Educational Studies

ISSN: 0305-5698 (Print) 1465-3400 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceds20

The role of self-efficacy in the relationship

between the learning environment and student
engagement

Yavuz Sökmen

To cite this article: Yavuz Sökmen (2019): The role of self-efficacy in the relationship
between the learning environment and student engagement, Educational Studies, DOI:
10.1080/03055698.2019.1665986

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1665986

Published online: 16 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 72

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceds20
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1665986

The role of self-efficacy in the relationship between the

learning environment and student engagement
Yavuz Sökmen
Primary Education, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study investigated middle school students’ behavioural, emo- Received 15 April 2019
tional, cognitive, and agentic engagement in science in relation to Accepted 5 September 2019
self-efficacy and learning environment variables. Learning environ- KEYWORDS
ment variables addressed in the study were shared control, stu- Student engagement;
dent negotiation, promoting mutual respect, and teacher self-efficacy; learning
feedback. Participants of the study were 407 middle school stu- environment; science
dents attending two public schools in the eastern part of Turkey.
Path analysis showed that self-efficacy and teacher feedback were
positive predictors for all aspects of student engagement while
shared control predicted most of the engagement aspects other
than emotional engagement. Promoting mutual respect was posi-
tively linked to behavioural engagement whereas student negotia-
tion was not related to any of the engagement components.
Amount of explained variance in engagement components ranged
from 21% to 33%. Additionally, student negotiation, promoting
mutual respect, and teacher feedback positively predicted self-
efficacy and learning environment variables together explained
23% of variance in self-efficacy.

Introduction
Student engagement attracts researchers’ and educators’ attention because it has
a potential to be a remedy for low academic achievement and motivation (Fredricks,
Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004). Student engagement was defined as “student’s active partici-
pation in academic and co-curricular or school-related activities, and commitment to
educational goals and learning” (Christenson, Reschly, and Wylie 2012, 816). Generally,
student engagement has been addressed with behavioural, emotional, and cognitive
components. Behavioural engagement refers to students’ participation, effort, on-task
attention, and persistence in school-related tasks. Emotional engagement includes stu-
dents’ feelings like interest, enthusiasm, curiosity, and enjoyment about the tasks while
cognitive engagement refers to using learning and self-regulatory strategies (Ferrell 2012;
Reeve 2012). Reeve and Tseng (2011) proposed a new engagement aspect which is agentic
engagement. It refers to students’ contribution to the flow of instruction like communicat-
ing preferences and making suggestions about the learning activities. The engagement
components are interrelated (Reeve 2012). More research is needed on the aspects of

CONTACT Yavuz Sökmen yavuzsokmen@atauni.edu.tr Department of Primary Education, Ataturk University,

Erzurum, Turkey
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Y. SÖKMEN

engagement, especially agentic engagement (Sinatra, Heddy, and Lombardi 2015) and this
study aims to provide empirical evidence about engagement aspects and their relations
with perceived learning environment variables and self-efficacy.
According to Social Cognitive Theory, environment influences individuals’ behaviour
(Bandura 1986). For instance, the amount of support students receive from their tea-
chers and peers and the teacher feedback influence students’ self-efficacy and task
engagement (Schunk 1985, 1995). Besides environment, personal factors influence
student behaviour (Bandura 1986). One of the important personal factors that affect
students’ task engagement is self-efficacy; efficacy beliefs influence motivation, cognitive
processing, educational practices, and skill development (Schunk 1985). In fact, self-
efficacy is a significant mediator of students’ behaviour (Pintrich and Schunk 2002).
However, there is a need for more research to understand how learning environment
affects specific and various dimensions of engagement (Wang and Eccles 2013). In the
present study, we will investigate how students’ perceptions of student negotiation,
shared control, teacher as promoting mutual respect, and teacher feedback are related
to students’ self-efficacy and engagement aspects of behavioural, emotional, cognitive,
and agentic engagement in science.

The relationship between students’ self-efficacy beliefs and engagement

According to Social Cognitive Theory, individuals’ judgements about their capabilities
are important determining factors of how they behave, how long they persist against
obstacles, the amount of effort they exert, thought patterns, and emotional reactions
(Bandura 1986). Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory is based on a triadic reciprocal
determinism. These three variables are individual, behaviour, and environment. They
always reciprocally interact with each other. Bandura states that human behaviours
depend on the triadic reciprocal determinism among individual, behaviour, and envir-
onment. According to Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, self-efficacy (perceptions of
skills for pre-determined levels of learning and performances) is a key factor which
influences both motivation and engagement. Self-efficacy is defined as “people’s judge-
ments of their capabilities to organise and execute courses of action required to attain
designated types of performances” (Bandura 1986, 391). Self-efficacy can be said to be
an important factor in learner engagement in the classroom. The learners with high level
of self-efficacy tend to have greater engagement in terms of behaviour, motivation, and
cognition when compared to other learners (Linnenbrink and Pintrich 2003). For exam-
ple, whereas the self-efficacious learners are defined to be learners who improve their
own skills and are motivated to engage in learning (Schunk and Mullen 2012), the
engagement and motivation of the learners with low levels of self-efficacy are lower
(Pajares 1996) because self-efficacy plays vital role in all aspects of engagement in
learning (Schunk and Mullen 2012). There is a strong relationship between self-efficacy
and learner engagement. Once students believe they are able to perform the activities
that will take them to the success, they will have a more effective cognitive and
behavioural engagement at school (Lam et al. 2012). Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2003)
assert that self-efficacy beliefs predict behavioural engagement, cognitive engagement,
and motivational engagement, which in turn affect student learning. Several empirical
studies documented that self-efficacy is associated with positive student outcomes, such
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 3

as higher cognitive, metacognitive, and self-regulatory strategy use (e.g. Kahraman and
Sungur 2011; Pintrich and De Groot 1990) and higher levels of task-value (e.g. Bong et al.
2012). Hidiroglu (2014) found that middle school students’ self-efficacy beliefs positively
predict cognitive, emotional, behavioural, and agentic engagement in science.
Therefore, we anticipate that students’ judgements about their abilities to do science
tasks will be positively related to engagement aspects.

