beliefs determine
expectations and while students are in a classroom that promotes cohesiveness and satisfaction,
students are able to influence their future behavior in a positive way (Pajares, 1996).
Researchers have stated (Fraser & OBrien, 1985; Fraser, 2001) that high levels of cohesiveness
can be desirable in classrooms, while this study found it not to be significant for this sample.
This could be caused by creating an environment that fosters more independent work in the math
classroom rather than group work or collaboration.
Evidence suggests that students with a higher self-efficacy level use more influential
strategies, determine more difficult goals, and have higher motivation (Ucak & Bag, 2012).
Students with higher self-efficacy spend more energy on their math work and are more patient
when presented with challenging math tasks (Schunk, 1990), while also being more relaxed and
efficient when facing higher levels of difficulty. Wang (2012) suggested that students
expectancies and task values in math are enhanced with challenging tasks in a classroom
environment that also provide emotional and cognitive support, meaningful material to learn and
master, and appropriate support of personal goals and interests.

71
Research Question 2
The mean of low math self-efficacy was 2.11, very close to 2 on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5
being very true about them. Therefore, the majority of students did not perceive themselves as
having low math self-efficacy. This study found that low math self-efficacy increased as friction
and difficulty increased. Difficulty has been found to be a key factor of self-efficacy in math in
prior studies (McMahon, Wernsman, & Rose, 2009). Low self-efficacy in mathematics will
increase as cohesion and satisfaction decreases. McMahon et al. (2009) performed a study
looking at how academic self-efficacy is impacted by classroom environment in fifth and sixth
grade students. They concluded similar findings that friction and competitiveness related to low
self-efficacy while also concluding that satisfaction did not significantly predict math selfefficacy.
Implications
Educators can use these results to further understand the need to create an environment in
their classroom that promotes high math self-efficacy and diffuses low math self-efficacy.
Teachers can give their students the MCI (My Classroom Inventory) in order to determine how
their students perceive their classroom and work towards increasing some dimensions and
decreasing others.
Educators need to be aware of the way that they incorporate competiveness in their
classroom. It is important that there is a healthy amount of competition present in the classroom
but expressed in a way where everyone has a chance at success. Competitions where high
achieving students are the only students who are successful and the low achieving students are
not successful are not beneficial to anyones self-efficacy in mathematics. Students competing
against themselves or encouraging each other to succeed may be the best way to approach this

72
teaching style (Fraser & Kahle, 2007). Student respect, integrity, and confidence need to be kept
intact in order for them to feel important and a part of the community created within the
classroom. Competition was a significant predictor for high self-efficacy but not low selfefficacy, according to this data collection; therefore, it warrants a closer examination of how to
incorporate it appropriately in the classroom setting in order to increase high self-efficacy.
Cohesion was found not to be a significant predictor of either high or low math selfefficacy in this study. While researchers have stated that cohesion in the classroom fosters
achievement (McMahon, Wernsman, & Rose, 2009; Fraser 1998), it is unclear why this was the
result for this sample. Educators need to be aware of the environment that is created in the class
and how students working together or the lack of getting along can directly impact students
math self-efficacy. Cohesion between students needs to be encouraged and opportunities should
be provided for them to build positive relationships with each other. Lessons that include
opportunities for students to work together towards a common goal as well as talking and
listening to one another in order to understand different perspectives and opinions and extend
their own personal knowledge base should be encouraged. Most of all, cohesion creates a
classroom community where students trust, appreciate, and work together in order for everyone
to become their best self.
Friction between students needs to be discouraged and solved in order for students to
move forward and achieve cohesion. If students have an issue that they need to work out, it
should be addressed by students and a mediator; the mediator can ensure that both parties are
listened to and understood. Friction should be eliminated from classrooms so that low math selfefficacy decreases, giving high self-efficacy in mathematics a greater opportunity to grow.

73
Difficulty in mathematics is going to be inevitable for some students but the approach
teachers take towards difficult tasks can be changed so students can find success in every
challenge they face. Differentiation, scaffolding, and front loading are just a few ways to
decrease difficulty for students and increase satisfaction in the classroom which can lead to an
increase in high math self-efficacy and decrease in low math self-efficacy. For students with
lower self-efficacy, tasks might seem more difficult than they actually are which can increase
anxiety and stress that narrows student perspective to solve a problem (Pajares, 2002).
Lastly, students need to find satisfaction within their math class. When students enjoy the
class and want to be there, math self-efficacy is high. Teachers can promote satisfaction within
the classroom through cohesion and working together, but also through setting up students for
success. If students feel defeated before they enter a math classroom, satisfaction will not be
found, but as teachers create an environment that sets up students for success, and supports their
growth of the math content, satisfaction is sure to follow.
Success in mathematics is essential for entry into many college majors and occupations
(Lent, Lopez, & Bieschke, 1993) and is essential for modern scientific and technological
advancement (Githua & Mwangi, 2003). It is important for educators to be sensitive to the
important role of mathematics preparations in shaping students future career choices (Betz,
1992; Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990).
An ideal mathematics classroom encourages student collaboration while students are
appropriately challenged. As students master mathematics concepts, the classroom environment
is a crucial element to ensure their success in concept retention and application. Educators need
to encourage student discussion, problem solving, and opportunities for students to share their

74
thinking in order for students to feel affirmed while hearing other student perspectives of
mathematical approaches.
Recommendations for Further Research
From this data collection and analysis, several additional research studies can be
recommended in order to extend what has been found. Initially, creating a valid and reliable
instrument that measures only mathematics self-efficacy is desired. The PALS instrument
served its purpose for this study, but future research should be conducted using a tool that
measures only mathematics self-efficacy of students. This could be composed of a survey that
measures their level of self-efficacy in mathematics or a qualitative tool that asks students to
conduct math tasks while collecting data on their physical and mental behavior.
Differences in subgroups such as gender, grade level, or mathematics course could be
analyzed. It would not be suggested to analyze ethnicity using the data from this study because
the majority of students were white, but it could be analyzed through other populations or sample
groups. Looking across ages and genders could bring forth some interesting data about how selfefficacy and perceived classroom environment changes as students get older or between male
and female students.
Student achievement in conjunction with classroom environment and/or self-efficacy in
mathematics could provide useful findings. Standardized test scores could be analyzed in order
to determine how classroom environment impacts achievement or how self-efficacy impacts
achievement. Including students report card grades as a variable in regards to classroom
environment could determine if more capable students prefer a different environment than
students receiving lower grades.

75
In order to extend this research study, future researchers could study what specific
teaching strategies cause increases in self-efficacy in classrooms. Data can also be collected
regarding how self-efficacy in mathematics changes as students get older and go through
different learning experiences. Additionally, self-efficacy in math students can be analyzed in
order to see how it is impacts class selection and career path.
Self-efficacy can also be observed outside of the classroom setting. Research on how
parents, teachers, and society influence individual self-efficacy in mathematics would be useful.
Lastly, classroom environment could be analyzed to determine influences on students learning
processes and the increase or decrease in student achievement.
Summary
Classrooms where students perceive the environment to include satisfaction and
competitiveness were the significant predictors of high self-efficacy in mathematics. Classroom
environments that were perceived to have friction and difficulty were negatively correlated to
high math self-efficacy, therefore as difficulty and friction decreased, high math self-efficacy
increased. Cohesion was found not to be a significant predictor of high or low math selfefficacy. Low math self-efficacy was found to increase as friction, cohesion, and difficulty
increased.

76
REFERENCES
Adeyemi, A. A. (2012). Effect of peer and self-assessment on male and female students selfefficacy and self-autonomy in the learning of mathematics. Gender & Behaviour, 10(1),
4492-4508.
Aiken, L. R. (1970). Attitudes toward mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 40(4), 551596.
Aiken, L. R., Jr. (1976). Update on attitudes and other affective variables in learning
mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 46(2), 293-311.
Akin, A., & Kurbanoglu, I. N. (2011). The relationship between math anxiety, math attitudes,
and self-efficacy: a structural equation model. Studia Psychologica, 53(3), 263274.
Al-Harthy, I. S., Was, C. A., & Isaacson, R. M. (2010). Goals, efficacy and metacognitive selfregulation: A path analysis. International Journal of Education, 2(1), 1-20.
Ambrose, R. (2004). Initiating change in prospective elementary school teachers orientations to
mathematics teaching building on beliefs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
7(2), 91-119.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.
Ames, C. (1992b). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. H. Schunk
& J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327-348). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom, students learning strategies
and motivational processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267.

