View PDF VersionPrevious ArticleNext Article
 
DOI: 10.1039/D4RP00300D (Paper) Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2025, 26, 459-475

The relationship between chemistry achievement emotions and chemistry achievement: a moderated mediation model

Yurong Liu a, Haoran Sun a, Zhichao Jia a and Wujun Sun *b
aSchool of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, Henan 453007, China
bFaculty of Education, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, China

Received 8th October 2024 , Accepted 3rd December 2024

First published on 7th December 2024

Abstract

Chemistry, an introductory course of STEM courses and a critical subject in China's curriculum standards, plays a pivotal role in students' lifelong learning and development. This study explored the relationship between chemistry achievement emotions and chemistry achievement, examining the roles of chemistry self-efficacy and gender within that. The present research used the chemistry achievement emotions scale and the chemistry self-efficacy scale to assess the corresponding characteristics of 512 chemistry elective students from three senior high schools. The results showed that: (1) positive and negative emotions had significant direct effects on chemistry achievement. (2) Positive (negative) emotions positively (negatively) influenced chemistry achievement through the mediation of chemistry self-efficacy. (3) In the moderated mediation model with positive emotions as the independent variable, gender influenced the first half of the mediation pathway; however, the moderating effect of gender was not significant in the moderated mediation model with negative emotions as the independent variable. This study investigated the mechanisms by which chemistry achievement emotions affect achievement, explored the roles of self-efficacy and gender, and provided a more comprehensive insight into how emotional and psychological factors influence academic performance. This research holds important implications for designing specific interventions to improve students' emotional well-being and performance in chemistry.

Introduction

Chemistry is not only a fundamental course within the STEM curriculum but also a key subject under China's new curriculum standards. The chemistry curriculum standard of senior high school (Ministry of Education, P. R. China, 2020) emphasized that chemistry plays a crucial role in students' lifelong learning and development. It is essential for fostering students' scientific literacy and plays an irreplaceable role in preserving scientific culture and cultivating high-quality talents. Like other STEM courses, the outcome of chemistry learning is for the students to acquire academic achievement. Chemistry achievement reflects students' mastery of knowledge and skills development throughout their education in the subject and serves as an important indicator of their progress.

The students' academic achievement is influenced by the interaction between individual and societal factors (Dixson et al., 2016; Swanson et al., 2021; Hachem et al., 2022). As the impetus core of personality systems, emotions play a crucial role in students' pursuit and attainment of academic success. Achievement emotions, which are directly linked to achievement-related tasks and results, include feelings of success or failure associated with academic outcomes, as well as emotions like pleasure, pride, boredom, and anger that are associated with the learning process (Pekrun et al., 2002). Achievement emotions not only manifest specific feelings and coping responses but also motivate students' cognition and behavior (Izard, 1989, 1991). Positive achievement emotions provide additional cognitive resources, which help maintain and enhance attention and struggles, thus boosting students' learning motivation and cognitive flexibility, improving attention quality (Pekrun, 1992, 2000; Storbeck and Clore, 2007). Negative achievement emotions may lead to the dispersion of cognitive resources and increase individuals' reliance on external guidance (Meinhardt and Pekrun, 2003; Pekrun et al., 2007).

Until now, studies about achievement emotions have largely focused on subjects such as mathematics and German (Westphal et al., 2018; Putwain et al., 2022; Tze et al., 2023; Sakaki et al., 2024). In the field of chemistry education, there have been only a few studies exploring achievement emotions and their correlation with chemistry achievement (Gibbons et al., 2018; Raker et al., 2019; Brown and Nedungadi, 2024). Research on the specific mechanisms and pathways through which achievement emotions affect chemistry achievement remains insufficient. Therefore, exploring the mechanisms of achievement emotions on chemistry achievement, particularly the mediating role of cognitive factors across genders, can provide a deeper understanding of the relationship between student achievement emotions and academic achievement. This understanding can also inform chemistry educational practices, helping chemistry teachers and educators to develop more effective teaching strategies and emotional regulation methods.

Chemistry achievement emotions and chemistry achievement

The contextual nature of emotions underscores the importance of distinguishing between general and situation-specific emotions in studies of specific learning domains. Research by Gumora and Arsenio (2002) has shown that while some students may have an overall positive emotional disposition, they still experience negative emotions during the learning process that do not stem solely from the underlying cognitive impairment. Consequently, general achievement emotions and those specific to a particular subject may differ (Westphal et al., 2018). Current research indicates that the emotions and psychological responses students experience while learning a specific subject directly impact their academic performance, rather than their general achievement emotions or those related to other subjects. For instance, Shao et al. (2020) found that positive emotions in foreign language (English) learning (such as enjoyment, hope, and pride) positively correlate with academic performance, while negative emotions like anger, anxiety, shame, despair, and boredom negatively affect academic performance. Westphal et al. (2018) have observed that subject-related enjoyment positively influences academic achievement in German and mathematics, while emotions like anxiety and boredom have a negative impact. Therefore, examining the role and mechanisms of chemistry achievement emotions in the context of chemistry achievement is both necessary and crucial.

Chemistry achievement emotions are triggered by activities and outcomes related to all emotions experienced during chemistry classes, daily homework, and examinations. According to the control value theory, achievement emotions impact cognitive, motivational, and regulatory processes, which in turn affect learning and achievement (Pekrun, 2006). The various types of chemistry achievement emotions experienced by students can initiate specific patterns of thinking and problem-solving, and influence students' motivation related to achievement, learning strategies, and the development of self-concept and identity both within and outside the achievement domain (Pekrun, 2000). These emotions might also divert cognitive resources away from task execution, thereby impacting task performance, and consequently affecting academic achievement (Meinhardt and Pekrun, 2003). Gibbons' et al. (2018) research initially confirmed this by testing a bidirectional causality model in an organic chemistry course, exploring the mutual influences between academic emotions (enjoyment and anxiety) and performance. Their findings revealed a slight but statistically significant negative correlation between anxiety and performance, while enjoyment demonstrated a positive correlation with performance. Brown and Nedungadi (2024) investigated students' emotions in general chemistry, organic chemistry, and biochemistry courses, finding that positive activating emotions are significantly positively correlated with final grades, while negative activation and deactivation emotions are significantly negatively correlated with final grades.

While these studies provide valuable insights into the potential impacts of achievement emotions on academic achievement, they are primarily focused on university students. Moreover, these studies have been conducted predominantly within Western cultural contexts, lacking research in Chinese or other Eastern cultural settings. The variability in learning stages and cultural contexts may influence the patterns of correlation between emotions and academic achievement. Additionally, although existing research has revealed correlations between achievement emotions and academic achievement, it has not delved into the underlying causal mechanisms. Understanding these mechanisms can not only aid in accurately interpreting data but also in guiding practical teaching strategies and emotional interventions, thus more effectively supporting students' academic achievement.

The potential mediating role of chemistry self-efficacy

Self-efficacy involves an individual's confidence in their ability to successfully complete tasks in specific situations, which influences their choice of behaviour, effort level, and persistence (Bandura, 1977). This should be assessed with optimal specificity for particular domains and tasks. Students' self-efficacy beliefs differ across various subjects, such as physics, chemistry, earth science, and biology. Chemistry self-efficacy pertains to one's belief in their ability to complete specific chemistry tasks or solve chemistry problems (Kahveci and Orgill, 2015). According to social cognitive theory, an individual's self-efficacy expectations are primarily shaped by four factors: enactive attainment (direct experience), vicarious experiences (indirect experience), verbal persuasion, and physiological state (Bandura, 1986). Emotional states, in particular, can directly influence how individuals assess their ability to handle stress and challenges. Positive emotions boost learners' cognitive flexibility, thereby enhancing their judgment of learning behaviours and academic performance (Bandura, 2000). In contrast, negative emotions can diminish an individual's assessment of their learning capabilities. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions suggests that positive emotions can broaden one's thinking and actions, thereby facilitating the building of lasting personal resources, such as physical, intellectual, social, and psychological resources (Fredrickson, 2001, 2004). A model based on Fredrickson's theory, developed by Oriol-Granado et al. (2017), has shown that positive emotions have a significant positive predictive effect on self-efficacy.

Furthermore, it is important to note that self-efficacy not only facilitates the successful completion of tasks of various natures but also provides additional resources for achieving good academic performance (Greene et al., 2004; Hsieh et al., 2007; Hwang et al., 2016; Verešová et al., 2017). An individual's perceived self-efficacy affects the choice of tasks, task execution levels, effort expended on tasks, and persistence during task execution (Bandura, 1977). Individuals who believe in their ability to complete a task are more likely to persist longer, choose more challenging tasks, and achieve superior outcomes compared to those who doubt their capabilities (Bandura, 1997). Numerous empirical studies have confirmed that self-efficacy is a significant predictor of academic achievement. For instance, Schunk's (1989) research found that self-efficacy predicts students' learning motivation and performance. Students possessing high self-efficacy are more likely to secure better academic outcomes. An analysis of Canadian PISA data by Areepattamannil et al. (2011) revealed that science self-efficacy had the strongest predictive effect on scientific achievement. Merchant et al. (2012) investigated the impact of a 3D desktop virtual reality environment on learning the valence shell electron pair repulsion (VSEPR) theory, identifying a positive correlation between students' self-efficacy and multiple-choice test scores. Moreover, studies by Palestro and Jameson (2020) and Jameson et al. (2022) examined the mediating roles of math self-efficacy in the relationship between math anxiety and math performance among college students. The results consistently indicated that math self-efficacy exerted an indirect effect on this relationship. Thus, the relationships among chemistry achievement emotions, chemistry achievement, and chemistry self-efficacy are intricately interconnected. The formation of self-efficacy is influenced by emotions, and the level of individual self-efficacy, in turn, affects their academic achievement.