The relation of students’ perceptions of learning environment to student

engagement and self-efficacy beliefs
Besides theoretical foundations, there is empirical research evidence indicating that
students’ perceptions of classroom learning environment are related to student out-
comes (e.g. Den Brok, Brekelmans, and Wubbels 2004; Dorman 2001). Shared control is
one of the important learning environment features. It refers to students’ perceptions
that they have right to make contributions in classroom decisions. Some researchers
suggest that sharing control with students may not be a good idea since organised
teaching brings success (e.g. Brophy and Good 1986). Later, researchers suggest that
promotion of choice in the learning environment does not make teachers lose the
control but increase students’ ownership in their learning (e.g. Driscoll 2005).
Student negotiation is another environmental feature that will be investigated in the
present study. It refers to students’ perceptions about how their learning environment
encourages them to interact with their peers (Taylor, Fraser, and Fisher 1997). Indeed,
interacting with peers is a requirement for effective learning (Johnson 1981).
Relevant literature suggests that students’ perceptions about shared control and
student negotiation are significantly related to their learning outcomes. For instance,
Dorman (2001) found that both shared control and student negotiation were positively
related to secondary school students’ academic efficacy in mathematics. Similarly, results
were found with middle school students in science domain: Kingir et al. (2013) found
that student negotiation was positively related to self-efficacy while sharing control
positively predicted self-regulation in science. In another study, Wang and Eccles
(2013) examined the relation between students’ perceptions about school environment
(students’ opinions about opportunities to make decisions and relations with their peers)
and their engagement. Results showed that students who think that they have the right
to make decision in the class tend to show higher levels of behavioural and emotional
engagement. Besides, students who think that they have positive relations with their
peers tend to show higher levels of behavioural, emotional, and cognitive engagement.
In the light of the previous research, we expect that student negotiation and shared
control will positively predict behavioural, emotional, and cognitive engagement and also
self-efficacy. According to previous research, no study has investigated agentic engagement
in relation to constructivist learning environment. However, we anticipate that students
who perceive that they share control of the learning environment and believe that they
have opportunities to explain and share ideas with other students about the learning
activities may intentionally make suggestions about the learning activities. Thus, we
hypothesise that student negotiation and shared control will also positively predict agentic
engagement. Additionally, students who experience these science learning environment
features are expected to be more efficacious.
4 Y. SÖKMEN

Promoting mutual respect is another environmental factor this study is focused on.
Teachers may vary in promoting mutual respect in their classrooms (Ryan and Patrick
2001). If teachers communicate with students respecting their peers, this may encourage
students’ feeling of safety and discourage anxiety (Ryan and Patrick 2001). Turner, Thorpe,
and Meyer (1998) investigated elementary school students’ feelings of negative affect about
making mistakes in relation to some self-regulatory beliefs and behaviours in mathematics.
They found that students who reported high levels of negative affect were less likely to use
deep strategies, prefer for difficulty, and act after failure. Therefore, students’ feeling of
negative affect about making mistakes was negatively related to adaptive self-regulatory
beliefs and behaviours. Ryan and Patrick (2001) examined classroom social environmental
influences among eighth-grade students in mathematics. Students’ perception of mutual
respect among classmates was a positive predictor of changes in academic efficacy and self-
regulated learning. Therefore, previous studies found a positive relationship between
promoting respect and behavioural engagement such as self-regulatory behaviours and
also self-efficacy beliefs. Accordingly, we hypothesise that teachers’ promoting mutual
respect will be positively related to behavioural engagement and self-efficacy beliefs in
science. However, we do not have a priori hypothesis regarding the relationship between
promoting mutual respect and other engagement aspects.
Besides shared control, student negotiation, and promoting mutual respect, this
study examines the role of teacher feedback in student engagement and self-efficacy.
Feedback is defined as “information provided by an agent (e.g. teacher, peer, book,
parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding”
(Hattie and Timperley 2007, 81). Feedback is beneficial for student learning since it
helps to understand if there is a discrepancy between what is aimed to be learnt and
what has been learnt. To reduce this discrepancy, feedback may lead to an increase in
effort and engagement (Hattie and Timperley 2007).
Hamre et al. (2007) developed a framework for assessing classroom quality. According
to this framework, quality of feedback is an important dimension of instructional sup-
port. They asserted that feedback should be based on formative evaluation that focuses
on increasing understanding rather than summative evaluation that focuses only on the
correctness of the work. Newmann, Wehlage, and Lamborn (1992) asserted that work
which is connected to real life is more authentic and thus more likely to engage
students. Delayed and difficult to comprehend feedback is not supportive for student
engagement. These studies point out importance of providing students with clear,
timely, and informative feedback. In a review study (Harbour et al. 2015) instructional
practices which lead to student engagement were examined and one of the effective
teaching practices recommended to increase student engagement was feedback. Turner
et al. (2014) also suggest informational feedback as an opportunity to enhance students’
self-efficacy and previous research pointed out positive influences of feedback on self-
efficacy (e.g. Schunk 1982, 1983).
In a qualitative study, Dolezal et al. (2003) examined how third-grade teachers influence
students’ engagement. They found that teachers of high engaged classes used more
effective/positive feedback that is those teachers gave more constructive, immediate, and
specific feedback. On the other hand, teachers of low engaged classes used ineffective/
negative feedback that is they seldom controlled whether students comprehend the
concept and insufficiently helped students who have difficulty in understanding.
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 5

Therefore, providing effective feedback seems to be an important teacher practice to

encourage student engagement. However, limited research has focused on the relation-
ships between feedback and specific aspects of student engagement and this study aims to
contribute to the literature from this respect. We anticipate that if science teachers provide
comprehensible, clear, and informative feedback which includes concrete recommenda-
tions and helps student understand the content, this will promote students’ self-efficacy
beliefs and all aspects of engagement in science.

