Mathematically high and low performances tell us different stories: Uncovering motivation-related factors via the ecological model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated how motivational factors contribute to math performance through the ecological model within exceptionally high and low achieving student populations. Using PISA 2018 data, a model including three layers of the ecological model were constructed to examine the ecological background of math performance for each group: exceptionally low & high achievers. Employing structural equation modeling, the results revealed that high math performance was ecologically associated with factors: attitudes towards competition, growth mindset, motivation to master tasks, self-efficacy, teacher enthusiasm, teacher feedback, teacher support, value of school, and parents' emotional support. However, low math performance was related to a wider range of factors, including the aforementioned variables, as well as enjoyment of reading and learning goals. This research emphasizes a practical viewpoint that suggests using different interventions to maximize the potential of students in various positions on the math ability spectrum since the factors differ in explaining mathematically high and low performance. In this study, we investigated motivation related factors that affect students with both high and low achievements in mathematics. Our results indicate that the factors associated with math performance differ between high and low achievers. This highlights the significance of need for differentiated educational strategies to maximize the potential of students across the math ability spectrum. This differentiation between the two groups may help in developing a tailored approach, enabling educators to promote a learning environment that is both inclusive and effective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it