Motivational and Emotional Orientation, Engagement, and Achievement in Mathematics. A Case Study With One Sixth-Grade Classroom Working With an Electronic Textbook on Fractions

Abstract

Interactive and adaptive scaffolds implemented in electronic mathematics textbooks bear high potential for supporting students individually in learning mathematics. In this paper, we argue that emotional and behavioral engagement may account for the effectiveness of such digital curriculum resources. Following the general model for determinants and course of motivated action, we investigated the relationship between students’ domain-specific motivational and emotional orientations (person)—while working with an electronic textbook on fractions (situation), their emotional and behavioral engagement while learning (action), and their achievement after tuition (outcome). We conducted a case-study with N = 27 students from one sixth-grade classroom, asking about the relationship between students’ motivational and emotional orientations and their emotional and behavioral engagement, and whether emotional and behavioral engagement are unique predictors of students’ cognitive learning outcomes while working with an e-textbook. For that, we designed a four-week-intervention on fractions using an e-textbook on iPads. Utilizing self-reports and process data referring to students’ interactions with the e-textbook we aimed to describe if and how students make use of the offered learning opportunities. Despite being taught in the same classroom, results indicated large variance in students’ motivational and emotional orientations before the intervention, as well as in their emotional and behavioral engagement during the intervention. We found substantial correlations between motivational and emotional orientations (i.e., anxiety, self-concept, and enjoyment) and emotional engagement (i.e., intrinsic motivation, competence and autonomy support, situational interest, and perceived demand)—with positive orientations being associated with positive emotional engagement, as expected. Although the correlations between orientations and behavioral engagement (i.e., task, exercise, and hint count, problem solving time, and feedback time) also showed the expected directions, effect sizes were smaller than for emotional engagement. Generalized linear mixed models revealed that emotional engagement predicted cognitive learning outcomes uniquely, while for behavioral engagement the interaction with prior knowledge was a significant predictor. Taken together, they accounted for a variance change of 44% in addition to prior knowledge. We conclude that when designing digital learning environments, promoting engagement—in particular in students who share less-promizing prerequisites—should be considered a key feature.

An Analysis of Personal Factors Affecting Learning Motivation: A Research on the Online Education Process During Covid-19 Period in Turkiye

“…In this case, it can be said that students have positive experiences in courses and gain learning motivation; the teachers can increase the sense of autonomy and satisfy the need for autonomy by shifting the responsibility to students and enabling them to make decisions themselves. Also, Reinhold et al's (2021) data showed that students with higher anxiety were less motivated. Additionally, Kuhfeld et.…”

The current state of using learning analytics to measure and support K-12 student engagement: A scoping review

“…The studies in this review conceptualized engagement in many different ways (see Appendix C 4 and D 6 ), with most (n = 6) approaching engagement through two dimensions (e.g., cognitive and emotional [69]) or by only one dimension (n = 4, e.g., cognitive [70]). One study [71] referred to all four dimensions, three studies conceptualized engagement through the three dimensions of behavioral, affective/emotional and cognitive [77,81,90], and one study [87] included the three dimensions as well as SRL. Whilst such conceptualizations were detailed and well-referenced, there were some studies that only referred to engagement after the introduction and background (e.g., [72,73]), leaving it up to the reader to infer how engagement was understood, or that cited a few articles that had explored engagement within their introduction but did not then provide any insight into the conceptualization that was used in in their studies (e.g., [74]).…”

“…In four studies, researchers employed modelling techniques to understand and predict student behaviors, including a prediction model for college attendance [80], an early warning model, based on deep learning and machine learning mechanisms [15], a model that distinguishes a learner's guessing behavior from solution behavior [83], and an unsupervised deep learning model to model students' SRL patterns [68]. Finally, prediction methods were used in two studies [15,90].…”

Key Factors Affecting Mathematics Teachers’ Well-Being and Stress Levels: An Extended Engagement Theory

“…Behavioral engagement is the individual's willingness, intensity, and concentration to achieve a target and stay focused on the final goal [59,60]. This attitude also signifies perseverance and determination when facing difficulties.…”

“…Affective engagement is about individuals' emotions concerning what they are doing [63]. Another source explained this phenomenon as the quality of emotional reactions while performing an activity, as indicated by an individual's enthusiasm, enjoyment, pleasure, and satisfaction [60,64]. In this context, this engagement refers to the feelings related to the teaching process.…”