The potential moderating role of gender

Despite global efforts to close the gender gap in education, disparities persist within the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Hardin and Longhurst, 2016; Wang and Degol, 2017). In school science classes, girls tend to have lower participation rates than boys (Gorard, 2012), and are less inclined to pursue further studies or careers in science (Miller et al., 2006; Sahin et al., 2015; Schmader, 2023), which indicates that girls exhibit more negative attitudes toward science compared to boys (Jones et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2014).

The impact of emotions on self-efficacy can also vary between genders. From the perspective of self-objectification driven by socio-cultural factors, women often view themselves as objects of others' observations. This self-objectification may make females more likely to associate emotional events with self-concept or self-evaluation (Fredrickson et al., 1998). In terms of emotional processing, women show greater sensitivity to emotional expressions in interpersonal communication. This sensitivity is apparent not only in the early stages of motivation significance monitoring but also in the late stages of cognitive evaluation processing (Chen et al., 2018). This high sensitivity to emotional information may lead women to more readily connect emotional events with self-evaluation. Gender differences in emotional processing are also evident in emotional regulation, where women typically use emotion-centered strategies, while men use cognition-centered strategies (Yuan et al., 2010). Therefore, the fluctuations in achievement emotions might have a more significant impact on women's chemistry self-efficacy compared to men.

Research questions and hypotheses

This study aimed to investigate the relationships among chemistry achievement emotions, chemistry self-efficacy, and chemistry achievement, as well as to examine the moderating role of gender in these relationships. Accordingly, the study addressed the following research questions:

(1) What relationships exist between students' chemistry achievement emotions (both positive and negative) and their chemistry achievement within a chemistry learning context?

(2) Does chemistry self-efficacy mediate the relationship between chemistry achievement emotions and chemistry achievement?

(3) Does gender moderate the pathway through which chemistry achievement emotions influence chemistry achievement via chemistry self-efficacy?

To address these research questions, we elucidated the concepts related to achievement emotions, self-efficacy, and academic achievement through a literature review and presented the relationship between these variables. Based on these theoretical foundations and empirical findings, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Positive emotions in students’ chemistry achievement emotions positively influence chemistry achievement.

Hypothesis 2: Negative emotions in students’ chemistry achievement emotions negatively influence chemistry achievement.

Hypothesis 3: Chemistry self-efficacy mediates the relationship between positive emotions and chemistry achievement, where positive emotions enhance chemistry achievement by improving chemistry self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 4: Chemistry self-efficacy mediates the relationship between negative emotions and chemistry achievement, where negative emotions diminish chemistry achievement by reducing chemistry self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 5: In the moderated mediation model of positive emotion, gender moderates the first half of the mediation pathway (as shown in Fig. 1).


image file: d4rp00300d-f1.tif
Fig. 1 (a) Moderated mediation model of positive emotion; (b) moderated mediation model of negative emotion.

Hypothesis 6: In the moderated mediation model of negative emotion, gender moderates the first half of the mediation pathway (as shown in Fig. 1).

Methods

Participants

The issuance of the “Opinions on Deepening the Reform of the Examination and Enrollment System” (General Office of the State Council, PRC) marked the beginning of a new round of reforms to China's college entrance examination system in September 2014. In June 2022, Henan Province officially announced its comprehensive reform implementation plan for the college entrance examination, indicating that it would commence with freshmen entering ordinary high schools in the fall of that year (People's Government of Henan Province). The high school academic examination was integrated into the university admission evaluation system, adopting a combination of “3 core college entrance examination subjects (Chinese, Mathematics, Foreign Language) + 1 preferred high school elective subject + 2 additional high school elective subjects,” Chemistry being one of the additional electives. Under this examination model, students must handle the mandatory subjects and select high school electives based on their personal interests and career plans, allowing them to study in depth and participate in relevant examinations. This study focuses on 10th-grade students in their second semester, who have just made their elective choices for the college entrance exam and been regrouped according to their selected subjects. The interests and career plans of students can influence their learning motivation and also affect how achievement emotions impact academic performance (Pekrun, 2017; Samosir et al., 2020; Herpratiwi and Tohir, 2022). Furthermore, the first year of high school serves as the starting point in this educational phase. The academic performance and emotional states of students in this grade can offer baseline data for subsequent academic achievements and emotional development in higher grades. Early interventions and support at this stage could have a long-lasting positive impact on students’ entire high school careers.

Therefore, this study focused on students who selected chemistry as an elective in their first year of high school from two key high schools and one ordinary high school in Henan Province, as the participants of the survey. These schools were chosen based on geographical accessibility and the feasibility of data collection, with consideration that their student populations represent a range of backgrounds within the region. Following the selection of the schools, we randomly selected four classes from each high school, resulting in a total of 12 classes and 691 students (55.71% male; 44.28% female). It is important to note that the random selection was conducted at the class level rather than the individual student level, ensuring diversity across classes while maintaining practical feasibility in sampling. The participants were 10th graders in their second semester, who had just made their elective choices for the high school examination, selecting chemistry as their additional high school elective subject. A total of 691 questionnaires were returned during the data collection process. To ensure the validity of the data, the following exclusion criteria were applied: (1) questionnaires with more than one-third of the items missing were deemed invalid; (2) responses exhibiting obvious contradictions or inconsistencies (e.g., conflicting answers on the same topic) were excluded; (3) questionnaires with a high number of random or nonsensical selections (e.g., repeated choices of the same answer) were judged to be invalid (Sjöström et al., 1999). After excluding invalid questionnaires, a total of 512 valid questionnaires were obtained, yielding a validity rate of 74.10%.

Survey administration

Data collection was conducted over a one-week period in March 2024 across three different schools. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Academic Ethics Committee of Henan Normal University and other relevant institutional bodies, with informed consent secured from the parents of all student participants. Prior to the commencement of the survey, all participants were informed about the research objectives and the intended use of the collected data. All personal information was handled with confidentiality according to related state and provincial laws and regulations. No extra rewards were given to students for voluntarily participating in the study.

Instruments

Well-established measurement tools in their respective disciplines have previously been utilized in large-scale studies (Liang, 2002; Frenzel et al., 2007). The existing scales are all in Chinese, which aligns with our study's focus on Chinese students. Additionally, data for this study were collected using paper-based questionnaires. After collection, the researcher entered data from the valid questionnaires into SPSS to facilitate subsequent statistical analysis.
Chemistry achievement emotions. The Chinese version of the mathematics achievement emotions scale developed by Frenzel et al. (2007) was utilized in this study. This version was translated from German into Chinese by a collaborative team that included several German scholars and two Chinese scholars. Subsequent validation confirmed a high degree of measurement invariance between the German and Chinese versions, thereby affirming the questionnaire's validity and applicability for cross-cultural research. The questionnaire comprises 37 items distributed across five dimensions: enjoyment, pride, anxiety, anger, and shame. Positive emotions include enjoyment and pride, while negative emotions include anxiety, anger, and shame. Given the similar definitions of achievement emotions in mathematics and chemistry learning, and considering that all participants had completed at least three semesters of chemistry courses, thereby equipping them with relevant learning experiences, adjustments were made to the questionnaire to better reflect the chemistry learning context. For instance, within the “enjoyment” dimension, the item “I look forward to math class” was modified to “I look forward to chemistry class” to assess students' positive emotions toward chemistry. Similarly, within the “anger” dimension, the item “I am mad after a math test” was changed to “I am mad after a chemistry test” to evaluate students' negative emotional experiences specific to chemistry learning. It employs a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”), with higher scores indicating a greater intensity of the respective emotions in the context of academic chemistry.
Chemistry self-efficacy. The academic self-efficacy scale developed by Liang (2002) was utilized in this study, focusing on the “Learning Ability-Self-Efficacy” dimension, which comprises 11 items. A 5-point Likert scale was employed, ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”), with higher scores indicating a greater belief in one's ability to successfully complete chemistry studies and achieve good grades. Given that the original scale was not subject-specific, modifications were implemented, including changing “I believe I can achieve good academic results” to “I believe I can achieve good results in chemistry studies.”
Chemistry achievement. The study utilized students' most recent chemistry exam scores, conducted in March 2024, as a measure of academic achievement in chemistry. The exam papers were uniformly designed by the X City Education Bureau to effectively assess and differentiate students' abilities and levels. The chemistry achievement assessment utilized in this study was a standardized examination designed to effectively evaluate and differentiate students’ proficiency levels in chemistry. The examination comprised multiple-choice, fill-in-the-blank, and open-ended questions, totaling 18 items. The maximum attainable score was 100, the minimum was 0, and students were allocated 70 minutes to complete the test. With an overall difficulty index of 0.58, the examination was structured to accurately distinguish students’ chemistry abilities across various proficiency levels. A score of 100 indicated complete mastery of the content, whereas lower scores reflected greater knowledge gaps. A double grading system was employed during the scoring process, wherein each exam was independently graded by two teachers. If the scores assigned by the two teachers fell within an acceptable margin of error, their average was recorded as the final score. However, if the discrepancy exceeded the predetermined margin, a third teacher evaluated the exam, and the final score was determined by averaging the two closest scores within the acceptable range. In the rare instances where all three scores surpassed the error margin, the exam was reviewed by a senior teacher from the grading team for final arbitration, thereby ensuring high accuracy in scoring. Thus, the data possess a certain degree of reliability and referential value.