77
Anderman, L. H. (1999). Classroom goal orientation, school belonging, and social goals as
predictors of students positive and negative affect following the transition to middle
school. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 32(2), 89-103.
Anderman, L. H. (2003). Academic and social perceptions as predictors of change in middle
school students sense of belonging. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(1), 5-22.
Anderson, A., Hamilton, R. J., & Hattie, J. (2004). Classroom climate and motivated behavior in
secondary schools. Learning Environments Research, 7(3), 211-225.
Anderson, L. (2004). From chaos to community, Teaching Tolerance, 26(1), 10-10.
Andrew, S. (1998). Self-efficacy as a predictor of academic performance in science. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 27(3), 596-603. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.Org/10.1046/j.13652648.1998.00550.x PMid:9543047
Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Math anxiety: Personal, educational, and cognitive consequences.
Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 181-185.
Ashcraft, M. H., & Faust, M. (1994). Mathematics anxiety and mental arithmetic performance:
An exploratory investigation. Cognition and Emotion 8(2), 97-125.
Ashcraft, M. H., & Krause, J.A. (2007). Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety.
Psychnomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 243-248.
Ashcraft, M. H., & Kirk, E. P. (2001). The relationship among working memory, math anxiety,
and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 224-237.
Ashcraft, M. H., & Ridley, K. S. (2005). Math anxiety and its cognitive consequences: A tutorial
review. In J. I. Campbell (Ed.). Handbook of Mathematical Cognition (pp.315-327). New
York:
Psychology
Press.

78
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological
Review, 64(6), 359-372.
Bagaka, J. G. (2011). The role of teacher characteristics and practices on upper secondary school
students mathematics self-efficacy in Nyanza Province of Kenya: A multilevel analysis.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(4), 817-843.
Baker, J. A. (1998). The social context of school satisfaction among urban, low-income AfricanAmerican students. School Psychology Quarterly, 13(1), 25-44.
Bandalos, D. L., Finney, S. J., & Geske, J. A. (2003). A model of statistics performance based on
achievement goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 604-616.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychology, 37(2),
122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1994). Encyclopedia of human behavior. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of mental health (pp. 314-320). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983) Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the
motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
45(5), 1017-1028.

79
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986) Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in
cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 92113.
Barkley, J. M. (2006). Reading education: Is self-efficacy important? Reading Improvement, 43,
194-210.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1995). Schools as communities,
poverty levels of student populations, and students attitudes, motives, and performance:
A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 627-658.
doi:10.3102/00028312032003627
Bassi, M., Steca, P., Fave, A. D., & Caprara, G. V. (2007). Academic self-efficacy beliefs and
qualify of experience in learning. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 36(3), 301-312.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl0964-006-9069-y
Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. C. (2010). Female teachers math
anxiety affects girls math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 1860-1863.
Berry, J. M. (1987). A self-efficacy model of memory performance. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York, NY.
Besterfield-Sacre, M., Atman, C. J., & Shuman, L. J. (1997). Characteristics of freshman
engineering students: Models for determining student attrition in engineering. Journal of
Engineering Education 86(2), 139-149.
Betz, N. E. (1978). Prevalence, distribution, and correlates of math anxiety in college students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 441-448.

80
Betz, N. E. (1992). Career assessment: A review of critical issues. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent
(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 453-484). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to
perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
28, 399-410.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to
the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329345.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1986) Applications of self-efficacy theory to understanding career
choice behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 279-289.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and childrens; early school
adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61-79.
Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle
and high school students: Self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement goals. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93(1), 23-34.
Bong, M. (2009). Age-related differences in achievement goal differentiation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101, 879-896.
Brady, P., & Bowd, A. (2005). Mathematics anxiety prior experiences and confidence to teacher
mathematics among pre-service education students. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and
Practice,
11,
37-46.

81
Bretscher, A. S., Dwinell, P. L., Hey, N. S., & Higbee, J. L. (1989). Success or failure: Variables
affecting mathematics performance. Paper Presented at the National Association of
Developmental Education, Cincinnati, OH.
Buck, R. (1999). The biological affects: A typology, Psychological Review, 106(2), 301-336.
Burns, M. (1998). Math: Facing an American phobia. Sausalito, CA: Math Solution
Publications.
Bursal, M., & Pazonkas, L. (2006). Mathematics anxiety and pre-service elementary teachers
confidence to teach mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4),
173-79.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1984). Influence of gender constancy and social power on sex-linked
modeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1292-1302.
Campbell, J. R., Hombo, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (2000). NAEP 1999 trends in academic progress:
Three decades of student performance. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Chui, L. H., & Henry, L. L. (1990). Development and validation of the Mathematics Anxiety
Scale for Adolescents. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 23,
121-127.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power and analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collins, J. L. (1985). Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behavior. (Doctoral dissertation).
Retreived from ProQuest. (1985-57478-001)
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2007). Rising above the gathering
storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.

82
Cooney, T. J. (2001). Considering the paradoxes, perils, and purposes of conceptualizing teacher
development. In Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp. 9-31). Springer
Netherlands.
Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., Hightower, A. D., Wyman, P. A., Parker, G. R., & Lotyczewski, B.
S. (1991). Toward the development of a measure of perceived self-efficacy in children.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 20(2), 169-178.
Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M. K., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2004). Intergenerational bonding in school: The
behavioral and contextual correlates of student teacher relationships. Sociology of
Education, 77, 60-81. doi:10.1177/ 003804070407700103
Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes error. New York, NY: Grosset/Putnam.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sclan, E. M. (1996). Who teaches and why: Dilemmas of building a
profession for twenty-first century schools. Handbook of research on teacher education,
2, 67-101.
den Brok, P., Bergen, T., Stahl, R. J., & Brekelmans, M. (2004). Students perception of teacher
control behaviors. Learning and Instruction, 14, 425-443.
den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacher behavior and student
outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 407-442.
den Brok, P., Fisher, D., & Koul, R. (2005). The importance of teacher interpersonal behavior for
secondary science students attitudes in Kashmir. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40,
5-19.
den Brok, P., Taconis, R., & Fisher, D. (2010). How well do science teachers do? Differences in
teacherstudent interpersonal behavior between science teachers and teachers of other
(school) subjects. The Open Education Journal, 3(1), 34-43.

83
Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes
in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 451-462.
Dorman, J. P. (2003). Relationship between school and classroom environment and teacher
burnout: a LISREL analysis. Social Psychology of Education, 6, 107-127.
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. Handbook of research on teaching,
3, 392-431.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-272.
Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1998). Person-environment fit theory:
Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research. In C. L.
Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 28-67). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.),
Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp.
75-146). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Eccles, J. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical
science and engineering. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why arent more women
in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199-210). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11546-016
Eccles, J. S. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective
identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44, 78-89.
doi:10.1080/00461520902832368

84
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgely, C., Reuman, D., Mac Iver, D., & Feldlaufer, H. (1993).
Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students motivation. The Elementary
School Journal, 93, 553-574.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac
Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit
on young adolescents experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48,
90-101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90
Fantz, T. D., Siller, T. J., & Demiranda, M. A. (2011). Pre-Collegiate factors influencing the
self-efficacy of engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 604623. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00028.x
Fauzan, A., Slettenhaar, D., & Plomp, T. (2002). Traditional mathematics education vs realistic
mathematics education: Hoping for changes. In P. Palero & O. Skovsmose (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 3rd International Mathematics Education and Society Conference
(pp. 1-4). Copenhagen: Centre for Research in Learning Mathematics.
Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher, and observer perceptions of
the classroom environment before and after the transition to junior high school. Journal
of Early Adolescence, 8, 133-156.
Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Lubinsky, C. A. (1990). Teachers attributions
and beliefs about girls, boys, and mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21,
55-69.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
Fisher, D., Henderson, D., & Fraser, B. (1995). Interpersonal behaviour in senior high school
biology classes. Research in Science Education, 25(2), 25-133.

