Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Affective Mathematics Engagement: a Comparison of STEM PBL Versus Non-STEM PBL Instruction

  • Commentary/Commentaire
  • Published:
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The integration of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Project-Based Learning (STEM PBL) into educational curriculum has received much attention because of its strength in improving students’ affective engagement. We designed the present study to investigate the effectiveness of STEM PBL lessons on 9th grade students’ development of affective mathematics engagement. The affective mathematics engagement of two groups of participants (STEM PBL and non-STEM PBL) were compared (N = 147). The results showed group differences in STEM PBL versus non-STEM PBL lessons were statistically significant (t = 5.587, p < .001, d = .960). In particular, STEM PBL students had greater positive affective mathematics engagement in terms of mathematical self-acknowledgement and value as compared to the non-STEM PBL students. The results of the study indicate that highly situated and integrated instruction has a positive impact on students’ perceptions of their affective mathematics engagement.

Résumé

L’intégration de l’apprentissage par projets en sciences, technologies, ingénierie et mathématiques (ou STEM PBL) dans les curriculums d’éducation a fait l’objet de nombreuses recherches, car cet apprentissage favorise l’engagement affectif des étudiants. Cette étude a été conçue pour analyser l’efficacité des leçons de type STEM PBL pour développer l’engagement affectif des étudiants à l’égard des mathématiques. Nous avons comparé le niveau d’engagement affectif envers les mathématiques de deux groupes d’étudiants ayant participé à l’étude (un groupe avec STEM PBL et un groupe sans STEM PBL). Les résultats montrent que les différences entre les deux groupes sont statistiquement significatives (t = 5.587, p < .001, d= .960). En particulier, les étudiants qui ont eu des leçons avec STEM PBL font preuve d’un niveau accru d’engagement affectif envers les mathématiques, en termes d’autoreconnaissance et d’autovalorisation, comparativement aux étudiants qui n’ont pas eu de ces leçons. Les résultats de l’étude indiquent qu’un enseignement à la fois très situé et très intégré, conçu pour améliorer la performance en mathématiques, a un impact positif sur la perception, de la part des étudiants, de leur engagement affectif envers les mathématiques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the present study, we considered traditional instruction to be instruction that consists of a typical lesson progression of “explanation plus output practices that move learners from mechanical to communicative drills” (VanPatten, 1993, p. 54). We provide additional details about traditional instruction under the subheading titled “STEM PBL vs. non-STEM PBL”.

References

  • Akinsola, M. K., & Olowojaiye, F. B. (2008). Teacher instructional methods and student attitudes towards mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(1), 60-73.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artigue, M., & Blomhøj, M. (2013). Conceptualizing inquiry-based education in mathematics. ZDM, 45(6), 797-810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asghar, A., Ellington, R., Rice, E., Johnson, F., & Prime, G. M. (2012). Supporting STEM education in secondary science contexts. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 6(2), 85-125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banning, J., & Folkestad, J. E. (2012). STEM education related dissertation abstracts: A bounded qualitative meta-study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 730–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 271-311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, M. R., Chalmers, C., & Chandra, V. (2012). STEM futures and practice, can we teach STEM in a more meaningful and integrated way? S. Yu (Ed.), 2nd International STEM in Education Conference, 24-27, Beijing, China.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bicer, A., & Capraro, R. M. (2017). Longitudinal effects of technology integration and teacher professional development on students’ mathematics achievement. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 13(3), 815-833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bicer, A., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2013). Integrating writing into mathematics classroom to increase students’ problem solving skills. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(2), 361-369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bicer, A., Navruz, B., Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., Oner, T. A., & Boedeker, P. (2015). STEM schools vs. non-STEM schools: Comparing students’ mathematics growth rate on high-stakes test performance. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 6(1), 138-150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing school mathematics: Traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J., & Greeno, J. G. (2000). Identity, agency, and knowing in mathematics worlds. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning, (pp. 171-200). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology review, 15(1), 1-40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, C. D., & Flynn, T. (2013). Assessing the effects of collaborative professional learning: Efficacy shifts in a three-year mathematics study. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58(4), 691-709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, R. M., & Slough, S. W. (2013). Why PBL? Why STEM? Why now? An introduction to project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach. In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro, & J. Morgan (Eds.), STEM Project-based learning: An integrated science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 1-5). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B., & Scheier, I. H. (1961). The meaning and measurement of neuroticism and anxiety. Oxford, England: Ronald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Gunstone, R. F. (1982). Cognitive research and the design of science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 17(1), 31-53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Q., & Leung, F. K. S. (2015). Analyzing data and drawing conclusion on teachers’ beliefs. In B. Pepin, & B. Roesken-Winter (Eds.), From beliefs to dynamic affect systems in mathematics education: Exploring a mosaic of relationships and interactions (pp. 281-294). Zürich, Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. A., & Usher, E. L. (2013). Profiles of the sources of self-efficacy among middle and high school science students. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 11–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chun-Ming, H., Hwang, G. J., & Huang, I. (2012). A project-based digital storytelling approach for improving students’ learning motivation, problem-solving competence and learning achievement. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 15(4), 368-379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawis, R. V. (2002). Person-environment-correspondence theory. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (pp. 427-464). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (1997). The affective domain in mathematical problem solving. In Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of PME, 1997 (Vol. 2, pp. 209-216). University of Helsinki Dept. of Teacher Education.

  • DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (2006). Affect and meta-affect in mathematical problem solving: A representational perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 131-147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., & Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications - American Educational Research Association. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33-40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, L. D. (2015). STEM: Challenges and opportunities for mathematics education. In K. Beswick, T. Muir & J. Wells (Eds.), Proceedings of 39th Psychology of Mathematics Education conference, Vol. 1(pp. 3-18). Hobart, Australia: PME.

  • Ewing, B. F. (2011). Direct instruction in mathematics: Issues for schools with high indigenous enrolments: A literature review. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(5), 63-91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrant, J. S. (1994). Principle and practice of education. Singapore: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuendeling, J. M. (1998). Affect regulation as a stylistic process within adult attachment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 291-322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furinghetti, F., & Morselli, F. (2007). For whom the frog jumps: the case of a good problem solver. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(2), 22-27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., Sher, B. T., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95(3), 136-146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gellert, U. (2004). Didactic material confronted with the concept of mathematical literacy. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55(1), 163-179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin, G. A. (2002). Affect, meta-affect, and mathematical belief structures. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 59-72). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldin, G. A., Epstein, Y. M., Schorr, R. Y., & Warner, L. B. (2011). Beliefs and engagement structures: Behind the affective dimension of mathematical learning. ZDM, 43(4), 547-560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4-27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guglielmi, R. S., & Brekke, N. (2017). A framework for understanding cross-national and cross-ethnic gaps in math and science achievement: The case of the United States. Comparative Education Review, 61(1), 176-213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331-341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1999). Cognition, affect, and the prediction of social attitudes. European Review of Social Psychology, 10(1), 75-99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 1089-1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, S., Rosli, R., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2016). The effect of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) project based learning (PBL) on students’ achievement in four mathematics topics. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11, 3-29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannula, M. S. (2012). Exploring new dimensions of mathematics-related affect: Embodied and social theories. Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 137-161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, L. E. (1989). Classroom processes, sex of student, and confidence in learning mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 242-260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, L. E., & Allexsaht-Snider, M. (1996). Sociocultural and motivational contexts of mathematics learning for diverse students. In M. Carr (Ed.), Motivation in mathematics (pp.1-24). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 203-253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. (2008). Building and sustaining inquiry communities in mathematics teaching development: teachers and didacticians in collaboration. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education volume 3: Participants in mathematics teacher education: individuals, teams, communities and networks (pp. 309-330). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist, 8(1), 7-27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, H. D., & Dasgupta, N. (2005). Traditional versus non-traditional teaching: Perspectives of students in introductory statistics classes. Journal of Statistics Education, 13(2), 1-12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., & Lamb, A. (2007). Project, problem, and inquiry-based Learning. Retrieved from http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic43.htm. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.

  • Jones, E. D., & Southern, W. T. (2003). Balancing perspectives on mathematics instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(9), 1-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D. (2009). Promoting student-centred forms of learning across an entire university. Higher Education, 58(1), 1-13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B. C., Clarke, J. E., & Dede, C. (2010). A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 56–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollöffel, B., & de Jong, T. (2013). Conceptual understanding of electrical circuits in secondary vocational engineering education: Combining traditional instruction with inquiry learning in a virtual lab. Journal of engineering Education, 102(3), 375-393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.317–334). New York, NY: Cambridge.

  • Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American Psychologist, 37(9), 1019-1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Sheu, H-B., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B. R., Gloster, C., & Treistman, D. (2005). Social cognitive predictors of academic interest and goals in engineering: Utility for women and students at historically black universities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 84–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lent, R. W., Paixão, M. P., Da Silva, J. T., & Leitão, L. M. (2010). Predicting occupational interests and choice aspirations in Portuguese high school students: A test of social cognitive career theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 244–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerman, S. (2001). Cultural, discursive psychology: A sociocultural approach to studying the teaching and learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46(1-3), 87-113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linnenbrink, E. A. (2007). The role of affect in student learning: A multi-dimensional approach to considering the interaction of affect, motivation, and engagement. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp.107-124). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  • Liu, M., Hsieh, P., Cho, Y., & Schallert, D. L. (2006). Middle school students’ self-efficacy, attitudes, and achievement in a computer-enhanced problem-based learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17, 225–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lou, S. J., Liu, Y. H., Shih, R. C., & Tseng, K. H. (2011). The senior high school students’ learning behavioral model of STEM in PBL. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 161-183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandler, G. (1989). Affect and learning: Causes and consequences of emotional interactions. In D. B. McLeod, & V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem solving (pp. 3-19). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Tal, R. T. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063-1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeachie, W. J. (1999). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, D. B. (1988). Affective issues in mathematical problem solving: Some theoretical considerations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 134-141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, D. B. (1991). Research on learning and instruction in mathematics: The role of affect. In E. Fennema, T. P. Carpenter, & S. J. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 55-82). Albany, NY: State University Press of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nastu, J. (2009). Project-based learning engages students, garners results. eSchool News, 21-27.

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navruz, B., Erdogan, N., Bicer, A., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Would a STEM school ‘by any other name smell as sweet’? International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 1(2), 67-75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozel, S. (2013). Who, when, and where. In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro, & J. Morgan (Eds.), STEM Project-based learning: An integrated science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 41-46). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Self and self-belief in psychology and education: A historical perspective. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving Academic Achievement (pp. 3-21). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R.S., & Alibali, M.W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for help? An examination of the interplay among students' academic efficacy, teachers' social–emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 528-539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahin, A. (2013). STEM clubs and science fair competitions: Effects on post-secondary matriculation. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(1), 5-11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 410-422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, N., & Bohner, G. (1996). Feelings and their motivational implications: Moods and the action sequence. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.) The psychology of action: Linking cognitions and motivation to behavior (pp.119-145). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shallcross, T., Spink, E., Stephenson, P., & Warwick, P. (2002). How primary trainee teachers perceive the development of their own scientific knowledge: links between confidence, content and competence? International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1293-1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46(3), 407-441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sireci, S. G., Zenisky, A. L., Marland, J., Diao, H., Curry, D., Goodridge, B., ... & McSweeney, H. 2016 Test Specifications for the Massachusetts Adult Proficiency Test for Mathematics-College and Career Readiness. Center for Educational Assessment Research Report No. 913, Amherst, MA: School of Education, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • Skogen, R. (2012). The boy who learned to read through sustained video game play: Considering systemic resistance to the use of-new texts-in the classroom. Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 6(12), 1-30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slough, S., & Milam, J. (2013). Theoretical framework for the design of STEM project-based learning. In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro, & J. Morgan (Eds.), STEM Project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 15-28). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J. E. (2002). Teacher training and pedagogy methods. In W. Evers, & L. Izumi, (Eds.), Teacher quality. Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Streveler, R. A., Litzinger, T. A., Miller, R. L., & Steif, P. S. (2008). Learning conceptual knowledge in the engineering sciences: Overview and future research directions. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 279-294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1985). Cognitive structure and conceptual change. In K. A. Strike (Ed.), A Conceptual change view of learning and understanding (pp. 211-231). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate, W. F. (1997). Race-ethnicity, SES, gender, and language proficiency trends in mathematics achievement: An update. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 652-679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (2019). Chapter 111. Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Mathematics. Subchapter B. Middle School. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter111/ch111b.html. Accessed 25 Mar 2019.