Purpose, research question, and proposed model of the study

It is evident that there has been a great increase in the number of studies on student
engagement in recent 20 years (Fredricks, Filsecker, and Lawson 2016). Accordingly, it can
be said that there has been interest and need in this field of study. According to the related
literature, learners’ level of self-efficacy is an important variable which is both influenced by
student-student and teacher–student interactions in the classroom and affects learner
engagement. In addition, since while pursuing the skills of the twenty-first century it has
much greater importance to encourage students’ engagement than ever before (Niemi and
Multisilta 2016), this study can be said to be significant for dealing with such a vital issue. In
other words, this study aimed to provide empirical evidence about various dimensions of
engagement including agentic engagement and explore the distinct nature of the engage-
ment dimensions in regard to their relationships with learning environment perceptions
(shared control, students’ negotiation, respect, feedback) and self-efficacy. Furthermore,
the current study considered the relative role of the direct and indirect variables in
explaining student engagement. In order to analyse the contribution of background
factors, the students’ perceptions (shared control, students’ negotiation, respect, feedback)
and self-efficacy in predicting engagement components, predictor variables were included
to the model in order. Additionally, we estimated students’ self-efficacy to mediate the
relationship between learning environment and student engagement.
Purpose of the study is to investigate students’ behavioural, emotional, cognitive, and
agentic engagement in science in relation to self-efficacy beliefs and perceived learning
environment variables of shared control, student negotiation, promoting mutual
respect, and teacher feedback. Science domain is selected because research has
shown that individuals’ engagement may differ in different domains (Sinatra, Heddy,
and Lombardi 2015). Additionally, since student gender and grade level may affect
student engagement (e.g. Lee and Smith 1993; Marks 2000), these variables will be
included in the analysis to control for their effects. Research question of the study is:

(1) What are the mediating role of self-efficacy between learning environment and
student engagement and the controlling role of gender and grade level in
student engagement?

The hypothesised relationships among the variables of the study are presented in
Figure 1.
6 Y. SÖKMEN

Figure 1. Proposed model for the relationship among learning environment dimensions, self-
efficacy, and engagement aspects in science.

Methods
Sample
Participants of the study included 407 middle school students attending two public
schools in the eastern part of Turkey. Data were collected in the spring semester of
2015. There were 212 (52%) girls and 195 (48%) boys; and 172 (42%) sixth grade and
235 (58%) eighth grade students. Mean age of the participants was 13.25 (SD = .99).

Context of the study

In Turkey, sixth and eighth-grade students take four-hour science in a week. The
science curriculum targets the vision of educating scientifically literate citizens.
Students are active in the learning process through inquiry and questioning, they
construct knowledge in their minds. The teacher is expected to create
a democratic learning atmosphere where students can freely negotiate their
ideas. Furthermore, the teacher is expected to track students’ learning and provide
continuous feedback (Ministry of National Education 2013). Learning environment
variables of shared control, student negotiation, promoting mutual respect, and
teacher feedback seem to be appropriate for investigating science classroom-
learning environment in Turkey.
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 7

Instruments
Perceptions of learning environment
To assess students’ perceptions of science learning environment, measures of shared
control, student negotiation, promoting mutual respect, and teacher feedback were
used. The subscales are responded on a 5-point Likert scales from (1) almost never to
(5) almost always.
Shared control and student negotiation subscales were from Constructivist Learning
Environment Scale (CLES; Johnson and McClure 2004). Shared control, including 4 items,
refers to students’ perceptions that they share control of the learning environment with
the teacher, such as in designing of learning activities. An example item is “In this
science class, I help the teacher to decide which activities work best for me”. Student
negotiation, including 4 items, addresses students’ perceptions that they explain and
justify their ideas to each other. An example item is “In this science class, I explain my
ideas to other students”. CLES was translated into Turkish by Yilmaz-Tuzun, Cakiroglu,
and Boone (2006) and revised by Ozkal et al. (2009). Ozkal et al. (2009) conducted
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) which provided evidence about the factor structure of
the Turkish version of the scale (SRMR = .05, CFI = .97, GFI = .93, NFI = .97) and
reliabilities of the shared control and student negotiation dimensions were .74 and
.69, respectively. In the present study, Cronbach alpha values for the shared control
and student negotiation subscales were .72 and .66, respectively.
Promoting mutual respect subscale developed by Ryan and Patrick (2001) was used
to assess students’ perceptions of whether their teacher promotes mutual respect
among students in the class. Items were translated into Turkish in the present study.
The subscale includes 5 items one of which is “My science teacher does not allow
students to make fun of other students” ideas in class’. In the present study, the
reliability of the subscale was .80. The factor structure of the Turkish version of the
subscale CFA results’ fit indices showed that the data fit well to the proposed factor
structure (x2/sd = 3,82, SRMR = .078, CFI = .92, GFI = .92, NFI = .90, IFI = .93)
To assess teacher feedback, items used in the previous studies (Blair et al. 2013;
Hyland and Hyland 2006; Kagitci 2013; King, Schrodt, and Weisel 2009) were utilised. The
subscale addresses students’ perceptions that teacher provides feedback which is clear,
comprehensible, encouraging, and helpful for their learning. Items were translated into
Turkish in the present study. The subscale consists of 9 items one of which is “Written
feedback on my assignment helps me in my learning”. In the present study, the
reliability of the subscale was .84. The fit indices of the Turkish version of the subscale
also revealed the goodness fit of the data in accord with the proposed factor structure
(x2/sd = 3,67, SRMR = .046, CFI = .97, GFI = .95, NFI = .95, IFI = .97).

Self-efficacy
Academic efficacy subscale from Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS; Midgley
et al. 2000) was used to assess students’ self-efficacy beliefs. The academic efficacy refers
to students’ perceptions about their competencies to perform academic tasks. The
subscale includes 4 items responded on a 5-point Likert scale from (1) not at all true
to (5) very true. An example item is “I can do even the hardest work in this class if I try”.
The subscale was translated into Turkish by Tas and Tekkaya (2010) and CFA results
8 Y. SÖKMEN

demonstrated good model fit (SRMR = .042, RMSEA = .046, GFI = .91, CFI = .96). The
reliability of the Turkish version of the subscale was .74. In the present study, self-efficacy
measure had a Cronbach alpha of .71.