Statistical analysis

In this study, preliminary statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS (version 27.0) to calculate descriptive statistics, including means, skewness, kurtosis, and correlation coefficients, in order to initially examine data distribution characteristics and inter-variable relationships. According to Curran et al. (1996), data can be regarded as approximately normally distributed if the absolute value of skewness is less than 2 and the absolute value of kurtosis is less than 7. To validate the chemistry achievement emotions scale and the chemistry self-efficacy scale, this study conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using Mplus (version 8.3) for all model fitting procedures. As both scales employ a 5-point Likert response format, the data can be treated as continuous and meets the assumptions of normality. Consequently, maximum likelihood (ML) estimation was used for parameter estimation. Model fit was assessed using multiple indices, including the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Following Hu and Bentler's (1999) criteria, TLI values ≥0.9, RMSEA ≤ 0.08, and SRMR ≤ 0.08 were considered indicative of good model fit. The chemistry self-efficacy scale has only one factor, so only a one-factor CFA was conducted to validate it. For the chemistry achievement emotions scale, since it contains five factors: pleasure, pride, anxiety, anger, and shame, CFA of the five-factor model was conducted in this study to validate its structural validity. After verifying that the five-factor model had good structural validity, a one-factor CFA was further conducted. The results of the fit test of the one-factor model met the criterion of unidimensionality, suggesting that the chemistry achievement emotions scale has a unidimensional structure within each factor, which lays the foundation for the subsequent reliability test (Green and Yang, 2015; Vaughan et al., 2025).

In the reliability assessment, although Cronbach's alpha coefficient is widely used in psychometrics, its reliance on strict assumptions can lead to underestimations of reliability (Peters, 2018). Conversely, McDonald's omega requires fewer assumptions, making it better suited for complex psychometric structures and modern data types, and is considered a more robust reliability estimation method (McNeish, 2018). Therefore, this study used McDonald's omega, instead of Cronbach's alpha, calculating the McDonald's omega coefficient using the R statistical program (version 4.3.3) and its coefficientalpha package (version 0.7.2). The omega coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, with values approaching 1, indicate that scale items consistently reflect the target construct (McDonald, 1999). Typically, an omega coefficient above 0.7 is regarded as an acceptable reliability level.

Before testing the hypothesized model, Harman's single-factor test was conducted using SPSS (version 27.0) to confirm that measurement bias in the data would not significantly affect model estimation and interpretation (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Subsequently, structural equation modeling was employed to examine the hypothesized relationships among chemistry achievement emotions, chemistry self-efficacy, and chemistry achievement, as well as to explore the moderating role of gender within these relationships. Mediation refers to the process by which an independent variable influences a dependent variable through an intermediary variable, whereas moderation pertains to a variable that affects the strength or direction of the relationship between two other variables. With advancements in statistical methods and empirical research, scholars have increasingly investigated the combined effects of mediation and moderation, leading to moderated mediation (Preacher et al., 2007). A moderated mediation model incorporates mediating and moderating variables, indicating that the independent variable impacts the dependent variable through a mediating variable, while the mediation pathway is further influenced by a moderating variable (Edwards and Lambert, 2007).

The analysis was conducted using Mplus (version 8.3), with parameter estimation performed via the maximum likelihood estimator. Achievement emotions, comprising positive and negative emotions, were modeled as latent variables. Positive emotions were represented by two indicators: enjoyment and pride, while negative emotions were represented by three indicators: anxiety, anger, and shame. The mediator, chemistry self-efficacy, and the outcome variable, chemistry achievement, were treated as observed variables. Additionally, the mean scores of each variable were utilized in the correlation and structural equation model analyses (Ren et al., 2022; Huangfu et al., 2023). The fit indices for the structural equation model were consistent with those of the confirmatory factor analysis. To ensure the robustness of the model, the factor loadings of each observed indicator on its respective latent variable must exceed 0.4. Additionally, the significance of these loadings should be assessed using p-values. If the factor loadings are statistically significant, these indicators strongly represent their corresponding latent constructs (Rogers and Schmitt, 2004). To examine the mediating effect of chemistry self-efficacy in the relationship between positive achievement emotions and chemistry achievement, we employed the bias-corrected bootstrap method. Following Hayes' (2017) mediation effect testing procedure, the bias-corrected percentile bootstrap method was utilized with 5000 random samples to test latent variable mediation effects, yielding standard errors of parameter estimates and 95% confidence intervals. Specifically, each indicator of the latent independent variable (positive/negative emotions) was multiplied by the moderating variable (gender) to generate interaction terms, which were then included in the SEM model to assess the moderated mediation effect. Prior to generating the interaction terms, all continuous variables were mean centered to reduce potential multicollinearity. If the interaction term was significant at p < 0.05, it indicated a significant moderating effect.

Suitability for measurement scales

Chemistry achievement emotions. To assess the structural validity of the chemistry achievement emotions scale, a five-factor model was employed, and confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. In the initial CFA, five items exhibited factor loadings below 0.40, leading to their removal. Following the deletion, a second round of CFA was performed on the remaining 32 items, resulting in a well-fitting model. All retained items had factor loadings exceeding 0.40 (see Table 6), and the model fit indices met the established criteria (see Table 1). To further verify the unidimensionality of each factor, separate single-factor CFA tests were conducted for the five factors: enjoyment, pride, anxiety, anger, and shame. In these single-factor CFAs, all items demonstrated factor loadings above 0.40 (see Table 7), and the model fit results for each factor met acceptable standards (see Table 1). These results indicate that each factor possesses a unidimensional structure, thereby providing a foundation for subsequent reliability testing. McDonald's omega reliability coefficients ranged from 0.722 to 0.905, indicating good to excellent internal consistency for each dimension of the chemistry achievement emotions scale. These reliability coefficients confirm that the items within each single dimension exhibit high internal consistency. Overall, the factor structure and reliability results support the data collected in this study, enabling the reporting of scores for enjoyment, pride, anxiety, anger, and shame.
Table 1 Data-model fit statistics and omega values for the measurement scales (n = 512)
χ 2 (df) p-Value CFI TLI RMSEA [90% CI] SRMR Omega
Note: italicized values indicate that they meet the model fit criteria (CFI & TLI ≥ 0.90, RMSEA ≤ 0.08, SRMR ≤ 0.10 and omega ≥ 0.70).
Complete model
Chemistry self-efficacy 125.085(34) <0.001 0.961 0.949 0.072 [0.059–0.086] 0.031 0.909 [0.893–0.925]
Emotions five-factor 1138.970(417) <0.001 0.921 0.906 0.058 [0.054–0.062] 0.070 —
Individual factor of the chemistry achievement emotions
Enjoy 65.405(19) <0.001 0.979 0.969 0.069 [0.051–0.088] 0.027 0.905 [0.888–0.922]
Pride 12.506(5) 0.0285 0.993 0.985 0.054 [0.016–0.093] 0.018 0.886 [0.864–0.908]
Anxiety 3.730(2) 0.1549 0.995 0.985 0.041 [0.000–0.106] 0.015 0.722 [0.680–0.765]
Anger 103.433(19) <0.001 0.958 0.938 0.093 [0.076–0.111] 0.035 0.903 [0.884–0.923]
Shame 35.872(13) <0.001 0.981 0.970 0.059 [0.036–0.082] 0.025 0.843 [0.817–0.870]

Chemistry self-efficacy. To evaluate the structural validity of the chemistry self-efficacy scale, a preliminary confirmatory factor analysis was first conducted. In the first round of CFA, one item demonstrated a factor loading below 0.40 and was subsequently removed. After deletion, a second CFA was performed based on the remaining 10 items, resulting in a well-fitting model. All items had factor loadings exceeding 0.40 (see Table 8), and the model fit indices met the established criteria (see Table 1), indicating high structural validity of the scale. Upon confirming the validity of the scale's factor structure, McDonald's omega reliability analysis was further conducted to assess internal consistency. The analysis revealed that the chemistry self-efficacy scale had a McDonald's omega coefficient of 0.909, indicating high internal consistency and good reliability.

Results

Before testing the hypothesized models, Harman's one-way test was used to check for common method bias for all items of the two scales. The results showed that there were six factors with eigenvalues greater than one, and the first factor accounted for 32.13% of the variance, which is below the critical threshold of 40% (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Consequently, this study exhibited a low degree of common method bias.

Descriptive statistics and correlational analysis

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables are presented in Table 2. The results showed that the skewness of the variables ranged from −0.471 to 0.980 and the kurtosis ranged from 0.058 to 1.663, which are within the acceptable range of normal distribution (Curran et al., 1996). The results demonstrated correlations both within and between structures, with the size and direction of the correlation coefficients meeting expectations. Specifically, achievement emotions of enjoyment and pride positively correlate with chemistry self-efficacy and academic achievement, whereas achievement emotions of anxiety, anger, and shame negatively correlate. Additionally, gender positively correlates with enjoyment, pride, chemistry self-efficacy, and academic achievement, while it negatively correlates with emotions of anxiety, anger, and shame.
Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for all variables (n = 512)
Variables M SD Skewness Kurtosis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Note: *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
1. Gender — — — — 1
2. Enjoyment 3.49 0.73 −0.471 1.096 0.102* 1
3. Pride 3.39 0.72 −0.225 0.904 0.065 0.0765** 1
4. Anxiety 2.62 0.76 0.211 0.058 −0.184** −0.472** −0.301*** 1
5. Anger 2.11 0.76 0.980 1.663 −0.135** −0.622*** −0.368*** 0.621** 1
6. Shame 2.37 0.73 0.476 0.633 −0.235*** −0.228*** −0.105* 0.535*** 0.512*** 1
7. Chemistry self-efficacy 3.16 0.64 −0.279 1.147 0.209*** 0.600*** 0.509*** −0.389*** −0.400*** −0.325*** 1
8. Chemistry achievement 68.70 15.77 — — 0.192*** 0.250*** 0.190*** −0.182*** −0.193*** −0.145** 0.283*** 1