  • Tretten, R., & Zachariou, P. (1995). Learning about project-based learning: Self-assessment preliminary report of results. San Rafael, CA: The Autodesk Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Uum, M. S., Verhoeff, R. P., & Peeters, M. (2016). Inquiry-based science education: Towards a pedagogical framework for primary school teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 450-469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26(4), 435-450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, D., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2009). Re-mythologizing mathematics through attention to classroom positioning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(1), 1-15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2014). Staying engaged: Knowledge and research needs in student engagement. Child Development Perspectives, 8(3), 137-143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watt, H. M. G., Eccles, J. S., & Durik, A. M. (2006). The leaky mathematics pipeline for girls: A motivational analysis of high school enrolments in Australia and the USA. Equal Opportunities International, 25, 642–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39, 117-124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zan, R., Brown, L., Evans, J., & Hannula, M. S. (2006). Affect in mathematics education: An introduction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 113-121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teaching, Learning and Culture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Yujin Lee & Robert M. Capraro

  2. College of Education, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA

    Ali Bicer

Authors
  1. Yujin Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert M. Capraro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Bicer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yujin Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Measurement of Affective Mathematics Engagement

Appendix: Measurement of Affective Mathematics Engagement

[Mathematical Attitude]

Get the Job Done (GTJD)

  1. 1.

    I wanted to make sure that all the required work was completed.

  2. 2.

    The most important thing for me was getting the answer to the problem.

  3. 3.

    I worked on getting the answer to the problem.

  4. 4.

    I tried to get members of my group to work to get the answer to the problem.

  5. 5.

    I wanted the teacher to think I am a good student.

Pseudo Engagement (PE)

  1. 6.

    I wanted to look like I was doing work even when I wasn’t.

  2. 7.

    I worried that I might get in trouble with the teacher.

[Mathematical Emotion]

Stay Out of Trouble (SOOT)

  1. 8.

    I was worried I might do something that would get me into trouble with one or more students.

  2. 9.

    I paid attention to the way others were reacting to me.

  3. 10.

    I hoped people would not pay attention to me.

  4. 11.

    I cared more about feeling OK than about solving the math problem.

  5. 12.

    I felt relieved when all the work was done.

Don’t Disrespect Me (DDM)

  1. 13.

    I was not going to let someone disrespect me and get away with it.

  2. 14.

    I argued strongly in support of my ideas.

  3. 15.

    I had an unpleasant disagreement.

  4. 16.

    I archived a good understanding of the math we worked on today.

  5. 17.

    My ideas were challenged by others.

  6. 18.

    Some person or some group of people tried to disrespect me.

[Mathematical Self-acknowledgement]

Check This Out (CTO)

  1. 19.

    I realized that if I worked hard at the problem I could figure it out.

  2. 20.

    As I made progress, I became more interested in understanding the math.

  3. 21.

    I felt proud about what I accomplished.

  4. 22.

    I felt that learning the math today would benefit me or pay off for me.

I’m Really into This (IRIT)

  1. 23.

    I concentrated deeply on today’s math problem.

  2. 24.

    I was so into my work that I tuned out things going on around me.

  3. 25.

    I was fascinated by the math today.

[Mathematical Value]

Let me Teach you (LMTY)

  1. 26.

    I wanted to teach another student something that I knew that this other student did not know.

  2. 27.

    I listened carefully to the ideas of someone I was trying to help.

  3. 28.

    I helped someone see how to do the math.

  4. 29.

    Others listened carefully to my ideas

Look How Smart I Am (LHSIA)

  1. 30.

    I wanted people to think that I’m smart.

  2. 31.

    I tried to impress people with my ideas about the problem.

  3. 32.

    People seemed impressed with the ideas I shared about the problem.

  4. 33.

    People saw how good I was at the math we did today.

  5. 34.

    I felt smart.

  6. 35.

    I wanted to show someone that my way was better.

  7. 36.

    I was a lot better at math than others today.

  8. 37.

    I argued strongly in support of my ideas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, Y., Capraro, R.M. & Bicer, A. Affective Mathematics Engagement: a Comparison of STEM PBL Versus Non-STEM PBL Instruction. Can. J. Sci. Math. Techn. Educ. 19, 270–289 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-019-00050-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-019-00050-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation