Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Positive attitudes towards mathematics and science are mutually beneficial for student achievement: a latent profile analysis of TIMSS 2015

Abstract

Australia has seen declining numbers of students choosing mathematics and science subjects in the senior secondary years, running counter to economic projections of an accelerating need for science and mathematics skills. Many students become less engaged with these subjects in the junior secondary years but attitudes such as self-concept, utility value, and intrinsic value are important for subject selection decisions. We used latent profile analysis to examine the relationship between attitudes towards both subjects using data from 10,051 Australian Grade 8 students sampled by TIMSS 2015 and revealed six discrete groupings. While most students were at least attitudinally receptive to both subjects, there were many students who either resisted both or expressed a strong preference for one over another. Positive attitudes towards both subjects were mutually beneficial—better attitudes towards both were associated with higher achievement in each—but boys tended to be more positive towards both subjects and so benefitted from this relationship more than girls. Implications for educational research and teachers’ practices are discussed.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Ahmed, W., van der Werf, G., Kuyper, H., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Emotions, self-regulated learning, and achievement in mathematics: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,105(1), 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030160.

  2. Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011a). A cultural perspective on the structure of student interest in science. International Journal of Science Education,33(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.518640.

  3. Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011b). Student engagement with science in early adolescence: The contribution of enjoyment to students’ continuing interest in learning about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology,36(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.08.001.

  4. Bae, C. L., & DeBusk-Lane, M. (2018). Motivation belief profiles in science: Links to classroom goal structures and achievement. Learning and Individual Differences,67, 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.08.003.

  5. Berger, N., Hanham, J., Stevens, C. J., & Holmes, K. (2019). Immediate feedback improves career decision self-efficacy and aspirational alignment. Frontiers in Psychology,10, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00255.

  6. 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(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(83)90046-5.

  7. Bong, M., Cho, C., Ahn, H. S., & Kim, H. J. (2012). Comparison of self-beliefs for predicting student motivation and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research,105(5), 336–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.627401.

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

  9. Celeux, G., & Soromenho, G. (1996). An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. Journal of Classification,13(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01246098.

  10. Chiu, M.-S. (2008). Achievements and self-concepts in a comparison of math and science: Exploring the internal/external frame of reference model across 28 countries. Educational Research and Evaluation,14(3), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610802048858.

  11. Chouinard, R., & Roy, N. (2008). Changes in high-school students’ competence beliefs, utility value and achievement goals in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology,78(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X197993.

  12. Chouinard, R., Karsenti, T., & Roy, N. (2007). Relations among competence beliefs, utility value, achievement goals, and effort in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology,77(3), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X133589.

  13. Chow, A., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2011). Task-values across subject domains: A gender comparison using a person-centered approach. International Journal of Behavioral Development,35(3), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025411398184.

  14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum and Associates.

  15. Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology,106(6), 1691–1730. https://doi.org/10.1086/321299.

  16. DeBacker, T. K., & Nelson, R. M. (1999). Variations on an expectancy-value model of motivation in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology,24(2), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0984.

  17. Dong, Y., & Peng, C. J. (2013). Principled missing data methods for researchers. SpringerPlus,2(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-222.

  18. Douglas, D., & Attewell, P. (2017). School mathematics as gatekeeper. The Sociological Quarterly,58(4), 648–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2017.1354733.

  19. Dowker, A., Sarkar, A., & Looi, C. Y. (2016). Mathematics anxiety: What have we learned in 60 years? Frontiers in Psychology,7, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00508.

  20. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Studying gender and ethnic differences in participation in math, physical science, and information technology. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development,110, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.146.

  21. Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C., & Higgins, A. (2013). Math and science attitudes and achievement at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Psychology of Women Quarterly,37(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313480694.

  22. Eshghi, A., Haughton, D., Legrand, P., Skaletsky, M., & Woolford, S. (2011). Identifying groups: A comparison of methodologies. Journal of Data Science,9, 271–291.