The moderated mediating effects analyses

Positive and negative emotions were defined as latent variables. Enjoyment and pride were designated as observed variables for positive emotions, while anxiety, anger, and shame were set as observed variables for negative emotions. Using positive and negative emotions as predictor variables, chemistry self-efficacy as the mediating variable, chemistry achievement as the outcome variable, and gender as the moderating variable, a structural equation model was constructed. As indicated in Table 3, each indicator demonstrated significant standardized loadings on their respective factors (ps < 0.001). The model fit for positive emotions was good (χ2/df = 2.360, CFI = 0.988, TLI = 0.977, RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR = 0.040); similarly, the fit for negative emotions was also favourable (χ2/df = 3.315, CFI = 0.950, TLI = 0.926, RMSEA = 0.067, SRMR = 0.062).
Table 3 Measurement model: latent variable factor load
Variables Unstandardized factor loadings Standard error t-Value Standardized factor loadings
Note: *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
Positive emotions Enjoyment 1.00 0.00 999.00 0.941***
Pride 0.86 0.05 19.04 0.813***
Negative emotions Anxiety 1 0 999 0.804***
Anger 0.972 0.071 13.632 0.781***
Shame 0.812 0.104 7.799 0.653***

Firstly, the results indicated that positive emotions significantly enhance chemistry achievement (β = 0.265, p < 0.001), thus confirming Hypothesis 1, and substantially influence chemistry self-efficacy (β = 0.682, p < 0.001). Subsequently, the bootstrap method was employed to test the mediating effect of chemistry self-efficacy. According to Hayes (2015), a mediation effect was deemed significant if the 95% confidence interval for all paths excludes zero; this study satisfied these conditions for significant mediation effects, as demonstrated in Table 4. When chemistry self-efficacy acts as a mediator, it positively predicted chemistry achievement (β = 0.200, p = 0.001), and the direct effect of positive emotions on chemistry achievement was significantly reduced (β = 0.129, p = 0.028). Bootstrap results revealed that the indirect effect of positive emotions on chemistry achievement through chemistry self-efficacy was significant (β = 0.136, 95% CI = [0.055, 0.217]), validating the mediation model of positive emotions and supporting Hypothesis 3.

Table 4 The results of the mediation analyses
Model Effect Path Effect size SE Bootstrap 95% CI
LL UL
Note: SE = standard error, 95% CI = 95% confidence interval, LL = lower level, UL = upper level; this table shows the results of the mediating effect of positive and negative emotions on chemistry achievement through chemistry self-efficacy and does not include gender moderating variables.
Moderated mediation model of positive emotion Direct effect Positive emotions → chemistry achievement 0.129 0.059 0.013 0.245
Indirect effect Positive emotions → chemistry self-efficacy → chemistry achievement 0.136 0.041 0.055 0.217
Total — 0.265 0.072 0.124 0.406
Moderated mediation model of negative emotion Direct effect Negative emotions → chemistry achievement −0.119 0.058 −0.233 −0.005
Indirect effect Negative emotions → chemistry self-efficacy → chemistry achievement −0.109 0.028 −0.163 −0.054
Total — −0.228 0.064 −0.353 −0.101

Negative emotions had a significant negative effect on chemistry achievement (β = −0.228, p < 0.001), confirming Hypothesis 2, and they also negatively impacted chemistry self-efficacy (β = −0.487, p < 0.001). Then, we employed the bootstrap method to assess the mediating effect of chemistry self-efficacy. This study satisfied the conditions for significant mediation effects, as demonstrated in Table 4. When acting as a mediator, chemistry self-efficacy positively influenced chemistry achievement (β = 0.223, p < 0.001), while the direct effect of negative emotions on chemistry achievement was significantly diminished (β = −0.119, p = 0.042). Bootstrap results showed that the indirect effect of negative emotions on chemistry achievement through chemistry self-efficacy was significant (β = −0.109, 95% CI = [−0.163, −0.054]), indicating that the mediation model for negative emotions was valid, supporting Hypothesis 4.

To further explore the moderating role of gender in the mediation effect model, the product indicator method was utilized to test the moderation effect, and simple slope analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between chemistry achievement emotions and chemistry self-efficacy among students of different genders. The results from the moderation effect test in the positive emotion model revealed that gender significantly impacted chemistry self-efficacy positively (β = 0.145, p < 0.001), and the interaction between positive emotions and gender also significantly influenced chemistry self-efficacy (β = −0.168, p = 0.001), indicating that gender moderated the pathway between positive emotions and chemistry self-efficacy in the mediation model. As shown in Table 5, the indirect effects mediated by chemistry self-efficacy were significant for both the male group (indirect effect = 0.103, 95% CI = [0.037, 0.169]) and the female group (indirect effect = 0.170, 95% CI = [0.068, 0.272]), with notable differences between the groups.

Table 5 The moderated effects of gender
Path Indirect effect Bootstrap 95% CI
Male Female Male Female
Note: SE = standard error, 95% CI = 95% confidence interval, LL = lower level, UL = upper level.
Positive emotions × gender → chemistry self-efficacy → chemistry achievement 0.103 0.170 [0.037, 0.169] [0.068, 0.272]
Negative emotions × gender → chemistry self-efficacy → chemistry achievement −0.095 −0.122 [−0.152, −0.038] [−0.188, −0.056]

The results of the moderation effect test in the negative emotion model indicated that gender had a significant negative impact on chemistry self-efficacy (β = −0.487, p < 0.001), while the interaction term between negative emotions and gender did not significantly affect chemistry self-efficacy (β = 0.061, p = 0.333), indicating that gender did not moderate the pathway between negative emotions and chemistry self-efficacy in the mediation model. As demonstrated in Table 5, the indirect effects mediated by chemistry self-efficacy were significant for both the male and female groups (indirect effect for males = −0.095, 95% CI = [−0.152, −0.038]; for females = −0.122, 95% CI = [−0.188, −0.056]), yet the differences between the groups were not significant.

The simple slope analysis results for the positive emotion model (as shown in Fig. 2) demonstrated that chemistry self-efficacy among students of different genders increased with the enhancement of positive emotions. The difference in chemistry self-efficacy between male and female students was mainly evident under conditions of low positive emotions. Under these circumstances, male students exhibited significantly higher levels of chemistry self-efficacy compared to female students. However, the difference was smaller under conditions of high positive emotions, with female students' chemistry self-efficacy being only slightly higher than that of males. Additionally, variations in the intensity of positive emotions had a more substantial effect on academic self-efficacy among female students than among male students. The simple slope analysis results for the negative emotion model (as shown in Fig. 3) indicated that chemistry self-efficacy among students of different genders decreased as negative emotions intensified, and regardless of the intensity of negative emotions, male students' self-efficacy levels were higher than those of female students.


image file: d4rp00300d-f2.tif
Fig. 2 Simple slope diagram of the relationship between positive emotions and chemistry self-efficacy mediated by gender.

image file: d4rp00300d-f3.tif
Fig. 3 Simple slope diagram of the relationship between negative emotions and chemistry self-efficacy mediated by gender.

Discussion

The relationship between chemistry achievement emotions and chemistry achievement

The study revealed a significant positive correlation between chemistry achievement and positive achievement emotions among first-year chemistry elective students, as well as a significant negative correlation with negative emotions. These results are consistent with previous studies across various disciplinary contexts (Gumora and Arsenio, 2002; Pekrun et al., 2017; Gibbons et al., 2018; Putwain et al., 2022), indicating that the greater the positive achievement emotions students experience during their learning process, and the fewer negative emotions, the higher their academic achievement.

Firstly, positive emotions enhance students' intrinsic motivation, making them more proactive in facing learning tasks, enhancing learning efficiency, and strengthening perseverance and engagement in learning tasks, leading to improved performance in exams and other academic evaluations (Pekrun, 2000). Additionally, positive emotions provide extra cognitive resources, helping to enhance cognitive flexibility and attention, enabling students to apply learned knowledge more effectively and to innovate when solving complex problems (Pekrun et al., 2007). In contrast, negative academic emotions can lead to a dispersion of cognitive resources, making it difficult for students to concentrate on learning content, potentially increasing psychological stress and avoidance behaviours, thus affecting learning outcomes (Meinhardt and Pekrun, 2003). Furthermore, emotions influence students' learning strategies, self-regulation, and external regulation of problem-solving. Positive emotional states tend to promote holistic, flexible, and creative problem-solving approaches, while negative emotional states can promote stricter and more analytical thinking (Lewis et al., 2008, pp. 548–573). Self-regulation of behaviour involves the flexible application of metacognitive, met-motivational, and meta-emotional strategies, aiding behaviour adaptation to goals and environmental demands. Positive emotions can enhance self-regulation abilities, whereas negative emotions increase reliance on external guidance (Pekrun et al., 2011). The control-value theory posits that the impact of emotions on achievement is a joint product of these four mechanisms and their interaction with task demands. Generally, positive academic emotions have a positive overall effect on students' chemistry achievement (Pekrun et al., 2007).

The mediating role of chemistry self-efficacy

The study found that in the positive emotion model, positive emotions have a significant positive impact on chemistry self-efficacy, and chemistry self-efficacy significantly positively affects chemistry achievement. In the negative emotion model, negative emotions negatively impacted chemistry achievement, while chemistry self-efficacy continued to positively influence chemistry achievement. The mediating effects in both the positive and negative emotion models were significant, thus confirming Hypotheses 3 and 4. These findings are consistent with earlier research results, which have shown that positive emotions (such as happiness and hope) are associated with high self-efficacy, which in turn is associated with high academic performance and achievement, whereas negative emotions (such as anxiety) produce the opposite effect (Thelwell et al., 2007; Villavicencio and Bernardo, 2016; Gong and Bergey, 2020; Liu et al., 2024). Moreover, these findings support the mediation model of self-efficacy proposed by Oriol-Granado et al. (2017).