85
Flewelling, G., & Higginson, W. (2001). A handbook on rich learning tasks. Kingston, ON,
Canada: Centre for Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education.
Frary, R. B., Ling, J. L. (1983). A factor-analytic study of mathematics anxiety. Journal of
Research in Mathematics Education, 17, 145-150.
Fraser, B. J. (1991). Two decades of classroom environment research. In B. J. Fraser & H. J.
Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences
(pp. 3-27). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of
research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493-541). New York: Macmillan.
Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessments, effects and determinants. In B.
J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 527564). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fraser, B. J. (2001). Twenty thousand hours: Editors introduction. Learning Environments
Research, 4, 1-5.
Fraser, B. J. (2007). Classroom learning environments. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),
Handbook of research on science education (pp. 103124). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fraser, B. J. (2011). Differences between preferred and actual classroom environment as
perceived by primary students and teachers. Educational Psychology, 54(3), 336-339.
Fraser, B. J., Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Assessment of learning environments:
Manual for Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and My Class Inventory (MCI) (3rd
ed.). Perth: Western Australian Institute of Technology.
Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1983). Use of actual and preferred classroom environment scales in
person-environment fit research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 303-313.

86
Fraser, B. J., & Kahle, J. B. (2007). Classroom, home and peer environment influences on
student outcomes in science and mathematics: An analysis of systemic reform data.
International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1-19.
Fraser, B. J., & OBrien, P. (1985). Student and teacher perceptions of the environment of
elementary school classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 85(5), 567-580. Freeman, R. B.
(2005). Does globalization of the scientific/engineering workforce threaten U.S. economic
leadership? Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Friedel, J. M., Corina, K. S., Turner, J. C., & Midgley, C. (2007). Achievement goals, efficacy
beliefs, and coping strategies in mathematics: The roles of perceived parent and teacher
goal emphasis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 434-485.
Frieze, I. H. (1980). Beliefs about success and failure in the classroom. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.),
The social psychology of school learning (pp. 39-78). New York, NY: American Press.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in childrens academic
engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148-162.
Galla, B. M., & Wood, J. J. (2012). Emotional self-efficacy moderates anxiety-related
impairments in math performance in elementary school-age youth. Personality and
Individual Differences, 52, 118-122.
Gist, M. E., Mitchell, T. R., & Mitchell, R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its
determinants and malleability. The Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.
Githua, B. N., & Mwangi, J. G. (2003). Students mathematics self-efficacy and motivation to
learn mathematics: Relationship and gender differences among Kenyas secondaryschool students in Nairobi and Rift Valley Provinces. International Journal of
Educational Development, 23, 487-499.

87
Goh, S. C., Young, D. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1995). Psychosocial climate and student outcomes in
elementary school classrooms: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Experimental Education,
64, 29-40.
Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale
development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 79-90.
Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic
motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93, 3-13.
Green, D. M. (2003). Self-efficacy: A communication model for the development of self-efficacy
in the classroom. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 23(3/4), 107-116.
Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L (2011). The role of parents and
teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles, 66, 153-166.
Hackett, G. (1985). The role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-related majors of
college women and men: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 47-56.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-efficacy/mathematics
performance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 261273.
Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1988). Assessing socio-psychological classroom environments
in program evaluation. In K. J. Conrad & C. Roberts-Gray (Eds.), Evaluating program
environments (pp. 45-61). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of
childrens school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625-638.

88
Hannula, M. S. (2006). Motivation in mathematics: Goals reflected in emotions. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 165-178. doi:10.1007/sl0649-005-9019-8
Harper, N. W., & Daane, C. J. (1998). Causes and reduction of math anxiety in preservice
elementary teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 19, 29-38.
Heilman, K. (2000) Emotional experience: A neurological model. In R. Lane & L. Nadel (Eds.),
The cognitive neuroscience of emotion (pp. 328-344). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Hickey, D. T., & Granade, J. B. (2004). The influence of sociocultural theory on our theories of
engagement and motivation. Big theories revisited, 4, 223-247.
Hoffman, B., & Schraw, G. (2009). The influence of self-efficacy and working memory capacity
on problem solving efficiency. Learning and Individual Differences, 10, 91-100.
Hunt, D. E. (1975). Person-environment Interaction: A challenge found wanting before it was
tried. Review of Educational Research, 45, 209-230.
Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2008). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of
affective and social neuroscience to education. In M. Immordino-Yang (Ed.), The JosseyBass Reader on the Brain and Learning (pp. 183-198). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st
century. New York, NY: Teachers College.
Jenson, E. (2005). Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

89
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Cooperative learning and classroom and school
climate. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation,
antecedents and consequences (pp. 55-74). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1997). The effect of achievement goals: Does level of perceived
academic competence make a difference? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22,
415-435.
Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of classroom goal
structure and early adolescents affect in school: The mediating role of coping strategies.
Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 187-212.
Kaplan, A., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2002). Classroom goal structure and student disruptive
behavior. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 191-212.
Kim, J. A., & Lorsbach, A. W. (2005). Writing self-efficacy in young children: Issues for the
early grades environment. Learning Environments Research, 8(2), 157-175.
doi:10.1007/s10984-005-7248-5
Klassen, R. M., & Usher, E. L. (2010). Self-efficacy in educational settings: Recent research and
emerging directions. In T. C. Urdan & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), Advances in motivation
and achievement: Vol. 16A. The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation
and achievement (pp. 1-33). Bingley, UK: Emerald. doi:10.1108/S0749423(2010)000016A004
Koller, O., Baumert, J., & Schnabel, K. (2001). Does interest matter? The relationship between
academic interest and achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 32(5), 448-470.

90
Kuperminc, G. P., Blatt, S. J., & Leadbeater, B. J. (1997). Relatedness, self-definition, and early
adolescent adjustment. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 301-320.
Kuperminc, G. P., Leadbeater, B. J., & Blatt, S. J. (2001). School social climate and individual
differences in vulnerability to psychopathology among middle school students. Journal of
School Psychology, 39, 141-159.
Latterell, C. M. (2005). Social stigma and mathematical ignorance. Academic Exchange
Quarterly, 9, 167-171.
Lazarus, M. (1974). Mathephobia: Some personal speculations. National Elementary Principal,
53, 42-45.
LeDoux, J. (1994). Emotion, memory, and the brain. Scientific American, 270(6), 50-57.
Lee, B. Y. (1992). The effects of learner control and adaptive information in mathematics
computer assisted instruction on achievement and task-related anxiety. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 52, 3236A.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1987). Comparison of three theoretically derived
variables in predicting career and academic behavior Self-efficacy, interest congruence,
and consequence thinking. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 293-298.
Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future directions.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 347-382.
Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., & Bieschke, K. J. (1993). Predicting mathematics-related choice and
success behaviors: Test of an expanded social cognitive model. Journal of Vocational
Behaviors, 42, 223-236.

91
Levpuscek, M. P., & Zupancic, M. (2009). The role of parental involvement, teachers behavior,
and students motivational beliefs about math. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(4), 541570.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principals of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally
created "social climates." Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299.
Linenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student
engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119137.
Lloyd, J. E., Walsh, J., & Yailagh, M. S. (2005). Sex differences in performance attributions,
self-efficacy, and achievement in mathematics: If Im so smart, why dont I know it?
Canadian Journal of Education, 23(3), 384-408.
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task
strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 241251.
Locke, E. A., & Lantham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lorsbach, A.W., & Jinks, J. (1999). Self-efficacy theory and learning environment research.
Learning Environments Research, 2(2), 157-167.
Ma, X. (1999). A meta-analysis of the relationship between anxiety towards mathematics and
achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research and Mathematics Education, 30(5),
520-540.

92
Ma, X., & Kishor, N. (1997). The relationship of attitudes towards mathematics and achievement
in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 9(2), 89-120.
Ma, X., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2007). Mathematics Coursework Regulates Growth in Mathematics
Achievement. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 38(3), 230-257.
Mac Iver, D. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Middle grades research: Not yet mature, but no longer a
child. Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 519-533.
Malmivuori, M. L. (2008). Understanding student affect in learning mathematics. In C. L.
Petroselli (Ed.), Science Education Issues and Developments (pp. 125-149). Nova
Science Publishers, Inc.
Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M. C., den Brok, P., & Bosker, R. (2011). Teacherstudent
interpersonal relationships in Indonesia: Profiles and importance to student motivation.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31(01), 33-49.
Maxwell, E. (1998). I can do it myself!: Reflections on early self-efficacy. Roeper Review,
20(3), 183-187.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. American
Psychologist, 40(7), 812-825.
McFague, S. (2001). Life abundant: Rethinking theology and economy for a planet in peril.
Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress.
McLeod, D. B. (1988). Affective issues in mathematical problem solving: Some theoretical
considerations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(2), 134-141.
McLeod, D. B. (1994). Research on affect and mathematics learning in the JRME: 1970 to the
present. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 637-647.