  23. Foy, P. (2017). TIMSS 2015: User guide for the international database. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

  24. Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Children's competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male-sex-typed domains. Developmental Psychology,38(4), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.4.519.

  25. Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Sutton, R. E. (2009). Emotional transmission in the classroom: Exploring the relationship between teacher and student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology,101(3), 705–716. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014695.

  26. George, R. (2006). A cross-domain analysis of change in students’ attitudes toward science and attitudes about the utility of science. International Journal of Science Education,28(6), 571–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500338755.

  27. Goldman, A. D., & Penner, A. M. (2016). Exploring international gender differences in mathematics self-concept. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth,21(4), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2013.847850.

  28. Guo, J., Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., Morin, A. J. S., & Yeung, A. S. (2015). Expectancy-value in mathematics, gender and socioeconomic background as predictors of achievement and aspirations: A multi-cohort study. Learning and Individual Differences,37, 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.01.008.

  29. Guo, J., Nagengast, B., Marsh, H. W., Kelava, A., Gaspard, H., Brandt, H., et al. (2016). Probing the unique contributions of self-concept, task values, and their interactions using multiple value facets and multiple academic outcomes. AERA Open,2(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415626884.

  30. Guo, J., Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., Morin, A. J. S., & Dicke, T. (2017). Extending expectancy-value theory predictions of achievement and aspirations in science: Dimensional comparison processes and expectancy-by-value interactions. Learning and Instruction,49, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.12.007.

  31. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.

  32. Haughton, D., Legrad, P., & Woolford, S. (2009). Review of three latent class cluster analysis packages: Latent GOLD, poLCA, and MCLUST. The American Statistician,63(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1198/tast.2009.0016.

  33. Helm, F., Mueller-Kalthoff, H., Nagy, N., & Möller, J. (2016). Dimensional comparison theory: Perceived subject similarity impacts on students’ self-concepts. AERA Open,2(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416650624.

  34. Holmes, K., Gore, J., Smith, M., & Lloyd, A. (2018). An integrated analysis of school students’ aspirations for STEM careers: Which student and school factors are most predictive? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,16(4), 655–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9793-z.

  35. Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development,73(2), 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00421.

  36. Jakobsen, J. C., Gluud, C., Wetterslev, J., & Winkel, P. (2017). When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials—A practical guide with flowcharts. BMC Medical Research Methodology,17(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0442-1.

  37. Jansen, M., Schroeders, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2014). Academic self-concept in science: Multidimensionality, relations to achievement measures, and gender differences. Learning and Individual Differences,30, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.003.

  38. Jansen, M., Schroeders, U., Lüdtke, O., & Marsh, H. W. (2015). Contrast and assimilation effects of dimensional comparisons in five subjects: An extension of the I/E model. Journal of Educational Psychology,107(4), 1086–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000021.

  39. Jung, T., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (2008). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,2(1), 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00054.x.

  40. Karakas, M. (2018). How to teach introductory science classes: Views of few scientists. European Journal of Education Studies,5(6), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1494846.

  41. Kennedy, J., Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2014). The continuing decline of science and mathematics enrolments in Australian high schools. Teaching Science,60(2), 34–46.

  42. Kent, P., Jensen, R. K., & Kongsted, A. (2014). A comparison of clustering methods for finding subgroups in MRI, SMS or clinical data: SPSS TwoStep cluster analysis, latent gold and SNOB. BMC Medical Research Methodology,14(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-113.

  43. Laukaitye, I., & Wiberg, M. (2017). Using plausible values in secondary analysis in large-scale assessments. Communications in Statistics—Theory and Methods, 46(22), 11341–11357. doi:10.1080/03610926.2016.1267764

  44. Lee, J., & Stankov, L. (2018). Non-cognitive predictors of academic achievement: Evidence from TIMSS and PISA. Learning and Individual Differences,65, 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.009.

  45. Lee, B., Lawson, K. M., & McHale, S. M. (2015). Longitudinal associations between gender-typed skills and interests and their links to occupational outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior,88, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.02.011.