Student engagement
Student engagement was assessed through questionnaire used by Reeve and Tseng
(2011). The questionnaire was translated into Turkish by Hidiroglu (2014) and CFA results
showed good model fit (RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .04, GFI = .93, CFI = .99). Items of the
questionnaire were responded on a 4-point Likert scale from (1) completely disagree to
(4) completely agree. The questionnaire addressed four aspects of student engagement
which were agentic, behavioural, emotional, and cognitive engagement. In the Turkish
version, Cronbach alpha reliabilities of subscales ranged from .82 to .88.
Agentic engagement refers to students’ proactive and constructivist contribution to
the flow of lesson such as by asking questions and expressing opinions. The subscale
includes 4 items and an example item is “I tell the teacher what I like and what I don’t
like”. In the present study, Cronbach alpha reliability of the agentic engagement sub-
scale was .74. Behavioural engagement addresses students’ on-task attention and effort
they exert. The subscale consists of 5 items one of which is “The first time my teacher
talks about a new topic, I listen very carefully”. In the present study, Cronbach alpha
reliability of the behavioural engagement subscale was .80. Emotional engagement
refers to students’ energised emotional states such as curiosity and enjoyment. The
subscale includes 4 items and one example item is “When we work on something in
class, I feel interested”. In the present study, Cronbach alpha reliability of the emotional
engagement measure was .68. Cognitive engagement addresses students’ use of sophis-
ticated learning strategies and metacognitive self-regulation strategies. The subscale
includes 7 items one of which is “When I study, I try to connect what I am learning with
my own experiences”. In the present study, Cronbach alpha reliability of the cognitive
engagement measure was .72.
Additionally, students were asked about their gender and grade level. Gender (coded
0 for boys and 1 for girls) and grade level (coded 0 for sixth graders and 1 for eighth
graders) were personal background variables used to control for their effects.
In this study, for all the variables, the SEM assumptions were analysed. They are
equality of variances, z test, extreme values through coefficient of kurtosis and coeffi-
cient of skewness, and normal distribution. In addition, the homogeneity of the data set,
and whether there is a linear relationship between the variables were analysed. After the
analyses, it was understood that the data set had the prerequisites for SEM analysis.
Besides, in the study, the goodness of fit indices x2/df, RMSEA, GFI, CFI and SRMR, NNFI
were taken into consideration to test the goodness of fit of the model.

Results
Descriptive statistics
Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among variables of the study
were presented in Table 1. Engagement components were significantly and positively
related to self-efficacy and learning environment dimensions.
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 9

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among variables of the study.
Zero-order Correlations
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Agentic engagement 3.20 .62
2. Behavioural engagement 3.52 .52 .51**
3. Emotional engagement 3.50 .54 .45** .54**
4. Cognitive engagement 3.27 .50 .49** .48** .50**
5.Self-efficacy 4.23 .64 .36** .39** .40** .41**
6. Shared control 3.32 .94 .41** .32** .16** .35** .29**
7. Students’ negotiation 3.50 .86 .31** .31** .26** .29** .29** .53**
8. Respect 4.53 .73 .12* .29** .29** .26** .32** .12* .16**
9. Feedback 4.19 .70 .42** .43** .40** .49** .45** .30** .29** .44**
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01.

Inferential statistics
To investigate the proposed relationships among perceived classroom learning environ-
ment dimensions, engagement aspects, and self-efficacy beliefs in science, path analysis
was conducted using LISREL 8.8. Fit indices are used to evaluate how well the proposed
model fit to the data. RMSEA and S-RMR values of lower than .08 and NNFI, CFI, and GFI
values greater than .90 are recommended for good model fit (Kelloway 1998; Kline 2004). In
the present study, fit indices (RMSEA = .038, SRMR = .010, NNFI = .977, CFI = .999, GFI = .999)
suggested that the proposed model fit the data well. Besides, chi-square test was non-
significant (χ2 = 3.19, p = .21, df = 2) indicating that sample variance-covariance matrix and
the model-implied reproduced variance-covariance matrix were similar (Schumacker and
Lomax 2004).
Since fit indices provided evidence for the appropriateness of the model, path
coefficients were examined next. Direct effects of the variables are presented in Table
2 and significant paths are displayed graphically in Figure 2. In the model, learning
environment variables accounted for 23% of the variance in self-efficacy (See Table 2).
Parameter estimates revealed that higher level of students’ negotiation (γ = .14), respect
(γ = .14), and feedback (γ = .28) were significantly and positively related to self-efficacy.
Paths were specified from self-efficacy and perceived learning environment variables to
each of the engagement components. The amount of variance explained in agentic engage-
ment was 29%. Parameter estimates revealed that higher levels of self-efficacy (β = .12),
shared control (γ = .14), and feedback (γ = .27) significantly and positively predicted agentic
engagement. In regard to behavioural engagement, self-efficacy beliefs and learning environ-
ment perceptions accounted for 27% of the variance in behavioural engagement. Higher
levels of self-efficacy (β = .12), shared control (γ = .14), respect (γ = .13), and feedback (γ = .27)
were significantly and positively related to behavioural engagement. Self-efficacy and learn-
ing environment variables explained 21% of the variance in emotional engagement. Self-
efficacy (β = .20) and feedback (γ = .29) significantly and positively predicted emotional
engagement. The amount of variance explained in cognitive engagement was 33%. Higher
level of self-efficacy (β = .23), shared control (γ = .14), and feedback (γ = .32) were significantly
and positively related to cognitive engagement.
10 Y. SÖKMEN

Table 2. Direct effects and indirect effects of the variables in the model.
Effect Standardised coefficients SE of the estimates t Indirect effects R2
On agentic engagement .22
Grade −.04 .05 −.96
Gender .00 .05 .04
Shared control .22 .03 4.31* .01
Students’ negotiation .06 .04 1.09 .02
Respect −.08 .04 −1.67 .02
Feedback .34 .05 6.48* .04
Self-efficacy .13 .05 2.62*
On behavioural engagement .27
Grade .02 .05 .33
Gender .01 .05 .25
Shared control .14 .03 2.67* .01
Students’ negotiation .10 .03 1.94 .02
Respect .13 .04 2.76* .02
Feedback .27 .04 5.18* .03
Self-efficacy .12 .04 2.50*
On emotional engagement .21
Grade −.06 .05 −1.40
Gender .05 .05 .97
Shared control −.04 .03 −.74 .02
Students’ negotiation .07 .03 1.37 .03
Respect .08 .04 1.65 .03
Feedback .29 .04 5.35* .06
Self-efficacy .20 .04 3.89*
On cognitive engagement .33
Grade −.06 .04 −1.42
Gender −.01 .04 −.29
Shared control .14 .03 2.74* .02
Students’ negotiation .04 .03 .82 .03
Respect .03 .03 .55 .03
Feedback .32 .04 6.31* .06
Self-efficacy .23 .04 4.85*
On self-efficacy .23
Shared control .10 .04 1.83
Students’ negotiation .14 .04 2.61*
Respect .14 .04 2.91*
Feedback .28 .05 5.37*
Note: * p < .05.