93
McMahon, S. D., Wernsman, J., & Rose, D. S. (2009). The relation of classroom environment
and school belonging to academic self-efficacy among urban fourth and fifth grade
students. The Elementary School Journal, 109(3), 267-281.
Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on
young adolescents course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 60-70.
Meyer, R. (1998). The production of mathematics skills in high school: What works? Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago, Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, and
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An
underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 710-718.
Midgley, C., Eccles, J. S., & Feldlaufer, H. (1991). Classroom environment and the transition to
junior high school. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments:
Evaluation, antecedents, and consequences (pp. 113-139). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Midgley, C., Feldlauger, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989a). Change in teacher efficacy and student selfand task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 247-258.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989b). Student/teacher relations and attitudes
towards mathematics before and after the transition to junior high school. Child
Development, 60, 981-992.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., Gheen,
M., Kaplan, A., Kumar, R., Middleton, M. J., Nelson, J., Roeser, R., & Urdan, T. (2000).

94
Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan.
Montgomery, A. F., & Rossi, R. J. (1994). Becoming at risk of failure in America's schools. In
R. J. Rossi (Ed.), Schools and students at risk: Context and framework for positive
change (pp. 3-22). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Moos, R. H. (1974). The social climate scales: An overview. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists.
Moos, R. H., & Trickett, E. J. (1974). Classroom environment scale manual. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists.
Morgan, V., & Jinks, J. (1999). Childrens perceived academic self-efficacy: An inventory scale.
Clearing House, 72(4), 224230.
Morge, S. (2005). High school students math beliefs and society. Academic Exchange
Quarterly, 9, 182-187.
Muller, C., Katz, S. R., & Dance, L. J. (1999). Investing in teaching and learning. Dynamics of
the teacher-student relationship from each actors perspective. Urban Education, 34(3),
292-337.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic
outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 3038. doi:10.1037//0022-0167.38.1.30
Murdock, T. B., Hale, N. M., & Weber, M. J. (2001). Predictors of cheating among early
adolescents: Academic and social motivations. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
26(1), 96-115.

95
Murdock, T., & Miller, A. (2003). Teachers as sources of middle school students motivational
identity: Variable-centered and person-centered analytic approaches. The Elementary
School Journal, 103(4), 383-399.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Murray, H. A. (1951). Toward a classification of interaction. In T. Parsons, & E. A. Shils (Eds.).
Toward a general theory of action (pp. 434-464). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc. (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Neale, D. C. (1969). The role of attitudes in learning mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 16(8),
631-640.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs and in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 19(4), 317-328.
Nichols, J. D. (1996). The effects of cooperative learning on student achievement and motivation
in a high school geometry class. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 467-476.
Nicholls, J. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task
choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328-346.
Noeth, R. J., Cruce, T., & Harmston, M. T. (2003). Maintaining a strong engineering workforce:
ACT policy report. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
Norwood, K. S. (1994). The effects of instructional approach on mathematics anxiety and
achievement. School Science and Mathematics, 94(5), 248-254.
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students need for belonging in the school community. Review of
Educational Research, 70(3), 323-367.

96
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66(4), 543-578.
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich
(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 1-49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved from
http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff/html
Pajares, F., Britner, S. L, & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and selfbeliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25(4), 406-422.
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation, constructs, and mathematics
performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
24(2), 124-139.
Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in
mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(4), 426-443.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics performances:
The need for specificity of assessment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(2), 190198.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept,
and school achievement. In R. Riding & S. Rayner (Eds.), Self-perception (pp. 239-266).
London: Ablex Publishing.
Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Adolescence and education: Vol. 5. Self-efficacy beliefs
of adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

97
Patrick, H., Kaplan, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2011). Positive classroom motivational environments:
Convergence between mastery goal structure and classroom social climate. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 103(2), 367-382. doi:10.1037/a0023311
Paulsen, M., & Gentry, J. (1995). Motivation, learning strategies, and academic performance; a
study of the college finance classroom. Financial Practice & Education, 5(1), 78-89.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions
in students learning performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ).
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36-48.
Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers' beliefs and affect. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second
handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 257-315). Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Philippou, G., & Christou, C. (2003). A study of the mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs of
primary teachers. In Beliefs: A Hidden Variable in Mathematics Education? (pp. 211231). Springer Netherlands.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice hall.
Pitkaniemi, H., & Vanninen, P. (2012). Learning attainments as a result of student activity,
cognition and the classroom environment. Problems of Education in the 21st Century,
41(1), 75-86.
Popper, S. W., & Wagner, C. S. (2002). New foundations for growth: The U.S. innovative system
today and tomorrow. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

98
Puklek, M. (2001). Razvoj psiholoskega osamosvajanja mladostnikov v razlicnih socialnih
kontekstih [The development of adolescent psychological individuation in different social
contexts]. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana.
Puklek, M. (2004). The role of parents and teachers behavior in predicting students
motivational beliefs. Paper presented at the 26th ISPA Annual International School
Psychology Colloquium, Exeter, UK.
Quilter, D., & Harper, E. (1988). Why we didnt like mathematics, and why we cant do it.
Educational Research, 30(2), 121-134.
Reddy, R., Rhodes, J. E., & Mulhall, P. (2003). The influence of teacher support on student
adjustment in the middle school years: A latent growth curve study. Development and
Psychopathology, 15(1), 119-138.
Relich, J. (1996). Gender, self-concept and teachers of mathematics: Effects on attitudes to
teaching and learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30(2), 179-195.
Richardson, R., & Suinn, R. (1972). The Mathematic Anxiety Rating Scale. Psychometric data.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19(6), 551-554.
Roeser, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Adolescents perceptions of middle school: Relation to
longitudinal changes in academic and psychological adjustment. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 8(1), 123158. doi: 10.1207/s15327795jra0801_6
Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological
environment and early adolescents psychological and behavioral functioning in school:
The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3),
408-422.

99
Ross, M. E., Shannon, D. M., Salisbury-Glennon, J., & Guarino, A. (2002). The patterns of
adaptive learning survey: A comparison across grade levels. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 62(3), 483-497. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/221546084?accountid=7083
Rotter, J. B. (1982). Social learning theory. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions:
Expectancy-value models in psychology (pp. 241-260). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Royer, J. M., & Walles, R. (2007). Influences of gender, motivation and socioeconomic status on
mathematics performance. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so
hard for some children? (pp. 349-367). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Ruffell, M., Mason, J., & Allen, B. (1998). Studying attitude to mathematics. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 35(1), 1-18.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismicdialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of selfdetermination research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in
adolescents motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(2), 437-460. doi: 10.3102/00028312038002437
Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers,
parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 14(2), 226-249.
Sakiz, G. (2011). Mastery and performance approach goal orientations in relation to academic
self-efficacy beliefs and academic help seeking behaviors of college students in Turkey.
Educational Research, 2(1), 771-778.

100
Sapolsky, R. (1990). Stress in the wild. Scientific American, 26(2), 116-123.
Sapolsky, R. (1992). Stress, the aging brain, and the mechanisms of neuron death. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Shields, S. A. (2005). The politics of emotion in everyday life: "Appropriate" emotion and
claims on identity. Review of General Psychology, 9(1), 3-15.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. C., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., &
Wolfe, R. G. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum
and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schunk, D. H. (1981). +Modeling and attributional effects on childrens achievement: A selfefficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(1), 93105.
Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and childrens behavioral change. Review of Educational
Research, 57(2), 149174.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology
Review, 1(3), 173-208. hftp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01320134
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal settings and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychologist, 25(1), 71.
Schunk, D. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologists, 26(3-4),
207-231.
Schunk, D. H., & Gunn, T. P. (1986). Self-efficacy and skill development: Influence of task
strategies and attributions. Journal of Educational Research, 79(4), 238-244.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

101
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A. Wigfield
& J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 16-32). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Shuell, T. J. (1996). Teaching and learning in the classroom context, in D.C. Berliner, and R.C.
Calfee (eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology, Simon and Schuster Macmillan,
New York, NY, 726-764.
Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation: A
longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental
Psychology, 42(1), 70-83. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.70
Sinclair, B. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2002). Changing classroom environments in urban middle
schools. Learning Environments Research, 5(3), 301-328.
Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement effects of
motivation, interest, and academic engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 95(6),
323-332.
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in
the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100(4), 765-781.
Sloan, T., Daane, C. J., & Giesen, J. (2002). Mathematics anxiety and learning styles: What is
the relationship in elementary preservice teachers?. School Science and Mathematics,
102(2), 84-87.
Smith, S. (1997). Early childhood mathematics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