The social learning theory suggests that an individual's emotional state influences the formation of self-efficacy, with positive emotions enhancing behavioural accomplishments through increased cognitive flexibility and reduced perceived barriers (Bandura, 2000). When students experience positive emotions such as enjoyment and pride during their chemistry studies, they may experience positive cognitive effects, including improved attention focus, enhanced information processing ability, and memory, thereby boosting their confidence in succeeding in the subject. Isen's (2002) mood congruence theory posits that when learners are in a positive academic emotional state, they tend to have a higher evaluation of their learning behaviours and abilities to achieve academic outcomes; conversely, when individuals experience negative academic emotions, they lack confidence in their learning capabilities.

The results of the mediation effect test demonstrated the importance of chemistry self-efficacy, with over 47% of the influence of chemistry achievement emotions on chemistry achievement mediated through chemistry self-efficacy. This result suggests that adverse effects of chemistry achievement emotions on academic achievement can be mitigated by altering any element within the mediation pathway. Previous research has shown that self-efficacy can promote students' use of various metacognitive strategies and resources (Komarraju and Nadler, 2013), and help them employ more effective self-regulation and coping strategies when faced with challenges (Gebauer et al., 2020; Blackmore et al., 2021). Additionally, students with higher self-efficacy have been shown to pursue more challenging science-related activities (Britner and Pajares, 2006; Nurhasnah et al., 2022) and ultimately achieve higher levels in science classes (Wang et al., 2020; Burns et al., 2021).

The moderating role of gender

An important fruit of our study is that gender moderates the relationship between positive emotions and chemistry self-efficacy, supporting Hypothesis 5; however, the moderating effect of negative emotions on chemistry self-efficacy is not significant, thus not supporting Hypothesis 6. Under conditions of low positive emotions, male students' chemistry self-efficacy was significantly higher than that of female students, whereas under high positive emotions, the difference was minimal, with female students' chemistry self-efficacy being only slightly higher than that of males; moreover, regardless of the intensity of negative emotions, males consistently exhibited higher self-efficacy than females. Overall, except for the slightly higher chemistry self-efficacy observed in females under conditions of high positive emotion, males generally demonstrated higher chemistry self-efficacy in other circumstances. This may be attributed to the socialization process, in which women are often led to perceive themselves as less capable than men in science, technology, and engineering (Correll, 2001), and over time, societal gender roles increasingly influence girls' educational trajectories in science subjects (Carlone et al., 2015). Similarly, numerous studies have demonstrated gender differences in self-efficacy. Chan's (2022) research on gender differences in STEM among Chinese middle school students revealed that girls exhibit significantly lower self-efficacy in STEM than boys, contributing to self-doubt and lower performance expectations in STEM-related tasks, which in turn affects their interest and career aspirations in STEM fields. Nielsen et al. (2018) assessed students' academic self-efficacy and reported significant differences in self-efficacy between male and female students, with males generally reporting higher self-efficacy. Chen's et al. (2023) analysis of the process of self-efficacy formation in engineering students showed that male students reported more events that enhance self-efficacy, while females described more events that decrease self-efficacy, and female students reported fewer positive emotions when engaging in engineering-related activities.

In addition, positive emotions exert a more significant impact on female students' chemistry self-efficacy, possibly because societal and cultural influences cause girls to view themselves from others' perspectives more often. This tendency makes girls more likely to closely link their emotions with self-evaluation, thereby exerting a greater influence on their chemistry self-efficacy (Fredrickson et al., 1998). Due to girls' high sensitivity to emotional fluctuations, their chemistry self-efficacy is subject to greater enhancement or reduction with changes in positive emotions (Chen et al., 2018). Furthermore, girls typically regulate their emotions through emotion-centered strategies, whereas boys tend to use cognition-centered strategies (Yuan et al., 2010). This difference is also reflected in the formation of self-efficacy, where boys' self-efficacy relies more on mastery experiences, and girls are more influenced by vicarious experiences and physiological/emotional states (Webb-Williams, 2018). Therefore, boys' chemistry self-efficacy is less affected by positive emotions, whereas girls experience more significant changes in their chemistry self-efficacy with fluctuations in positive emotional states.

However, gender does not serve as a moderating variable in the mediation model between negative emotions and chemistry self-efficacy. This observation may be due to the fact that, despite differences in emotional perception and expression between genders, both genders tend to adopt similar strategies when dealing with negative emotions. Previous research has found that both men and women may use similar problem-solving or avoidance strategies in the face of stress and depression, which leads to the fact that the effect of negative emotions on chemistry self-efficacy does not show gender differences (Felsten, 1998). Moreover, negative emotions are often associated with learning setbacks and challenges, potentially leading students to doubt their academic abilities. Negative emotions may result in similar psychological negative effects on both genders' self-efficacy. Thus, gender does not emerge as a significant moderating variable in this context.

Implication for theory

This study employed a moderated mediation model to investigate the complex relationships among chemistry achievement emotions, chemistry self-efficacy, and chemistry achievement, revealing the mediating role of self-efficacy and the moderating effect of gender. A moderated mediation model is an advanced statistical technique capable of uncovering intricate causal relationships among variables and demonstrating how these relationships vary under different conditions (Hayes, 2015). This model integrates mediation and moderation analyses, enabling researchers to examine whether the strength and direction of the mediation mechanism differ across contexts, thereby offering a more nuanced understanding of complex causal relationships among variables (Hayes and Rockwood, 2020; Xu et al., 2024). In disciplines such as social sciences, psychology, and education, researchers frequently examine the interactions of multiple variables, and the moderated mediation model provides an effective analytical tool for this purpose. In chemistry education research, mediation models of moderation also have the potential for a wide range of applications. For example, in educational practice, when evaluating the mechanisms by which new teaching methods or curricular reforms affect students' academic performance in chemistry. The moderator–mediator model can be used to further analyze whether such effects are mediated by students' emotions and self-efficacy, and whether such effects vary according to characteristics such as students' gender. This approach can help to pinpoint the unique impact of interventions on specific groups of students, thereby providing a scientific basis for the development of targeted educational intervention strategies. Moreover, according to the moderated mediation model, the effect of chemistry achievement emotions on chemistry achievement was influenced by chemistry self-efficacy and gender. This finding accounts for the variability in the relationship between achievement emotions and academic achievement across studies. In addition, this study crucially confirmed the moderating role of gender between positive emotions and chemistry self-efficacy, and it uncovered the differences in how gender moderates the relationships between both positive and negative emotions and chemistry self-efficacy. This finding has further deepened researchers' understanding of how gender and emotions interact to influence self-efficacy.

Implication for practice

The results of our study suggested that positive emotions had a beneficial impact on students' chemistry achievement, while negative emotions had a detrimental effect. Therefore, enhancing students' positive emotions and reducing negative emotions to promote chemistry achievement is a viable approach. A theoretical model of achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions suggested that achievement goals facilitate the control and value appraisals that underlie achievement emotions, thus influencing these achievement emotions (Pekrun et al., 2006; Elliot and Pekrun, 2007; Pekrun et al., 2009). Chemistry teachers should encourage the setting of mastery goals during chemistry instruction, employ performance approach goals appropriately, and manage performance avoidance goals carefully to enhance students' positive emotions and reduce negative emotions during chemistry instruction (Goetz et al., 2016; Schweder et al., 2022). Additionally, teacher support and feedback can make students feel recognized and valued, enhancing their sense of control and intrinsic value, and thereby increasing their feelings of pleasure and pride (Goetz et al., 2020; Chen and Leung, 2023). Moreover, an orderly classroom environment enables students to fully engage in learning, thereby reducing the occurrence of negative emotions (Lazarides and Buchholz, 2019; Chen, 2024).

In addition, our findings suggested that chemistry self-efficacy mediates the relationship between both positive and negative emotions and chemistry achievement. Mataka and Kowalske's (2015) study found that project based learning (PBL) effectively enhances students' self-efficacy in chemistry experiments and research by providing hands-on experiences, fostering autonomy and responsibility, and facilitating cognitive conflict and social communication. To be specific, chemistry teachers can implement hands on activities and utilize inquiry based teaching strategies to strengthen students' chemistry self-efficacy (Anderson et al., 2021; Nzomo et al., 2023). For example, Vishnumolakala's study demonstrated that students participating in a semester-long process-oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) classroom experienced significant improvements in their understanding of chemistry content and their ability to apply what they had learned, thereby enhancing their efficacy levels (Vishnumolakala et al., 2017).

Furthermore, the present study identified gender as a significant moderating variable within the moderated mediation model. The findings suggest that gender differences should be taken into account in practical applications. Teachers are not only conveyors of knowledge but also key agents in the gender socialization process of students (Rayaprol et al., 2023). Teachers’ gender stereotypes of students may influence their expectations and observations of student behaviour (Perander et al., 2020). Therefore, it is essential to provide chemistry teachers with training on gender differences to eliminate gender biases and enhance the flexibility of their teaching design and implementation. This training can enable teachers to better understand the emotional experiences and characteristics of students of different genders, thereby meeting their emotional regulation needs (Marshall and Reinhartz, 1997). What's more, schools and teachers should specifically provide education and training on emotional management knowledge and skills to enhance students' emotional regulation abilities, thereby helping to mitigate the adverse effects of these differences (Lopes et al., 2012). Last but not least, the selection of school curricula and teaching materials should prioritize gender diversity and equality (Gajda et al., 2022).