Discussion and conclusion

This study investigated the relationships among students’ perceptions of learning
environment, self-efficacy beliefs, and engagement in science. Additionally, gender
and grade level were included in the model to control for their predictive effects on
engagement components. Path analysis showed that gender and grade level were
unrelated to engagement aspects. Previously some studies conceptualising a general
engagement construct found gender and grade level differences in student engagement
(e.g. Marks 2000), whereas more recent studies which conceptualised specific engage-
ment aspects revealed no gender and grade level differences (e.g. Reeve 2013; Reeve
and Lee 2014). The results of the present study supported no gender and grade level
difference in engagement aspects. Actually, although girls and boys showed significant
differences in science context in the past, many countries have shown progress regard-
ing to gender differences in education over decades (OECD 2015).
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 11

Figure 2. Path model with significant paths.

The relation of students’ perceptions of science learning environment to student

engagement and self-efficacy beliefs
In the present study, students’ perceptions of learning environment were investigated in
four dimensions: students’ opinions about the degree of sharing control of the learning
environment, whether the learning environment promotes negotiation with peers,
mutual respect and teachers’ feedback. The proposed model suggested that students’
perceptions about learning environment predict engagement aspects. However, analysis
results showed that predictive effect of these learning environment perceptions differed
in their ability to explain engagement aspects. Wang and Eccles (2013) suggest that
investigating these types of variables from multidimensional perspective enhances our
understandings about the relationships. The findings of the present study offered that
shared control positively predicts agentic, behavioural, and cognitive engagement,
whereas it is unrelated to emotional engagement. In other words, students who think
their teacher encourages them to participate in decision-making process about learning
activities tend to enrich learning experiences, participate in the class activities, and use
deep learning strategies. This result supports our hypothesis about the shared control’s
relation with agentic, behavioural, and cognitive engagement and is consistent with
Ozkal et al.’s (2009) findings. However, contrary to our hypothesis, shared control did not
predict emotional engagement. Assor, Kaplan, and Roth (2002) suggested that oppor-
tunity to make decision contributes to students’ value beliefs for school, their emotional
engagement, only if the students find schoolwork relevant to their personal interests. If
students have not developed any personal interest yet, they may be confused about
what to do. Therefore, while encouraging students to make a decision in the classwork,
12 Y. SÖKMEN

science teachers’ consideration for students’ personal interests and goals may be
necessary.
Student negotiation, on the other hand, was not significantly related to any of the
engagement aspects. It was an unexpected result, since there is research evidence
suggesting that students’ interactions with their peers have significant effects on their
engagement (e.g. Wang and Eccles 2013). The reason for this result may be because of
the Turkish educational system. Although educational reform efforts in Turkey empha-
sised more constructivist learning approaches and students’ active learning in science
classes (Ministry of National Education 2006, 2013), it is not easy to adopt these changes.
We think that in students’ minds, the teacher may continue to be the authority who has
the reliable knowledge. Thus, students may not find it useful to share ideas with their
peers, ask peers about their thoughts, and discuss about how to solve science problems
which may impede student negotiation. Supporting this idea, the mean score of student
negotiation in the present study is just above the midpoint of the scale indicating that
student negotiation is not at desirable levels. Besides that, the quality of student
negotiation may play an important role to be effective for students’ outcomes to be
effective. It should be considered that the interaction with peers should be related to
content of the lesson. If the teacher does not lead the discussions effectively, students
may digress from topic of the lesson and may not involve in scientific talks with their
peers. The other reason for this non-significant relationship between student negotia-
tion and engagement aspects can be due to the mediating role of self-efficacy. We
found that student negotiation was positively associated with self-efficacy which in turn
predicted behavioural, emotional, cognitive, and agentic engagement. Actually, student-
teacher dialectical framework suggests that it is important to investigate learning
environment and motivation dynamics to understand the relation between students’
motivation and engagement. According to the framework, if the features of learning
environment support students’ motivation, students tend to show higher engagement
(Reeve 2012). The relationship between self-efficacy and engagement components will
be discussed later in the paper. We suggest that future studies can investigate the
relation between student negotiation and engagement aspect in more detail.
Besides shared control and student negotiation, the present study examined the
predictive effect of students’ perceptions of the teacher as promoting mutual respect.
We found that perceived teacher encouragement of mutual respect positively predicts
behavioural engagement. In other words, students whose science teacher wants them to
respect each other’s ideas and does not allow students make fun of their peers who give
wrong answer, are more likely to engage behaviourally in science class. In a positive
learning atmosphere where students respect their classmates’ ideas and do not laugh at
them, students may feel less threat regarding making mistakes which may help them
concentrate in the learning activities and put forth more effort. Similarly, Ryan and
Patrick (2001) found that promoting mutual respect was positively linked to changes
in self-regulated learning in mathematics. In their study, Turner et al. (2014) conducted
a three-year-long instruction-focused intervention with the purpose of improving mid-
dle school students’ engagement. They focused on some teacher motivational support
elements one of which was mutual respect in classroom. They observed teacher–student
interactions and found that teacher motivational support enhances student engage-
ment, which was conceptualised as behavioural engagement, responsive assistance for
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 13

procedures and thinking, quality/quantity of student talk, student provision of and

taking up opportunities to work with others and to work on content. In the present
study, promoting mutual respect is a significant predictor for only behavioural engage-
ment while it is unrelated to other engagement aspects (agentic, emotional, and
cognitive engagement). This is interesting because a science learning environment
which supports students’ respecting their peers’ ideas was expected to lead students
to have less negative feelings like anxiety in the class which may in turn encourage
students’ positive emotional reactions, deep learning strategy use, and easier contribu-
tion to instruction. Regarding the cognitive engagement, Patrick, Ryan, and Kaplan
(2007) similarly found that promoting mutual respect was not a significant predictor
of students’ cognitive engagement. In fact, there is limited research which investigated
the relation between mutual respect and other aspects of student engagement includ-
ing emotional, cognitive, and agentic engagement. There is a need for further studies to
examine these relationships. It should be also considered that self-efficacy may mediate
the relationship between promoting mutual respect and the three engagement aspects.
We found that promoting mutual respect was positively associated with self-efficacy
which in turn significantly predicted behavioural, emotional, cognitive, and agentic
engagement.
The last dimension of science learning environment included in the study was
perceived teacher feedback. Analysis showed that perceived teacher feedback was
positively linked to all engagement aspects. This finding implies that as students get
feedback which helps their learning, which is clear and comprehensible, which includes
concrete recommendations, and which helps students realise their mistakes, they are
more likely to have high levels of behavioural, emotional, cognitive, and agentic
engagement in science. According to literature, there is limited research which examines
the relation between feedback and specific aspects of student engagement. For
instance, Apter, Arnold, and Swinson (2010) studying with primary school teachers and
students found that teachers’ use of positive academic feedback was positively related
to students’ on-task behaviour. Similarly, Dolezal et al. (2003) found that students whose
teachers provided timely and specific feedback demonstrated high engagement,
whereas students whose teachers rarely checked students’ comprehension of the con-
cept being taught showed low engagement. Findings of the present study also support
the positive linkage from teacher feedback to student engagement and elaborate this
relationship by focusing on behavioural, emotional, cognitive, and agentic aspects of
engagement. Among the learning environment features investigated in the present
study, feedback emerged as the best predictor of engagement, hence it can be inferred
that effective teacher feedback is important for students’ engagement in science.
This study investigated the predictive effect of perceived learning environment
variables on students’ self-efficacy beliefs in science, as well. While student negotiation
positively predicted self-efficacy, shared control was not related to self-efficacy. In other
words, students who think that their learning environment emphasises students’ nego-
tiation tend to have more positive evaluations about their capacity to do science tasks.
These results are consistent with previous study findings (e.g. Kingir et al. 2013).
Furthermore, we found that promoting mutual respect was positively linked to self-
efficacy beliefs. This finding can be explained in such a way that if students feel that they
are respected, they may not worry about making mistakes and being embarrassed. This
14 Y. SÖKMEN