  46. Lin, L., Lee, T., & Snyder, L. A. (2018). Math self-efficacy and STEM intentions: A person- centered approach. Frontiers in Psychology,9, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02033.

  47. Liou, P.-Y. (2017). Profiles of adolescents’ motivational beliefs in science learning and science achievement in 26 countries: Results from TIMSS 2011 data. International Journal of Educational Research,81, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.11.006.

  48. Lo, Y., Mendell, N., & Rubin, D. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika,88(1), 767–778. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/88.3.767.

  49. Louis, R. A., & Mistele, J. M. (2012). The differences in scores and self-efficacy by student gender in mathematics and science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,10(5), 1163–1190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9325-9.

  50. Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal,23(1), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312023001129.

  51. Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2006). Reciprocal effects of self-concept and performance from a multidimensional perspective: Beyond seductive pleasure and unidimensional perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science,1(2), 133–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00010.x.

  52. Marsh, H. W., & Martin, A. J. (2011). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Relations and causal ordering. British Journal of Educational Psychology,81(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910X503501.

  53. Marsh, H. W., Seaton, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Hau, K. T., O’Mara, A. J., et al. (2008). The big-fish–little-pond-effect stands up to critical scrutiny: Implications for theory, methodology, and future research. Educational Psychology Review,20(3), 319–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9075-6.

  54. Marsh, H. W., Möller, J., Parker, P., Xu, M. K., Nagengast, B., & Pekrun, R. (2015). Internal/external frame of reference model. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 425–432). Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier.

  55. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Hooper, M., Yin, L., Foy, P., & Palazzo, L. (2016). Creating and interpreting the TIMSS 2015 context questionnaire scales. In M. O. Martin, I. V. S. Mullis, & M. Hooper (Eds.), Methods and procedures in TIMSS 2015 (pp. 558–869). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

  56. Mau, W.-C. (2003). Factors that influence persistence in science and engineering career aspirations. The Career Development Quarterly,51(3), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2003.tb00604.x.

  57. Michaelides, M. P., Brown, G. T. L., Eklöf, H., & Papanastasiou, E. C. (2019). Introduction to motivational profiles in TIMSS mathematics. In M. P. Michaelides, G. T. L. Brown, H. Eklöf, & E. C. Papanastasiou (Eds.), Motivational profiles in TIMSS mathematics: Exploring student clusters across countries and time (pp. 1–7). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

  58. Nagengast, B., & Marsh, H. W. (2012). Big fish in little ponds aspire more: Mediation and cross-cultural generalizability of school-average ability effects on self-concept and career aspirations in science. Journal of Educational Psychology,104(4), 1033–1053. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027697.

  59. Nagy, G., Garrett, J., Trautwein, U., Cortina, K. S., Baumert, J., & Eccles, J. S. (2008). Gendered high school course selection as a precursor of gendered occupational careers: The mediating role of self-concept and intrinsic value. In H. M. G. Watt & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Gender and occupational outcomes: Longitudinal assessments of individual, social, and cultural influences (pp. 115–143). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  60. Nagy, G., Watt, H. M. G., Eccles, J. S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2010). The development of students’ mathematics self-concept in relation to gender: Different countries, different trajectories? Journal of Research on Adolescence,20(2), 482–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00644.x.

  61. Nyland, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modelling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,14(4), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396.

  62. Plenty, S., & Heubeck, B. G. (2013). A multidimensional analysis of changes in mathematics motivation and engagement during high school. Educational Psychology,33(1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2012.740199.

  63. Potvin, P., Hasni, A., Sy, O., & Riopel, M. (2018). Two crucial years of science and technology schooling: A longitudinal study of the major influences on and interactions between self-concept, interest, and the intention to pursue science and technology. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9751-6.

  64. Riegle-Crumb, C., Moore, C., & Ramos-Wada, A. (2011). Who wants to have a career in science or math? Exploring adolescents’ future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity. Science Education,95(3), 458–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20431.