102
Smith, L., Sinclair, K. E., & Chapman, E. S. (2002). Students goals, self-efficacy, selfhandicapping, and negative affective responses: An Australian senior school student
study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(3), 471-485.
Sousa, D. A. (2008). How the brain learns mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Spinner, H., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Evaluation of an Innovative mathematics program in terms of
classroom environment, student attitudes, and conceptual development. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(2), 267-293. doi:10.1007/s10763-0046531-8
Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap. New York, NY: Summit Books.
Stipek, D., Salmon, J. M., Givvin, K. B., Kazemi, E., Saxe, G., & MacGyvers, V. L. (1998). The
value (and convergence) of practices suggested by motivation research and promoted by
mathematics education reformers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
29(4), 465-488.
Swars, S. L., Daane, C. J., & Giesen, J. (2010). Mathematics anxiety and mathematics teacher
efficacy: What is the relationship in elementary pre-service teachers? School Science and
Mathematics, 106(7), 306-315.
Taylor, M. S., Locke, E. A., Lee, C., & Gist, M. E. (1984) Type A behavior and faculty research
productivity: What are the mechanisms? Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 34(3), 402-418.
Telli, S., den Brok, P., & Cakiroglu, J. (2007). Teacherstudent interpersonal behavior in
secondary science classes in Turkey. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 42(2), 31-40.
Thomas, P., & Higbee, J. (1999). Affective and cognitive factors related to mathematics
achievement. Journal of Developmental Education, 23(1), 8-16.

103
Thorkildsen, T. A., & Nicholls, J. G. (1998). Fifth graders achievement orientations and beliefs:
Individual and classroom differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 179201.
Trickett, E. J., & Moos, R. H. (1973). Social environments of junior high and high school
classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(1), 93-102.
Trickett, E. J., & Moos, R. H. (1974). Classroom Environment Scale, Form R. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Uak, E., & Bag, H. (2012). Elementary school pupils self efficacy towards science and
technology lesson. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(3), 203-216.
U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Mathematics equals opportunity. Washington, DC:
Author.
Vinson, B. (2001). A comparison of pre-service teachers mathematics anxiety before and after a
methods class emphasizing manipulatives. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(2),
89-94.
Walberg, H. J. (Ed.). (1979). Educational environments and effects: Evaluation, policy and
productivity. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Wang, M. T. (2012). Educational and career interests in math: A longitudinal examination of the
links between classroom environment, motivational beliefs, and interests. Developmental
Psychology, 48(6), 1643-57. doi:10.1037/a0027247
Wang, J., & Goldschmidt, P. (2003). Importance of Middle school mathematics on high school
students mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 3-19.

104
Waxman, H. C., Anderson, L., Huang, S. L., & Weinstein, T. (1997). Classroom process
differences in inner-city elementary schools. Journal of Educational Research, 91(1), 4959. doi:10.1080/00220679709597520
Waxman, H. C., Read, L. L., & Garca, A. (2008). Classroom learning environment and student
motivational differences between exemplary, recognized, and acceptable urban middle
level schools. Middle Grades Research Journal, 3(2), 1-22.
Waxman, H. C., & Chen, H. L. (2006). Mixed method approaches for examining classroom
learning environments for resilient and nonresilient students in urban elementary schools.
In D. L. Fisher & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to research on learning
environments: Worldviews (pp. 195-220). Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishers.
Waxman, H. C., & Huang, S. L. (1998). Classroom learning environments in urban elementary,
middle, and high schools. Learning Environments Research: An International Journal,
1(1), 95-113.
Waxman, H. C., Huang, S. L., & Padrn, Y. N. (1995). Investigating the pedagogy of poverty in
inner-city middle level schools. Research in Middle Level Education, 18(2), 1-22.
Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979) Expectations and performance: An empirical
test of Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1(4), 320-331.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573.
Weiner, B. (2004). Attribution theory revisited: Transforming cultural plurality into theoretical
unity. Big Theories Revisited, 4(1), 13-29.
Weinstein, R. S., & McKown, C. (1998). Expectancy effects in" context": Listening to the voices
of students and teachers. Advances in research on teaching, 7(2), 215-242.

105
Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom behavior,
and perceived social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 173-182.
Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical
caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411-419.
Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents,
teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202-209.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.202
Wigfield, A., Byrnes, J. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Development during early and middle
adolescence. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), The handbook of educational
psychology (pp. 87-113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical
analysis. Developmental Review, 12(3), 265-310.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management.
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384.
Wood, R. E., Bandura, A., & Bailey, T. (1990). Mechanisms governing organizational
productivity in complex decision-making environments. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 46(2), 158-164.
Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (1998). The teacher factor in the social climate of the classroom.
In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp.
565-580). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Zakaria, E., & Nordin, N. M. (2008). The effects of mathematics anxiety on matriculation
students as related to motivation and achievement. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science & Technology Education, 4(1), 27-30.

106
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course
attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 845-862.
Zettle, R., & Raines, S. (2002). The relationship of trait and test anxiety with mathematics
anxiety. College Student Journal, 34(1), 246-258.

107

APPENDICES

108

APPENDIX A

109
My Classroom Inventory
This is not a test. The questions below are to find out how you perceive your math class. Please
answer all the questions honestly. You do not need to be concerned, as NO math teacher will
receive feedback on individual answers.
Each sentence is meant to describe your math class. If you agree with the sentence, click yes.
If you dont agree with the sentence, click no.
If you change your mind about an answer, you can go back to change it.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Students enjoy their school work in my math class.

Other students fight during my math class.
In my math class, the work is hard to do.
Other students in my math class are mean.
Most students are pleased with the math class.
Students in my math class race to see who can finish their math work first.
Most students in my class can do their math work without help.
Some students dont like the math class.
In my math class, most students want their math work to be better than their friends
work.
10. Many students in my math class like to fight.
11. Only the smart people can do the work in my math class.
12. In my math class, everyone is my friend.
13. Most of the students in my math class enjoy school.
14. Some students in my math class dont like other students in the class.
15. Some students feel bad when they do not do as well as the others in my math class.
16. Most students say the math class is fun.
17. Some people in my math class are not my friends.
18. In my math class, students often find the math work too hard.
19. Most students dont care who finishes first in my math class.
20. Some students dont like other students in my math class.
21. Some students are not happy in the math class.
22. All of the students in my math class know each other well.
23. In my math class, only the smart students can do the math work.
24. Some students always try to do their math work better than others in my math class.
25. Students seem to like the math class.
26. Some students always want to have their own way in my math class.
27. All students in my math class are close friends.
28. Many students in my math class say that school is easy.
29. In my math class, some students always want to do their best.
30. Some of the students dont like the math class.

110
31. Students in my math class fight a lot.
32. All the students in my math class like one another.
33. The math work is hard to do in my math class.
34. Some students dont like what other students do in math class.
35. A few students in my math class want to be first all of the time.
36. The math class is fun.
37. Most of the students in my math class know how to do their work.
38. Students in my math class like each other as friends.
Permission from Author:

111

APPENDIX B

112
Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey

This is not a test. Please answer all the questions below honestly. You do not need to be
concerned, as NO math teacher will receive feedback on individual answers.
These questions are about yourself as a student in your math class. Please click the number that
best describes what you think. If you change your mind about an answer, you can go back to
change it.
The first question is an example.
I like strawberry ice cream.
1
2
3
4
5
NOT AT ALL TRUE
SOMEWHAT TRUE
VERY TRUE

1. I'm certain I can master the skills taught in math class this year.
2. I would avoid participating in math class if it meant that other students would think I know a
lot.
3. Its important to me that I dont look stupid in math class.
4. Even if I do well in math, it will not help me have the kind of life I want when I grow up.
5. If other students found out I did well on a math test, I would tell them it was just luck even if
that wasnt true.
6. When Ive figured out how to do a math problem, my teacher gives me more challenging
problems to think about.
7. I would prefer to do math work that is familiar to me, rather than math work I would have to
learn how to do.
8. Its important to me that other students in my math class think I am good at my math work.
9. Its important to me that I learn a lot of new math concepts this year.
10. My teacher presses me to do thoughtful math work.
11. I'm certain I can figure out how to do the most difficult math work.
12. Some students play around the night before a math test. Then if they dont do well, they can
say that is the reason. How true is this of you?
13. My chances of succeeding later in life dont depend on doing well in math.
14. I sometimes annoy my teacher during math class.
15. My teacher asks me to explain how I get my answers.
16. Some students purposely get involved in lots of activities. Then if they dont do well on their
math work, they can say it is because they were busy with other things. How true is this of you?
17. When Im working out a math problem, my teacher tells me to keep thinking until I really
understand.
18. Some students look for reasons to keep them from studying (not feeling well, having to help
their parents, taking care of a brother or sister, etc.). Then if they dont do well on their math
work, they can say this is the reason. How true is this of you?
19. My math teacher doesnt let me do just easy work, but makes me think.
20. I dont like to learn a lot of new concepts in math class.
21. I wouldnt volunteer to answer a question in math class if I thought other students would
think I was smart.