may encourage them to more freely take part in classroom activities. Therefore, they
may gain more mastery experience which is an important source of self-efficacy
(Bandura 1986). Previously, Ryan and Patrick (2001) also found a positive relationship
between self-efficacy and mutual respect among classmates. Another finding of the
present study was the positive linkage between teacher feedback and self-efficacy
beliefs which is in line with previous research (e.g. Schunk 1983; Turner et al. 2014).
Based on these findings, we suggest that promoting student negotiation, promoting
mutual respect, and providing effective feedback may support students’ self-efficacy
beliefs in science.

The relationship between students’ self-efficacy beliefs and engagement

The relationships between self-efficacy beliefs and engagement aspects were examined
in the present study. Self-efficacy positively predicted cognitive, emotional, behavioural,
and agentic engagement. These results were expected because according to the Social
Cognitive Theory, self-efficacious individuals are likely to maintain their effort, try alter-
native strategies to reach success, deploy attention, and manage changing circum-
stances (Bandura 1986). Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2003) argued that students’ self-
efficacy is an important determinant of their behavioural, cognitive, and motivational
engagement. Previous studies also found a positive link from self-efficacy to engage-
ment aspects (e.g. Hidiroglu 2014). However, it should be noted that the reciprocal
relationship between self-efficacy and engagement was also examined by different
researchers. For example, Reeve and Lee (2014) recently conducted a longitudinal
study with high school students and found that changes in student engagement lead
to changes in student motivation as measured by psychological need satisfaction, self-
efficacy, and mastery goals.
One of the main contributions of the present study is addressing student engage-
ment in four aspects; behavioural, emotional, cognitive, and agentic engagement. As
mentioned before, previous research generally examined behavioural, emotional, and
cognitive engagement and there is need for more research on agentic engagement
(Sinatra, Heddy, and Lombardi 2015). The present study offered that this new aspect of
engagement is related to students’ perceptions of shared control, teacher feedback, and
self-efficacy beliefs. Moreover, perceived learning environment dimensions predicted
engagement aspects differently. To support students’ science engagement in all aspects,
educators should consider different learning environment features. Hence, findings of
the study may contribute to the literature by pointing out the differential predictive
ability of learning environment dimensions on engagement aspects. Besides, since
limited research has examined how engagement aspects are related to promoting
mutual respect and feedback, findings of the study may help to expand our under-
standing about the mentioned relationships.
Some pedagogical implications can be suggested to teachers. There will be greater
learner engagement in the classrooms of the teacher who shares the control in the
classroom, enriches the experiences of learners, and involves them in the activities.
Therefore, the more teachers share the control the more engagement the students
will have. Accordingly, teachers should use teacher feedback effectively if they want
higher student engagement since feedback is very influential on engagement. In this
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 15

sense, it can be said that the feedback the students receive from the teacher is
important, constructive, formative, clear, and understandable and helps others under-
stand recognise their mistakes. Teacher feedback is, at the same time, a crucial
element in students’ success (Siewert 2011). Because teacher feedback is constructive
and formative in learners’ learning, it can be said that their academic achievement
can be directly or indirectly affected. As teacher control share and teacher feedback
variables have direct and indirect effects on classroom environment and students’
academic achievement, teachers should pay utmost attention to sharing control and
providing feedback in their interactions with students. Furthermore, the previous
research emphasised that teachers and educationalists should be aware of the vital
importance of classroom environment in learner motivation (Sungur and Güngören
2009). Teachers, policymakers and all other shareholders in the educational system
should give importance to student engagement because engaged students are much
more successful than others (Wang and Holcombe 2010). In addition, it was also
found out in the studies that the level of engagement in the classrooms in which
students have strong and good relationships with their classmates and teacher is
much higher (Fredricks, Filsecker, and Lawson 2016). This study examined the effects
of self-efficacy and leaning environment on student engagement. In different studies,
the relationship of student engagement with some other variables may be explored.
The researchers of this area can also study on the extent of the effects of learning
style, age, gender, motivation, prior achievement, and academic ability on student
engagement.
The present study has some limitations one of which is its reliance on self-report data.
There are recently proposed measures for student engagement in science (See Azevedo
2015) like self-paced reading and eye-tracking (Miller 2015). In future studies, these
measures may be used to gain deeper understanding of student engagement. Another
limitation is that the study does not suggest cause–effect relationships because it is
associational and cross-sectional. In future studies, experimental and longitudinal
research designs can be used to investigate cause–effect relationships between learning
environment variables and student engagement. Additionally, items of the question-
naires addressed science class and students may respond to items differently in other
courses.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Yavuz Sökmen is an assistant professor at the Department of Primary Education at Ataturk
University Kazim Karabekir Faculty of Education. His main research interests are self-efficacy,
engagement and motivation.
16 Y. SÖKMEN