Limitations and further directions

This investigation concentrated on 10th-grade students enrolled in chemistry electives, examining the interplay between chemistry achievement emotions and academic achievement. However, several limitations warrant consideration. First, the sample was restricted to a specific geographic region, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Second, the study utilized a cross-sectional design, preventing the observation of longitudinal changes and restricting the ability to infer causal relationships among emotions, self-efficacy, and academic achievement. Lastly, the data on chemistry academic emotions and self-efficacy primarily derive from students' self-reports, which may be influenced by social expectations or personal cognitive biases, thereby affecting the accuracy and reliability of the data. In light of these limitations, future research should consider utilizing a broader and more diverse sample, adopting a longitudinal study design, and employing more objective data collection methods, such as behavioural observations and physiological measurements. Incorporating qualitative research methods could also enhance the generalizability and causal explanatory power of the findings, providing a more robust scientific basis for educational practice.

Conclusions

To elucidate the mechanisms by which chemistry achievement emotions influence the chemistry achievement of students enrolled in chemistry electives and to identify effective mitigation strategies, this study examined the moderated mediation effects of chemistry self-efficacy and gender. The results showed that: (1) positive and negative emotions have significant direct effects on chemistry achievement. (2) Positive (negative) emotions positively (negatively) influence chemistry achievement through the mediation of chemistry self-efficacy. (3) In the moderated mediation model with positive emotions as the independent variable, gender influences the first half of the mediation pathway; however, the moderating effect of gender is not significant in the moderated mediation model with negative emotions as the independent variable.

Data availability

Due to ethical concerns and privacy issues, the raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will not be made publicly available. The data contains sensitive information that could compromise the privacy of research participants. However, the anonymized data that underpins the main findings of this study is available from the first author, Yurong Liu, upon reasonable request. Researchers wishing to access the data will be required to sign a data access agreement that stipulates how the data can be used and ensures that the confidentiality of the participants is maintained. For further details on the specifics of the data and conditions for access, please contact liuyur66@163.com.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Appendix

 
Table 6 Standardized factor loadings for the chemistry achievement emotions scale (N = 512)
Variables Items Standardized factor loading
Enjoy 1 0.771
2 0.797
3 0.788
4 0.819
5 0.640
6 0.587
7 0.729
8 0.619
Pride 9 0.814
10 0.750
11 0.626
12 0.646
13 0.800
Anxiety 14 0.823
15 0.632
16 0.481
17 0.412
Anger 18 0.795
19 0.678
20 0.571
21 0.675
22 0.746
23 0.716
24 0.760
25 0.699
Shame 26 0.593
27 0.750
28 0.594
29 0.725
30 0.769
31 0.594
32 0.492

Table 7 Standardized factor loadings for the 32 items of each individual factor of the chemistry achievement emotions scale (N = 512)
Variables Items Standardized factor loading
Enjoy 1 0.855
2 0.787
3 0.784
4 0.834
5 0.656
6 0.581
7 0.752
8 0.579
Pride 9 0.810
10 0.752
11 0.612
12 0.648
13 0.818
Anxiety 14 0.492
15 0.590
16 0.753
17 0.592
Anger 18 0.768
19 0.680
20 0.556
21 0.696
22 0.778
23 0.704
24 0.788
25 0.724
Shame 26 0.719
27 0.800
28 0.629
29 0.671
30 0.613
31 0.587
32 0.612

Table 8 Standardized factor loadings for the chemistry self-efficacy scale (N = 512)
Variables Items Standardized factor loading
Chemistry self-efficacy 1 0.776
2 0.708
3 0.682
4 0.726
5 0.684
6 0.597
7 0.646
8 0.817
9 0.680
10 0.522

Acknowledgements

This work was sponsored by Henan Province Basic Education Teacher Development Research Innovation Team Project: ‘Relying on “U-G-S-T-S” Learning Community to Promote Professional Development of Chemistry Teachers (2022,02)’.