113
22. I sometimes copy answers from other students during math tests.
23. I prefer to do math work as I have always done it, rather than trying something new.
24. If I did well on a math assignment, I wouldnt want other students to see my grade.
25. One of my goals in math class is to learn as much as I can.
26. One of my goals is to show others that Im good at my math work.
27. Its very important to me that I dont look smarter than others in math class.
28. Doing well in math doesnt improve my chances of having a good life when I grow up.
29. One of my goals is to master a lot of new math skills this year.
30. I sometimes get into trouble with my math teacher during class.
31. I sometimes cheat on my math work.
32. Getting good grades in math wont guarantee that I will get a good job when I grow
up.
33. One of my goals is to keep others from thinking Im not smart in math class.
34. I sometimes behave in a way during math class that annoys my teacher.
35. I like math concepts that are familiar to me, rather than those I havent thought
about before.
36. Even if I am successful in math, it wont help me fulfill my dreams.
37. If I was good at my math work, I would try to do my work in a way that didnt show it.
38. Its important to me that I thoroughly understand my math work.
39. I sometimes copy answers from other students when I do my math work.
40. I would choose math work I knew I could do, rather than work I havent done before.
41. One of my goals is to show others that math work is easy for me.
42. Some students let their friends keep them from paying attention in math class or from doing
their homework. Then if they dont do well, they can say their friends kept them from working.
How true is this of you?
43. Doing well in math wont help me have a satisfying career when I grow up.
44. Some students purposely dont try hard in math class. Then if they dont do well, they can
say it is because they didnt try. How true is this of you?
45. One of my goals is to look smart in comparison to the other students in my math class.
46. One of my goals in math class is to avoid looking smarter than other kids.
47. Some students put off doing their math work until the last minute. Then if they dont do well
on their work, they can say that is the reason. How true is this of you?
48. Its important to me that I look smart compared to others in my math class.
49. Its important to me that I improve my math skills this year.
50. I sometimes dont follow my teachers directions during math class.
51. Its important to me that my math teacher doesnt think that I know less than others in class.
52. I can do almost all the work in math class if I don't give up.
53. My math teacher makes sure that the work I do really makes me think.
54. I sometimes disturb the lesson that is going on in math class.
55. One of my goals in math class is to avoid looking like I have trouble doing the work.
56. Even if the math is hard, I can learn it.
57. My math teacher accepts nothing less than my full effort.
58. I can do even the hardest math work in this class if I try.

114
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT THIS CLASS AND ABOUT THE
WORK YOU DO IN CLASS. REMEMBER TO SAY HOW YOU REALLY FEEL. NO
ONE AT SCHOOL OR HOME WILL SEE YOUR ANSWERS.
59. In my math class, trying hard is very important.
60. In my math class, showing others that you are not bad at class work is really important.
61. In my math class, how much you improve is really important.
62. In my math class, getting good grades is the main goal.
63. In my math class, really understanding the material is the main goal.
64. In my math class, getting right answers is very important.
65. In my math class, its important that you dont make mistakes in front of everyone.
66. In my math class, its important to understand the work, not just memorize it.
67. In my math class, its important not to do worse than other students.
68. In my math class, learning new ideas and concepts is very important.
69. In my math class, its very important not to look dumb.
70. In my math class, its okay to make mistakes as long as you are learning.
71. In my math class, its important to get high scores on tests.
72. In my math class, one of the main goals is to avoid looking like you cant do the work.
Permission from the Author:

115

APPENDIX C

116
Parent Permission Form
Description of the Research and Your Childs Part in It
Hillary Croissant is inviting your child to take part in a research study. Hillary Croissant is a
doctoral candidate of the Curriculum and Instruction Department at Texas A&M UniversityCommerce. She wants to find out what your child thinks about his/her math class to investigate
childrens thoughts, feelings, and attitudes about mathematics. The researcher is running the
study with the help of the adviser, Dr. Gilbert Naizer, who is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Curriculum and Instruction.
All students currently enrolled in a math class will take two surveys after viewing an instructional
video from the researcher. Students who have parent and child permission will participate in the
study. Participation in the study allows the childs survey answers to be used as data for the
research. The survey will be presented in an electronic format and take approximately 30
minutes each. All data will be collected during the school day.

Risks and Discomforts

There will be minimal risks to participating in this study and no more than risks in daily life.
Students answers to the questions will be kept confidential on a password-protected computer
and your childs name will not appear on any of the data
Possible Benefits
We do not know of any way your child would benefit directly from taking part in this study.
However, this research may help us to understand how student feelings toward math are
impacted by the classroom environment.
Incentives
No financial or other compensation will be offered.
Protection of Privacy and Confidentiality
We will do everything we can to protect your childs privacy and confidentiality. Your childs
name will not appear on any collected data and all information will be reported as a group.
The data will be stored in the computer and will be accessed by the only researcher. The
statistics collected will be accessible to the administration; however, the individual answers will
not be accessible to anyone other than Hillary Croissant.

117
Choosing to Be in the Study
Your child does not have to be in this research study and you may take your child out of the
study at any time. However, that does not exclude your child from the computer lab and the
completion of the surveys. Your child will complete the survey during math class.
Thus, you are determining if your childs answers can be included in the data reported.
Your child will not be punished in any way if you decide not to let your child be in the study or if
you stop your child from continuing in the study. Your childs grades will not be affected by any
decision you make about this study.

We will also ask your child if they want to take part in this study. Your child will be able to
refuse to take part or to quit being in the study at any time.
Contact Information
If you have any questions or concerns about this study or if any problems arise, please contact
the researcher at
Hillary Croissant
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Texas A&M University- Commerce
214-578-1290
hcroissant@leomail.tamuc.edu
or her advisor at
Dr. Gilbert Naizer
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Texas A&M University-Commerce
903-886-5538
gilbert.naizer@tamuc.edu
If you have any questions or concerns about your rights in this research study, please contact the
IRB Chair at
Dr. Carmen Salazar
Chair, Institutional Review Board (IRB) Department of
Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education Texas A&M
University-Commerce
Commerce, TX 75429-3011
(903) 886-5634
Carmen.Salazar@tamuc.edu

118
Consent
Your signature below affirms that you are at least 18 years old, and that you have read this
form, and give permission for your childs data about his/her math class to be used in this
study.

Parents signature:
Childs Name:

A copy of this form will be given to you electronically.

Date:
Student ID #

119

APPENDIX D

120
Child/Minor Agreement to Be in a Research Study

You are being invited to be in a research study. Below you will find answers to some of the
questions that you may have.
Who Are We?
Mrs. Hillary Croissant- I am a doctoral student at Texas A&M Commerce and a 4th
grade teacher for Melissa ISD.
What Is It For?
I am doing research to find out how the classroom environment affects how 4th-12th
grade students think and feel about math.
Why You?
I am collecting information from all students who are in a math class to find out about
your classroom and about how you feel about math.
This research will not have any negative impacts on you.
All students in math classes will watch an instructional video and take two surveys.
What Will You Have to Do?
You will be asked to complete 2 surveys on the computer. They will take about 30
minutes each and will take place during the school day. There will be a few days
between the 2 surveys.
On one survey, you are being asked to answer yes or no to questions, while on the
other survey you will rate your feelings using a 1-4 scale.
You have the choice to allow your survey answers to be used in the research study. If
you participate in the study and sign the form below, this means that the researcher is
allowed to use your answers in the research.
The information you provide will be looked at collectively and not on a studentby-student basis.
What Are the Good Things and Bad Things that May Happen to You If You Are in the
Study?
If you choose to participate, there is minimal risk beyond those in daily life. There
are no direct benefits to you by participating in this study, but by participating, you
will be helping to add to the knowledge base and research in education.
What If You Want to Stop? Will You Get in Trouble?
Participation in the study is completely voluntary and you can stop at any time. Your
grades will not be impacted by participating or not in this study.
Do You Have Any Questions?
You can ask questions at any time. You can ask them now. You can ask later. You can talk to
me or you can talk to someone else at any time during the study. If you have any questions or
concerns about this study or if any problems arise, please contact the researcher at

121

Hillary Croissant
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Texas A&M University- Commerce
214-578-1290
hcroissant@leomail.tamuc.edu
or the advisor at
Dr. Gilbert Naizer
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Texas A&M University-Commerce
903-886-5538
gilbert.naizer@tamuc.edu
If you have any questions or concerns about your rights in this research study, please contact the
IRB Chair at
Dr. Carmen Salazar
Chair, Institutional Review Board (IRB) Department of
Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education Texas A&M
University-Commerce
Commerce, TX 75429-3011
(903) 886-5634
Carmen.Salazar@tamuc.edu

By signing below, it affirms that the undersigned has read this form, has understood the above
information, and agrees that the data on the two completed surveys can be used as part of the
groups data for this research study.