  65. Sass, S., & Kampa, N. (2019). Self-concept profiles in lower secondary level—An explanation for gender differences in science course selection? Frontiers in Psychology,10, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00836.

  66. Sax, L. J., Kanny, M. A., Riggers-Piehl, T. A., Whang, H., & Paulson, L. N. (2015). “But I’m not good at math”: The changing salience of mathematical self-concept in shaping women’s and men’s STEM aspirations. Research in Higher Education,56(8), 813–842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9375-x.

  67. Schreiber JB, Pekarik AJ (2014) Technical note: Using latent class analysis versus k-means or hierarchical clustering to understand museum visitors. Curator: The Museum Journal 57(1), 45–59. DOI: 10.1111/cura.12050.

  68. Shapka, J. D., Domene, J. F., & Keating, D. P. (2006). Trajectories of career aspirations through adolescence and young adulthood: Early math achievement as a critical filter. Educational Research and Evaluation,12(4), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610600765752.

  69. Sikora, J., & Pokropek, A. (2012). Gender segregation of adolescent science career plans in 50 countries. Science Education,96(2), 234–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20479.

  70. Skaalvik, S., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2004). Gender differences in math and verbal self-concept, performance expectations, and motivation. Sex Roles,50(3/4), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000015555.40976.e6.

  71. Stake, J. E. (2006). The critical mediating role of social encouragement for science motivation and confidence among high school girls and boys. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,36(4), 1017–1045. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00053.x.

  72. Stankov, L. (2013). Noncognitive predictors of intelligence and academic achievement: An important role of confidence. Personality and Individual Differences,55(7), 727–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.006.

  73. Stankov, L., & Lee, J. (2017). Self-beliefs: Strong correlates of mathematics achievement and intelligence. Intelligence,61, 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.12.001.

  74. Sterba, S. K., & Bauer, D. J. (2010). Matching method with theory in person-oriented developmental psychopathology research. Development and Psychopathology,22(2), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000015.

  75. Thomson, S., Wernert, N., O’Grady, E., & Rodrigues, S. (2017). TIMSS 2015: Reporting Australia’s results. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

  76. Van Montfort, E., Denollet, J., Vermut, J. K., Widdershoven, J., & Kupper, N. (2017). The tense, the hostile and the distressed: Multidimensional psychosocial risk profiles based on the ESC interview in coronary artery disease patients—the THORESCI study. General Hospital Psychiatry,47, 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2017.05.006.

  77. Von Davier, M., Gonzalez, E., & Mislevy, R. J. (2009). What are plausible values and why are they useful? IERI Monograph Series,2, 9–36.

  78. 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), 1643–1657. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027247.

  79. Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review,33(4), 304–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001.

  80. Watt, H. M. G. (2004). Development of adolescents’ self-perceptions, values, and task perceptions according to gender and domain in 7th- through 11th-grade Australian students. Child Development,75(5), 1556–1574. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00757.x.

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

  82. Watt, H. M. G., Shapka, J. D., Morris, Z. A., Durik, A. M., Keating, D. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Gendered motivational processes affecting high school mathematics participation, educational aspirations, and career plans: A comparison of samples from Australia, Canada, and the United States. Developmental Psychology,48(6), 1594–1611. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027838.

  83. Watt, H. M. G., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J., Morris, Z. A., Rozek, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2017). Mathematics—a critical filter for STEM-related career choices? A longitudinal examination among Australian and US adolescents. Sex Roles,77(3), 254–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0711-1.

  84. Watt, H. M. G., Bucich, M., & Dacosta, L. (2019). Adolescents’ motivational profiles in mathematics and science: Associations with achievement striving, career aspirations and psychological wellbeing. Frontiers in Psychology,10, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00990.

  85. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.