References
Apter, B., C. Arnold, and J. Swinson. 2010. “A Mass Observation Study of Student and Teacher
Behavior in British Primary Classrooms.” Educational Psychology in Practice 26(2): 151–171.
doi:10.1080/02667361003768518.
Assor, A., H. Kaplan, and G. Roth. 2002. “Choice Is Good, but Relevance Is Excellent: Autonomy-
enhancing and Suppressing Teacher Behaviors Predicting Students’ Engagement in
Schoolwork.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 72: 261–278.
Azevedo, R. 2015. “Defining and Measuring Engagement and Learning in Science: Conceptual,
Theoretical, Methodological, and Analytical Issues.” Educational Psychologist 50: 84–94.
doi:10.1080/00461520.2015.1004069.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Blair, A., S. Curtis, M. Goodwin, and S. Shields. 2013. “What Feedback Do Students Want?” Politics 1
(33): 66–79. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9256.2012.01446.x.
Bong, M., C. Cho, H. S. Ahn, and H. J. Kim. 2012. “Comparison of Self-beliefs for Predicting Student
Motivation and Achievement.” The Journal of Educational Research 105: 336–352. doi:10.1080/
00220671.2011.627401.
Brophy, J., and T. L. Good. 1986. “Teacher Behavior and Achievement.” In Handbook Of Research on
Teaching, edited by, 328-375. New York: Macmillan.
Christenson, S. L., A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie, Eds. 2012. Handbook of Research on Student
Engagement. New York: Springer.
Den Brok, P., M. Brekelmans, and T. Wubbels. 2004. “Interpersonal Teacher Behaviour and Student
Outcomes.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 15 (3–4): 407–442. doi:10.1080/
09243450512331383262.
Dolezal, S. E., L. Mohan Welsh, M. Pressley, and M. M. Vincent. 2003. “How Nine Third-grade
Teachers Motivate Student Academic Engagement?” The Elementary School Journal 103 (3):
239–267. doi:10.1086/499725.
Dorman, J. P. 2001. “Associations between Classroom Environment and Academic Efficacy.”
Learning Environments Research 4: 243–257. doi:10.1023/A:1014490922622.
Driscoll, M. P. 2005. Psychology of Learning for Instruction. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson.
Ferrell, A. 2012. “Classroom Social Environments, Motivational Beliefs, and Student Engagement.”
Unpublished doctoral diss., University of Southern California. doi:10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0999-PDN.
Fredricks, J. A., M. Filsecker, and M. A. Lawson. 2016. “Student Engagement, Context, and
Adjustment: Addressing Definitional, Measurement, and Methodological Issues.” Learning and
Instruction 43: 1–4. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002.
Fredricks, J. A., P. C. Blumenfeld, and A. H. Paris. 2004. “School Engagement: Potential of the
Concept, State of the Evidence.” Review of Educational Research 74: 59–109. doi:10.3102/
00346543074001059.
Hamre, B. K., R. C. Pianta, A. J. Mashburn, and J. T. Downer. 2007. Building a Science of Classrooms:
Application of the CLASS Framework in over 4,000 U.S. Early Childhood and Elementary Classrooms.
New York: Foundation for Child Development.
Harbour, K. E., L. L. Evanovich, C. A. Sweigart, and L. E. Hughes. 2015. “A Brief Review of Effective
Teaching Practices that Maximize Student Engagement.” Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth 59 (1): 5–13. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2014.919136.
Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 77 (1):
81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.
Hidiroglu, F. M. 2014. “The Role of Perceived Classroom Goal Structures, Self-efficacy, and the
Student Engagement in Seventh Grade Students’ Science Achievement.” Unpublished master’s
thesis., Middle East Technical University.
Hyland, K., and F. Hyland. 2006. “Feedback on Second Language Students’ Writing.” Language
Teaching 39 (2): 83–101. doi:10.1017/S0261444806003399.
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 17

Johnson, B., and R. McClure. 2004. “Validity and Reliability of a Shortened, Revised Version of the
Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES).” Learning Environments Research 7 (1):
65–80. doi:10.1023/B:LERI.0000022279.89075.9f.
Johnson, D. W. 1981. “Student-student Interaction: The Neglected Variable in Education.”
Educational Researcher 10 (1): 5-10.
Kagitci, B. 2013. “The Relationship Between Students’ Preference For Wrıtten Feedback And
Improvement In Writing: Is The Preferred One The Best One” Unpublished master’s thesis.,
Middle East Technical University.
Kahraman, N., and S. Sungur. 2011. “The Contribution of Motivational Beliefs to Students’
Metacognitive Strategy Use.” Education and Science 36 (160): 3–10.
Kelloway, E. K. 1998. Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher’s Guide. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
King, P. E., P. Schrodt, and J. Weisel. 2009. “The Instructional Feedback Orientation Scale:
Conceptualizing and Validating a New Measure for Assessing Perceptions of Instructional
Feedback.” Communication Education 58 (2): 235–261. doi:10.1080/03634520802515705.
Kingir, S., Y. Tas, G. Gok, and S. Sungur Vural. 2013. “Relationships among Constructivist Learning
Environment Perceptions, Motivational Beliefs, Self-regulation and Science Achievement.”
Research in Science & Technological Education 31 (3): 205–226. doi:10.1080/
02635143.2013.825594.
Kline, R. B. 2004. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed. NY: Guilford Press.
Lam, S. F., B. P. Wong, H. Yang, and Y. Liu. 2012. “Understanding Student Engagement with
a Contextual Model.” In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, edited by S. L.
Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie, 403–419. Boston, MA: Springer.
Lee, V. E., and J. B. Smith. 1993. “Effects of School Restructuring on the Achievement and
Engagement of Middle School Students.” Sociology of Education 66: 164–187. doi:10.2307/
2112735.
Linnenbrink, E. A., and P. R. Pintrich. 2003. “The Role of Self-efficacy Beliefs in Student Engagement
and Learning in the Classroom.” Reading & Writing Quarterly 19 (2): 119–137. doi:10.1080/
10573560308223.
Marks, H. M. 2000. “Student Engagement in Instructional Activity: Patterns in the Elementary,
Middle, and High School Years.” American Educational Research Journal 37: 153–184.
doi:10.3102/00028312037001153.
Midgley, C., M. L. Maehr, L. Z. Hruda, E. Anderman, L. Anderman, Freeman, K. E., and T. Urdan. 2000.
Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Miller, B. W. 2015. “Using Reading Times and Eye-movements to Measure Cognitive Engagement.”
Educational Psychologist 50: 31–42. doi:10.1080/00461520.2015.1004068.
Ministry of National Education. 2006. Ilkogretim Fen Ve Teknoloji Dersi (6, 7 Ve 8. Siniflar) Ogretim
Programi, Ankara. [elementary School Science and Technology Course (grade 6, 7, and 8)
Curriculum]. Ankara: Turkish Ministry of Education.
Ministry of National Education. 2013. Ilkogretim Kurumları (ilkokullar Ve Ortaokullar) Fen Bilimleri
Dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Ve 8. Sınıflar) Ogretim Programi [Elementary Institutions (primary and Middle
Schools) Science Curricula (grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8)]. Ankara: Turkish Ministry of Education.
Newmann, F. M., G. G. Wehlage, and S. D. Lamborn. 1992. “The Significance and Sources of Student
Engagement.” In Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools, edited
by F. M. Newmann, 11–39. NY: Teachers College Press.
Niemi, H., and J. Multisilta. 2016. “Digital Storytelling Promoting Twenty-first Century Skills and
Student Engagement.” Technology, Pedagogy and Education 25 (4): 451–468. doi:10.1080/
1475939X.2015.1074610.
OECD. 2015. The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
Ozkal, K., C. Tekkaya, J. Cakiroglu, and S. Sungur. 2009. “A Conceptual Model of Relationship
among Constructivist Learning Environment Perceptions, Epistemological Beliefs, and
Learning Approaches.” Learning and Individual Differences 19: 71–79. doi:10.1016/j.
lindif.2008.05.005.
18 Y. SÖKMEN