Student ID #

Signature of Child/Minor
A copy of this form will be given to you.

Date

122

APPENDIX E

123
District Agreement

May 6, 2013

Dr. Carmen Salazar

Chair, Institutional Review Board
P.O. Box 3011
Commerce, TX 75429-3011
Carmen.Salazar@tamuc.edu
Dear Dr. Salazar:
The purpose of this letter is to grant Hillary Croissant, a graduate
student at the Texas A&M University-Commerce, permission to conduct
research at A
School District. The project, Classroom
Environment Influence on Student Self-Efficacy in Mathematics entails
collecting data from students grades fourth through twelfth who are enrolled
in a math course in the Fall of 2013. Approximately 1000 Students will
complete two surveys within a 10 day period in an electronic format during
the regular school day in the computer lab of their school. Surveys will collect
information on perceived classroom environment and personal self-efficacy in
mathematics. Data from students who have received parental consent and
student assent will be used in the current study by converting data into SPSS
and data will be analyzed. The purpose of this research is to determine what
characteristics in a classroom can impact negative or positive self-efficacy in
mathematics. A
School District was selected because of the
affiliation the researcher has in the district. The researcher is a current
teacher for the school district. A
School district will have

124

access to the statistics collected from the data after it has been completely
collected. ABCDEFISD will be provided with the final dissertation paper after
approval from the dissertation committee. I, Joe BobFrank, do hereby grant
permission for Hillary Croissant to conduct Classroom Environment
Influence on Student Self-Efficacy in Mathematics at A
School District.

Sincerely,

125

APPENDIX F

126
Parent and Student Recruitment Letter
Dear Melissa Parents,
I am in the process of completing a research study in order to grow as a researcher and add
information to the current knowledge base in the area of education.
Students currently enrolled in all math courses will be asked to complete two surveys during
math class. However, to use this data for published research, we need your permission to use
your childs data. Further details of this study are in the attached permission form. If you have
any questions regarding the use of your childs data in this study please email
(hcroissant@leomail.tamuc.edu) or call (214-578-1290).
I am asking for permission to use your childs anonymous data information about their math
class in this research. If it is okay for me to use your childs answers in my study, please sign the
permission form and return to your childs math teacher by (October 31).
Sincerely,
Hillary Croissant

Dear Melissa Students,

I am in the process of completing a research project in order to grow as a researcher and add
information to the current knowledge in the area of education.
In November, I am going to be asking kids from 4th to 12th grade to take two surveys about math.
There are no math problems, just questions about your personal feelings about math and your
current math class.
The information collected will not have your name on it and your teacher will not see the
answers that you give. This is also not for a grade in any way. Talk to your parents about
participating in this project, because they have to give permission for you to be a part. Every kid
will take the surveys but giving permissions allows me to use the information you provide in my
project. Your help can add a wealth of knowledge and information to the field of education.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Hillary Croissant

127

APPENDIX G

128
Demographic Survey
1. ID #:
2. Math class currently taking (example: 4th grade math, Algebra 1, 7th grade math, Dual
Credit Calculus):
3. Grade:
4. Gender: Male or Female
5. Ethnicity/Race: White, Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Other, Not sure
6. Age:

129

APPENDIX H

130
Video Script
Parent video- I will read the parent recruitment letter word for word.
Student video 1, I will say:
Hello, there is a piece of paper at your table. I will be reading it while adding additional
information.
*Read you are being invited and who are we? And what is it for* Today you will be taking a
survey on the computer to tell me about how your math class runs and works. It is important that
you are honest and answer each question to the best of your ability.
*Read why you* Today, you will be taking the first survey of the two and you will take the other
survey in a few days. You are currently watching the instructional video. Nothing will happen to
you because you took the surveys.
*Read what you will have to do?* the survey you are taking today is going to ask you Yes or No
questions. Please click the answer that you think explains your math classroom. Although every
student is taking the surveys, you have the choice for your information to be used for my study.
No one will know how you personally answered the questions. The information that is collected
will be looked at as a whole.
*Read what are the good* By honestly completing this survey, turning in your parent
permission slip, and signing the permission form, you will help by adding your thoughts and
feelings to be part of information that will benefit other teachers.
*Read what if you want to stop?* No teachers, parents, or researchers will be looking at your
answers to the questions. This is not for a grade and you do not have to sign the permission slip.
*read do you have any questions?*
My phone number and email address are on the back of the page if you or your parents have any
questions about this study. Please feel free to contact me at any time. If you are allowing me to
use your information in my study, please put your ID number and sign your name. You will turn
this form in to the teacher when you have completed the survey.
If you need help understanding the directions or need help understanding what a word means,
please raise your hand and a teacher will help you. When you are ready, you may begin taking
the survey on what you observe and see in your math class.

Student video 2, I will say:

Hello again. Im Mrs. Croissant and today you are going to be completing the second survey
for the research study. The survey today is about your feelings towards math. Please remember
the following things:
- Be honest.
- Answer the survey the best that you can.

131
-

The items are going to be on a scale from 1 to 5. 1 is not at all, 3 are somewhat true and
5 is very true. For example, if the statement said, I like strawberry ice cream I would
rate that a 2 because I dont really like it but I dont absolutely hate it either.
You will click on the number that best matches your feelings towards the statement
There is no risk to taking the survey, nothing bad will happen to you.
Everyone will take the survey, but only students who have turned in their parent
permission slip and signed the student permission slip will have their information
included in the study. By doing these things, you will help by adding your thoughts and
feelings to be part of information that will benefit other teachers.
If you would like to participate in the study and you have not already signed a form,
please pause the video and ask your teacher for one now or sign it after you have
completed the survey.
No one will know how you personally answered the questions. The information that is
collected will be looked at as a whole.
No teachers, parents, or researchers will be looking at your answers to the questions.
This is not for a grade and you do not have to sign the permission slip.
Please raise your hand if you have any questions at all throughout the survey.
You may take a copy of the student permission slip with you if you would like to take it
home.
When you are ready, you may begin the survey on your feelings towards math.

132

APPENDIX I

133
Spanish Translation of Parent Letter
Estimados padres de Melissa,

Estoy en el proceso de completar un estudio de investigacin para poder crecer

profesionalmente como investigador y para contribuir informacin a la base actual de
conocimiento en el rea de la educacin.
Se les solicitar a todos los estudiantes que actualmente se encuentren inscritos en
cualquier curso de matemticas, que respondan a dos encuestas durante la clase de
matemticas. Sin embargo, para poder utilizar estos datos para publicar un estudio de
investigacin, necesitamos su autorizacin para utilizar los datos de su hijo/a. Ms
informacin acerca de este estudio se encuentra en el formulario de autorizacin adjunto.
En caso de que usted tuviese cualquier duda con respecto al uso de los datos de su hijo/a
en este estudio, favor de enviar un correo electrnico a la siguiente direccin
(hcroissant@leomail.tamuc.edu) o llame al telfono (214-578-1290).
Estoy solicitando su permiso para utilizar los datos annimos de su hijo/a acerca de
su clase de matemticas en esta investigacin. Si usted est de acuerdo con que yo utilice
las respuestas de su hijo/a en mi estudio, favor de firmar el formulario de autorizacin y
devulvalo al profesor de matemticas de su hijo/a antes del da (31 de Octubre).
Sinceramente,
Hillary Croissant