References

  1. Anderson A., Kollmann E. K., Beyer M., Weitzman O., Bequette M., Haupt G. and Velázquez H., (2021), Design strategies for hands-on activities to increase interest, relevance, and self-efficacy in chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 98(6), 1841–1851 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00193.
  2. Areepattamannil S., Freeman J. G. and Klinger D. A., (2011), Influence of motivation, self-beliefs, and instructional practices on science achievement of adolescents in Canada, Soc. Psychol. Educ., 14(2), 233–259 DOI:10.1007/s11218-010-9144-9.
  3. Bandura A., (1977), Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychol. Rev., 84(2), 191–215 DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.
  4. Bandura A., (1986), Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  5. Bandura A., (1997), Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, Macmillan.
  6. Bandura A., (2000), Self-efficacy, Encyclopedia of psychology, American Psychological Association, vol. 7, pp. 212–213 DOI:10.1037/10522-094.
  7. Blackmore C., Vitali J., Ainscough L., Langfield T. and Colthorpe K., (2021), A review of self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: the key to tertiary transition in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), Int. J. High. Educ., 10(3), 169 DOI:10.5430/ijhe.v10n3p169.
  8. Britner S. L. and Pajares F., (2006), Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 43(5), 485–499 DOI:10.1002/tea.20131.
  9. Brown C. E. and Nedungadi S., (2024), The Impact of Emotions on Students’ Learning in a General, Organic, and Biological Chemistry Course, J. Chem. Educ., 101(4), 1526–1533 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00891.
  10. Burns E. C., Martin A. J., Kennett R. K., Pearson J. and Munro-Smith V., (2021), Optimizing science self-efficacy: a multilevel examination of the moderating effects of anxiety on the relationship between self-efficacy and achievement in science, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 64, 101937 DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101937.
  11. Carlone H. B., Johnson A. and Scott C. M., (2015), Agency amidst formidable structures: How girls perform gender in science class. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 52(4), 474–488 DOI:10.1002/tea.21224.
  12. Chan R. C. H., (2022), A social cognitive perspective on gender disparities in self-efficacy, interest, and aspirations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): the influence of cultural and gender norms, Int. J. STEM Educ., 9(1), 37 DOI:10.1186/s40594-022-00352-0.
  13. Chen X., (2024), How is teaching quality related to achievement emotions in secondary low- and high-achieving students: a cross-sectional study in Chinese mathematics classrooms, Brit. J. Edu. Psychol., 94(3), 862–880 DOI:10.1111/bjep.12691.
  14. Chen X. and Leung F. K. S., (2023), A closer look at teacher support and achievement emotions in Chinese mathematics classrooms: mediating roles of academic control and intrinsic/extrinsic value, Educ. Psychol., 43(9), 1084–1101 DOI:10.1080/01443410.2023.2282947.
  15. Chen X., Usher E. L., Roeder M., Johnson A. R., Kennedy M. S. and Mamaril N. A., (2023), Mastery, models, messengers, and mixed emotions: examining the development of engineering self-efficacy by gender, J. Eng. Educ., 112(1), 64–89 DOI:10.1002/jee.20494.
  16. Chen X., Yuan H., Zheng T., Chang Y. and Luo Y., (2018), Females are more sensitive to opponent's emotional feedback: evidence from event-related potentials, Front. Hum. Neurosci., 12, 275 DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00275.
  17. Correll S. J., (2001), Gender and the career choice process: the role of biased self-assessments, Am. J. Soc., 106(6), 1691–1730 DOI:10.1086/321299.
  18. Curran P. J., West S. G. and Finch J. F., (1996), The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis, Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29 DOI:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16.
  19. Dixson D. D., Worrell F. C., Olszewski-Kubilius P. and Subotnik R. F., (2016), Beyond perceived ability: the contribution of psychosocial factors to academic performance, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 1377(1), 67–77 DOI:10.1111/nyas.13210.
  20. Edwards J. R. and Lambert L. S., (2007), Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis, Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22 DOI:10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1.
  21. Elliot A. J. and Pekrun R., (2007), Eemotion in the hierarchical model of approach-avoidance achievement motivation, in Schutz P. A. and Pekrun R. (ed.) Emotion in Education. Educational Psychology, Academic Press, ch. 4, pp. 57–73 DOI:10.1016/B978-012372545-5/50005-8.
  22. Felsten G., (1998), Gender and coping: use of distinct strategies and associations with stress and depression, Anxiety, Stress, Coping, 11(4), 289–309 DOI:10.1080/10615809808248316.
  23. Fredrickson B. L., (2001), The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, Am. Psychol., 56(3), 218–226 DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218.
  24. Fredrickson B. L., (2004), The broaden–and–build theory of positive emotions, Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B, 359(1449), 1367–1377 DOI:10.1098/rstb.2004.1512.
  25. Fredrickson B. L., Roberts T.-A., Noll S. M., Quinn D. M. and Twenge J. M., (1998), That swimsuit becomes you: sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 75(1), 269–284 DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.269.
  26. Frenzel A. C., Pekrun R. and Goetz T., (2007), Perceived learning environment and students’ emotional experiences: a multilevel analysis of mathematics classrooms, Learn. Instr., 17(5), 478–493 DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.001.
  27. Frenzel A. C., Thrash T. M., Pekrun R. and Goetz T., (2007), Achievement Emotions in Germany and China, J. Cross-Cult. Psychol., 38(3), 302–309 DOI:10.1177/0022022107300276.
  28. Gajda A., Bójko A. and Stoecker E., (2022), The vicious circle of stereotypes: Teachers’ awareness of and responses to students’ gender-stereotypical behaviour, PLoS One, 17(6), e0269007 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0269007.
  29. Gebauer M. M., McElvany N., Bos W., Köller O. and Schöber C., (2020), Determinants of academic self-efficacy in different socialization contexts: investigating the relationship between students’ academic self-efficacy and its sources in different contexts, Soc. Psychol. Educ., 23(2), 339–358 DOI:10.1007/s11218-019-09535-0.
  30. General Office of the State Council, PRC, Opinions of the State Council on Deepening the Implementation of the Reform of the Examination and Enrollment System.
  31. Gibbons R. E., Xu X., Villafañe S. M. and Raker J. R., (2018), Testing a reciprocal causation model between anxiety, enjoyment and academic performance in postsecondary organic chemistry, Educ. Psychol., 38(6), 838–856 DOI:10.1080/01443410.2018.1447649.
  32. Goetz T., Keller M. M., Lüdtke O., Nett U. E. and Lipnevich A. A., (2020), The dynamics of real-time classroom emotions: appraisals mediate the relation between students’ perceptions of teaching and their emotions, J. Educ. Psychol., 112(6), 1243–1260 DOI:10.1037/edu0000415.
  33. Goetz T., Sticca F., Pekrun R., Murayama K. and Elliot A. J., (2016), Intraindividual relations between achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: an experience sampling approach, Learn. Instr., 41, 115–125 DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.007.
  34. Gong X. and Bergey B. W., (2020), The dimensions and functions of students’ achievement emotions in Chinese chemistry classrooms, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 42(5), 835–856 DOI:10.1080/09500693.2020.1734684.
  35. Gorard S., (2012), Who is eligible for free school meals? Characterising free school meals as a measure of disadvantage in England, Brit. Educ. Res. J., 38(6), 1003–1017 DOI:10.1080/01411926.2011.608118.
  36. Green S. B. and Yang Y., (2015), Evaluation of dimensionality in the assessment of internal consistency reliability: coefficient alpha and omega coefficients, Educ. Meas-Issues Pra., 34(4), 14–20 DOI:10.1111/emip.12100.
  37. Greene B. A., Miller R. B., Crowson H. M., Duke B. L. and Akey K. L., (2004), Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 29(4), 462–482 DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.006.
  38. Gumora G. and Arsenio W. F., (2002), Emotionality, Emotion Regulation, and School Performance in Middle School Children, J. Sch. Psychol., 40(5), 395–413 DOI:10.1016/S0022-4405(02)00108-5.
  39. Hachem M., Gorgun G., Chu M.-W. and Bulut O., (2022), Social and Emotional Variables as Predictors of Students’ Perceived Cognitive Competence and Academic Performance, Can. J. Sch. Psychol., 37(4), 362–384 DOI:10.1177/08295735221118474.
  40. Hardin E. E. and Longhurst M. O., (2016), Understanding the gender gap: social cognitive changes during an introductory stem course, J. Couns. Psychol., 63(2), 233–239 DOI:10.1037/cou0000119.
  41. Hayes A. F., (2015), An Index and Test of Linear Moderated Mediation, Multivariate Behav. Res., 50(1), 1–22 DOI:10.1080/00273171.2014.962683.
  42. Hayes A. F., (2017), Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, 2nd edn, Guilford Publications.
  43. Hayes A. F. and Rockwood N. J., (2020), Conditional Process Analysis: Concepts, Computation, and Advances in the Modeling of the Contingencies of Mechanisms, Am. Behav. Sci., 64(1), 19–54 DOI:10.1177/0002764219859633.
  44. Herpratiwi H. and Tohir A., (2022), Learning interest and discipline on learning motivation, Int. J. Educ. Math. Sci. Technol., 10(2), 424–435 DOI:10.46328/ijemst.2290.
  45. Hsieh P. (Pei-H.), Sullivan J. R. and Guerra N. S., (2007), A Closer Look at College Students: Self-Efficacy and Goal Orientation, J. Adv. Acad., 18(3), 454–476 DOI:10.4219/jaa-2007-500.
  46. Hu L. and Bentler P. M., (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Struct. Equat. Modeling: A Multidisciplinary J., 6(1), 1–55 DOI:10.1080/10705519909540118.
  47. Huangfu Q., Luo Z., Cao Y. and Wu W., (2023), The relationship between error beliefs in chemistry and chemistry learning outcomes: a chain mediation model investigation, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 24(4), 1262–1275 10.1039/D3RP00108C.
  48. Hwang M. H., Choi H. C., Lee A., Culver J. D. and Hutchison B., (2016), The Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and Academic Achievement: A 5-Year Panel Analysis, Asia-Pacific. Edu. Res., 25(1), 89–98 DOI:10.1007/s40299-015-0236-3.
  49. Isen A. M., (2002), A role for neuropsychology in understanding the facilitating influence of positive affect on social behavior and cognitive processes, Handbook of positive psychology, Oxford University Press, pp. 528–540.
  50. Izard C. E., (1989), The structure and functions of emotions: implications for cognition, motivation, and personality, The G. Stanley Hall lecture series, The G. Stanley Hall lecture series, American Psychological Association, pp. 39–73 DOI:10.1037/10090-002.
  51. Izard C. E., (1991), Perspectives on emotions in psychotherapy, Emotion, psychotherapy, and change, The Guilford Press, pp. 280–289.
  52. Jameson M. M., Dierenfeld C. and Ybarra J., (2022), The Mediating Effects of Specific Types of Self-Efficacy on the Relationship between Math Anxiety and Performance, Educ. Sci., 12(11), 789 DOI:10.3390/educsci12110789.
  53. Jones M. G., Howe A. and Rua M. J., (2000), Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists, Sci. Educ., 84(2), 180–192 DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200003)84:2[double bond splayed right]180::AID-SCE3[double bond splayed left]3.0.CO;2-X.
  54. Kahveci M. and Orgill M., (2015), Affective dimensions in chemistry education, Springer Berlin Heidelberg DOI:10.1007/978-3-662-45085-7.
  55. Komarraju M. and Nadler D., (2013), Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter? Learn. Individ. Differ., 25, 67–72 DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.005.
  56. Lazarides R. and Buchholz J., (2019), Student-perceived teaching quality: How is it related to different achievement emotions in mathematics classrooms? Learn. Instr., 61, 45–59 DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.01.001.
  57. Lewis M., Haviland-Jones J. M. and Barrett L. F., (2008), Handbook of emotions, 3rd edn, Guilford Press.
  58. Liang S., (2002), Study On Achievement Goals, Attribution Styles and Academic Self-efficacy of Collage Students, Huazhong Normal University, CNKI.
  59. Liu R., Jong C. and Fan M., (2024), Reciprocal relationship between self-efficacy and achievement in mathematics among high school students, Large-scale Assess Educ, 12(1), 14 DOI:10.1186/s40536-024-00201-2.