  86. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Fredricks, J., Simpkins, S., Roeser, R. W., & Schiefele, U. (2015). Development of achievement motivation and engagement. In M. E. Lamb & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Socioemotional processes (pp. 657–700). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

  87. Wilkins, J. L. M. (2004). Mathematics and science self-concept: An international investigation. The Journal of Experimental Education,72(4), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.72.4.331-346.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Nathan Berger.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix

Appendix

Items comprising each of the TIMSS attitudinal scales

Items reproduced from Martin et al. (2016). An asterisk (*) indicates a reverse-coded item.

Students like learning mathematics scale, eighth grade

  1. 1.

    I enjoy learning mathematics.

  2. 2.

    I wish I did not have to study mathematics*.

  3. 3.

    Mathematics is boring*.

  4. 4.

    I learn many interesting things in mathematics.

  5. 5.

    I like mathematics.

  6. 6.

    I like any schoolwork that involves numbers.

  7. 7.

    I like to solve mathematics problems.

  8. 8.

    I look forward to mathematics class.

  9. 9.

    Mathematics in one of my favourite subjects.

Students confident in mathematics scale, eighth grade

  1. 1.

    I usually do well in mathematics.

  2. 2.

    Mathematics is more difficult for me than for many of my classmates*.

  3. 3.

    Mathematics is not one of my strengths*.

  4. 4.

    I learn things quickly in mathematics.

  5. 5.

    Mathematics makes me nervous*.

  6. 6.

    I am good at working out difficult mathematics problems.

  7. 7.

    My teacher tells me I am good at mathematics.

  8. 8.

    Mathematics is harder for me than any other subject*.

  9. 9.

    Mathematics makes me confused*.

Students value mathematics scale, eighth grade

  1. 1.

    I think learning mathematics will help me in my daily life.

  2. 2.

    I need mathematics to learn other school subjects.

  3. 3.

    I need to do well in mathematics to get into the university of my choice.

  4. 4.

    I need to do well in mathematics to get the job I want.

  5. 5.

    I would like a job that uses mathematics.

  6. 6.

    It is important to learn about mathematics to get ahead in the world.

  7. 7.

    Learning mathematics will give me more job opportunities when I am an adult.

  8. 8.

    My parents think it is important that I do well in mathematics.

  9. 9.

    It is important to do well in mathematics.

Students like learning science scale, eighth grade

  1. 1.

    I enjoy learning science.

  2. 2.

    I wish I did not have to study science*.

  3. 3.

    Science is boring*.

  4. 4.

    I learn many interesting things in science.

  5. 5.

    I like science.

  6. 6.

    I look forward to learning science in school.

  7. 7.

    Science teaches me how things in the world work.

  8. 8.

    I like to conduct science experiments.

  9. 9.

    Science is one of my favourite subjects.

Students confident in science scale, eighth grade

  1. 1.

    I usually do well in science

  2. 2.

    Science is more difficult for me than for many of my classmates*.

  3. 3.

    Science is not one of my strengths*.

  4. 4.

    I learn things quickly in science.

  5. 5.

    I am good at working out difficult science problems.

  6. 6.

    My teacher tells me I am good at science.

  7. 7.

    Science is harder for me than any other subject*.

  8. 8.

    Science makes me confused*.

Students value science scale, eighth grade

  1. 1.

    I think learning science will help me in my daily life.

  2. 2.

    I need science to learn other school subjects.

  3. 3.

    I need to do well in science to get into the university of my choice.

  4. 4.

    I need to do well in science to get the job I want.

  5. 5.

    I would like a job that involves using science.

  6. 6.

    It is important to learn about science to get ahead in the world.

  7. 7.

    Learning science will give me more job opportunities when I am an adult.

  8. 8.

    My parents think that it is important that I do well in science.

  9. 9.

    It is important to do well in science.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berger, N., Mackenzie, E. & Holmes, K. Positive attitudes towards mathematics and science are mutually beneficial for student achievement: a latent profile analysis of TIMSS 2015. Aust. Educ. Res. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-020-00379-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • Attitudes
  • Latent profile analysis