134

APPENDIX J

135
Spanish Translation of Parent Permission Form

Formulario de Autorizacin para los Padres

Universidad de Texas A&M - Commerce

Influencia del ambiente del saln de clase sobre la auto eficacia de los
estudiantes en matemticas
Descripcin de la investigacin y la parte que su hijo/a tendr en ella
Hillary Croissant est invitando a su hijo/a a participar en un estudio de investigacin.
Hillary Croissant es un estudiante de doctorado del Departamento de Currculo y
Enseanza en la Universidad Texas A&M - Commerce. Ella quiere averiguar lo que su hijo/a
piensa acerca de su clase de matemticas para investigar los pensamientos, sentimientos y
actitudes de los nios con respecto a las matemticas. La investigadora est llevando a cabo
el estudio con la ayuda de su asesor, el Dr. Gilbert Naizer, quien es Profesor Adjunto en el
Departamento de Currculo y Enseanza.
Todos los estudiantes que se encuentren actualmente inscritos en una clase de
matemticas completarn dos encuestas despus de haber visto un video educativo de la
investigadora. Aquellos estudiantes que cuentan con la autorizacin de padres y de
estudiante participarn en el estudio. La participacin en el estudio permite que las
respuestas del estudiante en las encuestas puedan ser utilizadas como datos. La encuesta
se presentar en formato electrnico y cada una tomar aproximadamente 30 minutos en
completarse. Los datos sern recolectados en el transcurso del da escolar.
Riesgos e incomodidades
La participacin en este estudio conllevar un riesgo mnimo y no mayor que los riesgos
presentes en la vida cotidiana. Las respuestas de los estudiantes a las preguntas de la
encuesta permanecern confidenciales y se guardarn en una computadora protegida con
contrasea. Adems, el nombre de su hijo/a no aparecer en ninguno de los datos.
Posibles beneficios
Nosotros no sabemos de ninguna forma en la que su hijo/a pueda obtener un beneficio
directo por su participacin en este estudio. Sin embargo, este estudio podra ayudarnos a
entender la manera en la que los sentimientos de los estudiantes con respecto a las
matemticas se ven afectados por el ambiente del saln de clase.
Incentivos
No se ofrecer ningn incentivo econmico u otro tipo de compensacin.

136
Proteccin de privacidad y confidencialidad
Nosotros haremos todo lo posible para proteger la privacidad y confidencialidad de su
hijo/a. El nombre de su hijo/a no aparecer en ninguno de los datos recolectados y toda la
informacin se reportar en conjunto y no de manera individual.
Los datos sern almacenados en la computadora y nicamente la investigadora tendr
acceso a ellos. Las estadsticas recolectadas estarn disponibles para la direccin, pero las
respuestas individuales no estarn disponibles para nadie ms que Hillary Croissant.
Elegir participar en el estudio
Su hijo/a no est obligado a participar en este estudio de investigacin, y usted puede
retirar a su hijo/a del estudio en cualquier momento. Sin embargo, eso no excluye a su hijo
de tomar parte en el laboratorio de computacin y de completar las encuestas. Su hijo/a
completar las encuestas durante su clase de matemticas.
Por lo tanto, lo que usted determinar es si las respuestas de su hijo/a podrn ser
incluidas entre los datos reportados. Su hijo/a no ser castigado de ninguna manera en
caso de que usted decida no permitir que participe en el estudio o si usted retira a su hijo
del estudio y no le permite continuar. Las calificaciones de su hijo/a no se vern afectadas
por ninguna decisin que usted tome en relacin con este estudio.

Nosotros tambin le preguntaremos a su hijo/a si desea participar en este estudio. Su

hijo/a podr decidir no participar en este estudio o retirarse del mismo en cualquier
momento.
Informacin de contacto
En caso de que usted tenga cualquier duda o inquietud acerca de este estudio, o en caso de
que surgiera cualquier problema, favor de ponerse en contacto con la investigadora en:
Hillary Croissant
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Texas A&M University- Commerce
214-578-1290
hcroissant@leomail.tamuc.edu
o con su asesor
Dr. Gilbert Naizer
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Texas A&M University-Commerce
903-886-5538
gilbert.naizer@tamuc.edu

137
Si usted tiene cualquier duda o inquietud con respecto a sus derechos como participante en
este estudio de investigacin, favor de ponerse en contacto con el Director del Comit de
Revisin Interna:
Dr. Carmen Salazar
Director, Comit de Revisin Institucional (IRB) Department
of Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education
Texas A&M University-Commerce
Commerce, TX 75429-3011 (903)
886-5634
Carmen.Salazar@tamuc.edu
Consentimiento
Su firma a continuacin afirma que usted tiene al menos 18 aos de edad, y que usted ha
ledo este formulario, y que autoriza que los datos de su hijo/a acerca de su clase de
matemticas pueden ser utilizados en este estudio.
Firma del Padre o la Madre:
Nombre del nio/a:

Fecha:
Nmero de identificacin del estudiante:

Una copia de este formulario le ser enviada electrnicamente.

138

APPENDIX K

139

Signed Site Letter

140

141

APPENDIX L

142
Tables 1-4
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations for High Self-Efficacy, Cohesiveness,
Friction, Satisfaction, Difficulty, and Competitiveness (N = 409)

Variable
Mean
SD
High Self-Efficacy
3.91
0.85
Predictor variables
1. Cohesiveness
0.49
0.24
2. Friction
0.39
0.27
3. Satisfaction
0.67
0.20
4. Difficulty
0.42
0.17
5. Competitiveness
0.60
0.22
*p < .05; **p < .01, ***p < .001.

1
.231***

Predictor Variables
2
3
4
-.318*** .407*** -.193***
-.472*** .238***
-.096*

5
.068

.036
-.043
.128** .320***
-.119** .173***
.179***

Table 2
Multiple Regression Analysis Summary for Variables Predicting High Math SelfEfficacy (N = 409)
Standard Error
Variable
B
of B

Cohesiveness
.074
0.181
.021
Friction
.958
0.164
.301***
Satisfaction
1.397
0.189
.334***
Difficulty
.684
0.216
.139**
Competitiveness
.510
0.180
.132**
Constant
3.294
0.190
Note. R2 = .263; F (5, 403) = 30.141, p< .001. *p < .05; **p < .01,***p < .001.

143
Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations for Low Self-Efficacy, Cohesiveness,
Friction, Satisfaction, Difficulty, and Competitiveness (N = 409)

Variable
Mean
SD
Low Self-Efficacy
2.11
0.97
Predictor variables
1. Cohesiveness
0.49
0.24
2. Friction
0.39
0.27
3. Satisfaction
0.67
0.20
4. Difficulty
0.42
0.17
5. Competitiveness 0.60
0.22
*p < .05; **p < .01, ***p < .001.

1
-.088*

Predictor Variables
2
3
4
.193*** -.137**
.190***
-.470***

.238***
-.096*

Table 4
Multiple Regression Analysis Summary for Variables Predicting
Low Self-Efficacy (N = 407)
Standard
Variable
B
Error of B

Cohesiveness
.020
0.231
.005
Friction
.507
0.210
.140*
Satisfaction
.578
0.242
.122*
Difficulty
.802
0.276
.144**
Competitiveness
.344
0.230
.079
Constant
1.751
0.243
2
Note. R = .081; F (5, 402) = 7.063, p< .001. *p < .05; **p < .01,
***p < .001.

.037
.127**
-.119**

5
.127**
-.039
.317***
.173***
.178***

144
VITA
Hillary Croissant is an elementary teacher in North Texas. She has been teaching fourth
grade students for her career of six years. She has had the pleasure of teaching all the subjects
for one year and then was able to departmentalize and focus on math and science with her
students.
She received her doctorate in education in May of 2014 from Texas A&M Commerce
with a major in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis in Mathematics Education.
Her masters and undergrad degrees were both earned from Austin College in Sherman,
Texas. She graduated with her Master of Arts in Teaching in 2009, and her undergraduate
degree, with an emphasis on Psychology and Education was earned in 2008. She is a certified
Texas Teacher of Early Childhood through fourth grade.
Her personal research interests include elementary mathematics education, constructivist
learning and approaches to learning, mathematics curriculum, self-efficacy in mathematics,
building foundation in mathematics with elementary students, algorithms versus learning
mathematics conceptually, math anxiety, and classroom environment.
She hopes to become a professor of teachers and positively impact future teachers as she
was in her career.

Croissant.Hillary@gmail.com