  60. Lopes P. N., Mestre J. M., Guil R., Kremenitzer J. P. and Salovey P., (2012), The role of knowledge and skills for managing emotions in adaptation to school, Am. Educ. Res. J., 49(4), 710–742 DOI:10.3102/0002831212443077.
  61. Marshall C. S. and Reinhartz J., (1997), Gender Issues in the Classroom, Clear. House., 70(6), 333–337 DOI:10.1080/00098655.1997.10543538.
  62. Mataka L. M. and Kowalske M. G., (2015), The influence of PBL on students’ self-efficacy beliefs in chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 16(4), 929–938 10.1039/C5RP00099H.
  63. McDonald R. P., (1999), Test theory: A unified treatment, Psychology Press DOI:10.4324/9781410601087.
  64. McNeish D., (2018), Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here, Psychol. Methods, 23(3), 412–433 DOI:10.1037/met0000144.
  65. Meinhardt J. and Pekrun R., (2003), Attentional resource allocation to emotional events: an ERP study, Cogn. Emot., 17(3), 477–500 DOI:10.1080/02699930244000039.
  66. Merchant Z., Goetz E. T., Keeney-Kennicutt W., Kwok O., Cifuentes L. and Davis T. J., (2012), The learner characteristics, features of desktop 3D virtual reality environments, and college chemistry instruction: a structural equation modeling analysis, Comput. Educ., 59(2), 551–568 DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.004.
  67. Miller P. H., Slawinski Blessing J. and Schwartz S., (2006), Gender Differences in High-school Students’ Views about Science, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28(4), 363–381 DOI:10.1080/09500690500277664.
  68. Ministry of Education P. R. China, (2020), Chemistry curriculum standards of senior high school(2017 Edition, Revised 2020), People's Education Press.
  69. Nielsen T., Dammeyer J., Vang M. L. and Makransky G., (2018), Gender Fairness in Self-Efficacy? A Rasch-Based Validity Study of the General Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (GASE), Scand. J. Educ. Res., 62(5), 664–681 DOI:10.1080/00313831.2017.1306796.
  70. Nurhasnah N., Lufri L., Andromed A. and Mufit F., (2022), Analysis of Students’ Self Efficacy in Science Learning, Unnes. Sci. Edu. J., 11(2), 109–114 DOI:10.15294/usej.v11i2.58458.
  71. Nzomo C. M., Rugano P., Njoroge J. M. and Gitonga C. M., (2023), Inquiry-based learning and students’ self-efficacy in Chemistry among secondary schools in Kenya, Heliyon, 9(1), e12672 DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12672.
  72. Oriol-Granado X., Mendoza-Lira M., Covarrubias-Apablaza C.-G. and Molina-López V.-M., (2017), Positive Emotions, Autonomy Support and Academic Performance of University Students: The Mediating Role of Academic Engagement and Self-efficacy, Revista de Psicodidáctica, 22(1), 45–53 DOI:10.1387/RevPsicodidact.14280.
  73. Palestro J. J. and Jameson M. M., (2020), Math self-efficacy, not emotional self-efficacy, mediates the math anxiety-performance relationship in undergraduate students, CBB, 24(4), 379–394 DOI:10.24193/cbb.2020.24.20.
  74. Pekrun R., (1992), The Impact of Emotions on Learning and Achievement: Towards a Theory of Cognitive/Motivational Mediators, Appl. Psychol., 41(4), 359–376 DOI:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1992.tb00712.x.
  75. Pekrun R., (2000), A Social-Cognitive, Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions, Adv. Psychol., 131, 143–163, https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0166411500800102.
  76. Pekrun R., (2006), The Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions: Assumptions, Corollaries, and Implications for Educational Research and Practice. Educ. Psychol. Rev., 18(4), 315–341 DOI:10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9.
  77. Pekrun R., (2017), Emotion and Achievement During Adolescence, Child. Dev. Perspectives, 11(3), 215–221 DOI:10.1111/cdep.12237.
  78. Pekrun R., Elliot A. J. and Maier M. A., (2006), Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: a theoretical model and prospective test, J. Educ. Psychol., 98(3), 583–597 DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.583.
  79. Pekrun R., Elliot A. J. and Maier M. A., (2009), Achievement goals and achievement emotions: testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance, J. Educ. Psychol., 101(1), 115–135 DOI:10.1037/a0013383.
  80. Pekrun R., Frenzel A. C., Goetz T. and Perry R. P., (2007), The Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions: An Integrative Approach to Emotions in Education, in Schutz P. A. and Pekrun R. (ed.) Emotion in Education. Educational Psychology, Academic Press, ch. 2, pp. 13–36.
  81. Pekrun R., Goetz T., Frenzel A. C., Barchfeld P. and Perry R. P., (2011), Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 36(1), 36–48 DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002.
  82. Pekrun R., Goetz T., Titz W. and Perry R. P., (2002), Academic Emotions in Students’ Self-Regulated Learning and Achievement: A Program of Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Educ. Psychol., 37(2), 91–105 DOI:10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4.
  83. Pekrun R., Lichtenfeld S., Marsh H. W., Murayama K. and Goetz T., (2017), Achievement Emotions and Academic Performance: Longitudinal Models of Reciprocal Effects, Child. Dev., 88(5), 1653–1670 DOI:10.1111/cdev.12704.
  84. People's Government of Henan Province, Henan college entrance exam reform program out of the implementation of the “3 + 1 + 2” model cancel the arts and science division.
  85. Perander K., Londen M. and Holm G., (2020), Anxious girls and laid-back boys: teachers’ and study counsellors’ gendered perceptions of students, Camb. J. Educ, 50(2), 185–199 DOI:10.1080/0305764X.2019.1653825.
  86. Peters G.-J. Y., (2018), The alpha and the omega of scale reliability and validity: why and how to abandon Cronbach's alpha and the route towards more comprehensive assessment of scale quality, Eur. Health Psychol., 16(2), 56–69 DOI:10.31234/osf.io/h47fv.
  87. Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J.-Y. and Podsakoff N. P., (2003), Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, J. Appl. Psychol., 88(5), 879–903 DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
  88. Preacher K. J., Rucker D. D. and Hayes A. F., (2007), Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions, Multivariate Behav. Res., 42(1), 185–227 DOI:10.1080/00273170701341316.
  89. Putwain D. W., Wood P. and Pekrun R., (2022), Achievement emotions and academic achievement: reciprocal relations and the moderating influence of academic buoyancy. J. Educ. Psychol., 114(1), 108–126 DOI:10.1037/edu0000637.
  90. Raker J. R., Gibbons R. E. and Cruz-Ramírez de Arellano D., (2019), Development and evaluation of the organic chemistry-specific achievement emotions questionnaire (AEQ-OCHEM), J. Res. Sci. Teach., 56(2), 163–183 DOI:10.1002/tea.21474.
  91. Rayaprol A., Raman U., Farooqui S. A. and Joshi A., (2023), Gender sensitisation for school teachers: agents of change in the classroom. Soc. Bull., 72(4), 534–545 DOI:10.1177/00380229231196769.
  92. Ren X., Jing B., Li H. and Wu C., (2022), The impact of perceived teacher support on Chinese junior high school students’ academic self-efficacy: the mediating roles of achievement goals and academic emotions, Front. Psychol., 13, 1028722 DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1028722.
  93. Rogers W. M. and Schmitt N., (2004), Parameter Recovery and Model Fit Using Multidimensional Composites: A Comparison of Four Empirical Parceling Algorithms, Multivariate Behav. Res., 39(3), 379–412 DOI:10.1207/S15327906MBR3903_1.
  94. Sahin A., Gulacar O. and Stuessy C., (2015), High School Students’ Perceptions of the Effects of International Science Olympiad on Their STEM Career Aspirations and Twenty-First Century Skill Development, Res. Sci. Educ., 45(6), 785–805 DOI:10.1007/s11165-014-9439-5.
  95. Sakaki M., Murayama K., Frenzel A. C., Goetz T., Marsh H. W., Lichtenfeld S. and Pekrun R., (2024), Developmental trajectories of achievement emotions in mathematics during adolescence, Child. Dev., 95(1), 276–295 DOI:10.1111/cdev.13996.
  96. Samosir R., Nirwana H. and Alizamar A., (2020), The correlation between career planning, attribution and students learning motivation, J. Educ. Learn. Stud., 3(1), 49 DOI:10.32698/0972.
  97. Schmader T., (2023), Gender Inclusion and Fit in STEM, Annu. Rev. Psychol., 74(1), 219–243 DOI:10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-043052.
  98. Schunk D. H., (1989), Self-Efficacy and Cognitive Achievement, J. Learn. Disabil., 22(1), 14–22 DOI:10.1177/002221948902200103.
  99. Schweder S., Raufelder D. and Wulff T., (2022), Adolescents’ goals, self-efficacy, and positive emotions – how important is the learning context? Int. J. Sch. Educ. Psychol., 10(1), 1–17 DOI:10.1080/21683603.2020.1791771.
  100. Shao K., Pekrun R., Marsh H. W. and Loderer K., (2020), Control-value appraisals, achievement emotions, and foreign language performance: a latent interaction analysis, Learn. Instr., 69, 101356 DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101356.
  101. Sjöström O., Dorthe H., and Lind S. O., (1999), Validity of a questionnaire survey: the role of non-response and incorrect answers, Acta Odontol. Scand., 57(5), 242–246 DOI:10.1080/000163599428643.
  102. Smith T. J., Pasero S. L. and McKenna C. M., (2014), Gender Effects on Student Attitude Toward Science, Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc., 34(1–2), 7–12 DOI:10.1177/0270467614542806.
  103. Storbeck J. and Clore G. L., (2007), On the interdependence of cognition and emotion, Cogn. Emot., 21(6), 1212–1237 DOI:10.1080/02699930701438020.
  104. Swanson E., Melguizo T. and Martorell P., (2021), Examining the relationship between psychosocial and academic outcomes in higher education: a descriptive analysis, AERA Open, 7, 1–30 DOI:10.1177/23328584211026967.
  105. Thelwell R. C., Lane A. M. and Weston N. J. V., (2007), Mood states, self-set goals, self-efficacy and performance in academic examinations, Pers. Indiv. Differ., 42(3), 573–583 DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2006.07.024.
  106. Tze V. M. C., Li J. C.-H. and Parker P. C., (2023), A mediation analysis of emotions based on the control-value theory, Curr. Psychol., 42(7), 5392–5406 DOI:10.1007/s12144-021-01840-2.
  107. Vaughan E. B., Tummuru S. and Barbera J., (2025), Investigating students’ expectations and engagement in general and organic chemistry laboratory courses, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 10.1039/D4RP00277F.
  108. Verešová M., Foglová L., Verešová M. and Foglová L., (2017), Academic self-efficacy, approach to learning and academic achievement, Health and Academic Achievement, IntechOpen, pp. 177–196 DOI:10.5772/intechopen.70948.
  109. Villavicencio F. T. and Bernardo A. B. I., (2016), Beyond Math Anxiety: Positive Emotions Predict Mathematics Achievement, Self-Regulation, and Self-Efficacy, Asia-Pacific. Edu. Res., 25(3), 415–422 DOI:10.1007/s40299-015-0251-4.
  110. Vishnumolakala V. R., Southam D. C., Treagust D. F., Mocerino M. and Qureshi S., (2017), Students’ attitudes, self-efficacy and experiences in a modified process-oriented guided inquiry learning undergraduate chemistry classroom, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18(2), 340–352 10.1039/C6RP00233A.
  111. Wang M.-T. and Degol J. L., (2017), Gender Gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Current Knowledge, Implications for Practice, Policy, and Future Directions, Educ. Psychol. Rev., 29(1), 119–140 DOI:10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x.
  112. Wang J., Yang M., Lv B., Zhang F., Zheng Y. and Sun Y., (2020), Influencing factors of 10th grade students’ science career expectations: a structural equation model, J. Balt. Sci. Educ., 19(4), 675–686 DOI:10.33225/jbse/20.19.675.
  113. Webb-Williams J., (2018), Science self-efficacy in the primary classroom: using mixed methods to investigate sources of self-efficacy, Res. Sci. Educ., 48(5), 939–961 DOI:10.1007/s11165-016-9592-0.
  114. Westphal A., Kretschmann J., Gronostaj A. and Vock M., (2018), More enjoyment, less anxiety and boredom: How achievement emotions relate to academic self-concept and teachers’ diagnostic skills, Learn. Individ. Differ., 62, 108–117 DOI:10.1016/j.lindif.2018.01.016.
  115. Xu Z., Gao F., Fa A., Qu W. and Zhang Z., (2024), Statistical power analysis and sample size planning for moderated mediation models, Behav. Res., 56(6), 6130–6149, https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-024-02342-2.
  116. Yuan J.-J., Wang Y., E.-X. Ju and H. Li, (2010), Gender differences in emotional processing and its neural mechanisms, Adv. Psychol. Sci., 18(12), 1899.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2025
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.