Pajares, F. 1996. “Self-efficacy Beliefs in Achievement Settings.” Review of Educational Research 66:
543–578. doi:10.3102/00346543066004543.
Patrick, H., A. M. Ryan, and A. Kaplan. 2007. “Early Adolescents’ Perceptions of the Classroom Social
Environment, Motivational Beliefs, and Engagement.” Journal of Educational Psychology 99:
83–98. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.83.
Pintrich, P. R., and D. H. Schunk. 2002. Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications
(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pintrich, P. R., and E. V. De Groot. 1990. “Motivational and Self-regulated Learning Components of
Classroom Academic Performance.” Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 33–40. doi:10.1037/
0022-0663.82.1.33.
Reeve, J. 2012. “A Self-determination Theory Perspective on Student Engagement.” In Handbook of
Research on Student Engagement, edited by S. J. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie,
149–172. NY: Springer.
Reeve, J. 2013. “How Students Create Motivationally Supportive Learning Environments for
Themselves: The Concept of Agentic Engagement.” Journal of Educational Psychology 105:
579–595. doi:10.1037/a0032690.
Reeve, J., and C. Tseng. 2011. “Agency as a Fourth Aspect of Students’ Engagement during
Learning Activities.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 36 (4): 257–267. doi:10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2011.05.002.
Reeve, J., and W. Lee. 2014. “Students’ Classroom Engagement Produces Longitudinal Changes in
Classroom Motivation.” Journal of Educational Psychology 106: 527–540. doi:10.1037/a0034934.
Ryan, A. M., and H. Patrick. 2001. “The Classroom Social Environment and Changes in Adolescents’
Motivation and Engagement during Middle School.” American Educational Research Journal 38:
437–460. doi:10.3102/00028312038002437.
Schumacker, R. E., and R. G. Lomax. 2004. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd
ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H. 1982. “Effects of Effort Attributional Feedback on Children’s Perceived Self-efficacy
and Achievement.” Journal of Educational Psychology 74: 548–556. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.74.4.548.
Schunk, D. H. 1983. “Ability versus Effort Attributional Feedback: Differential Effects on Self-efficacy
and Achievement.” Journal of Educational Psychology 75 (6): 848–856. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.75.6.848.
Schunk, D. H. 1985. “Self-efficacy and Classroom Learning.” Psychology in the Schools 22 (2):
208–223. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6807.
Schunk, D. H. 1995. “Self-efficacy and Education and Instruction.” In Self-efficacy, Adaptation, and
Adjustment: Theory, Research, and Application, edited by J. E. Maddux, 281–303. New York:
Plenum Press.
Schunk, D. H., and C. A. Mullen. 2012. “Self-efficacy as an Engaged Learner.” In Handbook of
Research on Student Engagement, edited by S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie,
219–235. Boston, MA: Springer.
Siewert, L. 2011. “The Effects of Written Teacher Feedback on the Academic Achievement of
Fifth-grade Students with Learning Challenges.” Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education
for Children and Youth 55 (1): 17–27. doi:10.1080/10459880903286771.
Sinatra, G. M., B. C. Heddy, and D. Lombardi. 2015. “The Challenges of Defining and Measuring
Student Engagement in Science.” Educational Psychologist 50: 1–13. doi:10.1080/
00461520.2014.1002924.
Sungur, S., and S. Güngören. 2009. “The Role of Classroom Environment Perceptions in
Self-regulated Learning and Science Achievement.” Elementary Education Online 8 (3): 883–900.
Tas, Y., and C. Tekkaya. 2010. “Personal and Contextual Factors Associated with Students’ Cheating
in Science.” The Journal of Experimental Education 78: 440–463. doi:10.1080/
00220970903548046.
Taylor, P. C., B. J. Fraser, and D. L. Fisher. 1997. “Monitoring Constructivist Classroom Learning
Environments.” International Journal of Educational Research 27 (4): 293–302. doi:10.1016/S0883-
0355(97)90011-2.
 EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 19

Turner, J. C., A. Christensen, H. Z. Kackar-Cam, M. Trucano, and S. M. Fulmer. 2014. “Enhancing

Students’ Engagement: Report of a 3-year Intervention with Middle School Teachers.” American
Educational Research Journal 51: 1195–1226. doi:10.3102/0002831214532515.
Turner, J. C., P. K. Thorpe, and M. K. Meyer. 1998. “Students’ Reports of Motivation and Negative
Affect: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Educational Psychology 90: 758–771.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.4.758.
Wang, M. T., and R. Holcombe. 2010. “Adolescents’ Perceptions of School Environment,
Engagement, and Academic Achievement in Middle School.” American Educational Research
Journal 47 (3): 633–662. doi:10.3102/0002831209361209.
Wang, M.-T., and J. S. Eccles. 2013. “School Context, Achievement Motivation, and Academic
Engagement: A Longitudinal Study of School Engagement Using A Multidimensional
Perspective.” Learning and Instruction 28: 12–23. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.002.
Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., J. Cakiroglu, and W. J. Boone. 2006. “Turkish High School Students’ Perceptions
of Constructivist Learning Environment in Chemistry Classrooms and Their Attitudes Towards
Chemistry.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, San Francisco, USA.