Cited by 260Education, Achievement, and GiftednessMathematics Education and PedagogyCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills

Enjoying mathematics or feeling competent in mathematics? Reciprocal effects on mathematics achievement and perceived math effort expenditure

Open access
Pinxten, Maarten, Marsh, Herbert W., De Fraine, Bieke, Van Den Noortgate, Wim, Van Damme, Jan·2014·British Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

Background: The multidimensionality of the academic self‐concept in terms of domain specificity has been well established in previous studies, whereas its multidimensionality in terms of motivational functions (the so‐called affect‐competence separation) needs further examination. Aim: This study aims at exploring differential effects of enjoyment and competence beliefs on two external validity criteria in the field of mathematics. Sample: Data analysed in this study were part of a large‐scale longitudinal research project. Following a five‐wave design, math enjoyment, math competence beliefs, math achievement, and perceived math effort expenditure measures were repeatedly collected from a cohort of 4,724 pupils in Grades 3–7. Method: Confirmatory factor analysis ( CFA ) was used to test the internal factor structure of the math self‐concept. Additionally, a series of nested models was tested using structural equation modelling to examine longitudinal reciprocal interrelations between math competence beliefs and math enjoyment on the one hand and math achievement and perceived math effort expenditure on the other. Results: Our results showed that CFA models with separate factors for math enjoyment and math competence beliefs fit the data substantially better than models without it. Furthermore, differential relationships between both constructs and the two educational outcomes were observed. Math competence beliefs had positive effects on math achievement and negative effects on perceived math effort expenditure. Math enjoyment had (mild) positive effects on subsequent perceived effort expenditure and math competence beliefs. Conclusion: This study provides further support for the affect‐competence separation. Theoretical issues regarding adequate conceptualization and practical consequences for practitioners are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjep.12028

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Initial attempts to study mediating processes in longitudinal designs yielded mixed findings with regards to the role of effort in the relationship between academic self-concept and academic achievement.

    “To our knowledge, initial attempts to study mediating processes in longitudinal designs (Marsh et al., 2016;Pinxten et al., 2014;Trautwein et al., 2009) yielded mixed findings with regards to the role of effort in the relationship between ASC and academic achievement.”

    From Motivation-Achievement Cycles in Learning: a Literature Review and Research Agenda (2022) · cites this paper as Pinxten et al., 2014

  • Marsh et al. (2016) and Pinxten et al. (2014) measured subjective effort, in which students were asked to rate their own effort expenditure.

    “Specifically, Marsh et al. (2016) and Pinxten et al. (2014) measured subjective effort-i.e., students were asked to rate their own effort expenditure.”

    From Motivation-Achievement Cycles in Learning: a Literature Review and Research Agenda (2022) · cites this paper as Pinxten et al., 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pinxten, M., Marsh, H. W., De Fraine, B., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Van Damme, J.
Affiliations
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
  • Centre for Educational Effectiveness and Evaluation KU Leuven Belgium
  • Centre for Methodology of Educational Sciences KU Leuven Belgium
Corresponding author
Pinxten, Maarten
Venue
British Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-08-12
Volume
84
Issue
1
Pages
152-174
ISSN
  • 0007-0998 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8279
OpenAlex
W2024510656
Cited by
260
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5
FWCI
14.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Mathematics Education and Pedagogy
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Keywords
mathematics achievement, mathematics self-concept, reciprocal effects, elementary school students, mathematics learning motivation
MeSH terms
Achievement, Adolescent, Affect, Belgium, Child, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Mathematics, Motivation, Personal Satisfaction, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review