The impacts of math anxiety, science anxiety, and gender on arts versus sciences choices in Qatari secondary schools

Math anxiety

Math anxiety refers to the feelings of fear, tension, and apprehension upon exposure to math-related materials during learning and assessment (Ashcraft, 2002). In a recent meta-analysis, Barroso et al. (2021) found a small to moderate negative correlation between math anxiety and math achievement. However, other studies found that math anxiety was not a predictor of math achievement (Abín et al., 2020). Rather, Wang et al. (2018) found that high exam math anxiety was present in students with all levels of math motivation (high, median, and low), whereas higher learning math anxiety was generally associated with lower math motivation. Accordingly, Wang et al. (2018) suggested that highly math-anxious students are not always unmotivated in math.

Importantly, however, evidence indicates that highly math-anxious students tend to avoid math as much as they could (Moustafa, Porter & Megreya, 2020; Ramirez, Shaw & Maloney, 2018). For example, a meta-analysis reported that highly math-anxious students took fewer high school mathematics courses and showed less intention in high school and college to take more mathematics (Hembree, 1990). In addition, highly math-anxious students tend to avoid STEM domains in universities by avoiding majors that had moderate or high math requirements (Beilock & Maloney, 2015; Foley et al., 2017; LeFevre, Kulak & Heymans, 1992).

Furthermore, longitudinal studies have confirmed the role of math anxiety on STEM domains and careers avoidance (Ahmed, 2018; Daker et al., 2021). For example, Ahmed (2018) examined the contributions of math anxiety in predicting later STEM career choices in a large sample of seventh grade students who were followed for 7 years. Specifically, Ahmed (2018) distinguished four heterogeneous math anxiety trajectory groups: consistently low, decreasing, increasing, and consistently high. Adolescents in the consistently low math anxiety group were about 7.4 times as likely to be employed in STEM-related professions compared to the consistently high math anxiety adolescents. In addition, adolescents in the decreasing math anxiety group were 6.4 times as likely to be employed in STEM-related professions as those in the consistently high math anxiety group. In another longitudinal study, Daker et al. (2021) measured math anxiety and math ability in a sample of first-semester university students whose STEM avoidance and achievement were tracked through their transcripts during 4 years. Daker et al. (2021) found that math anxiety data that were collected during the students’ first-semester prospectively predicted their real-world university STEM participation and achievement, even when individual differences in math ability were controlled. Therefore, Daker et al. (2021) concluded that math anxiety represents a barrier to STEM participation and achievement greater than math ability itself.

Gender was also found to be a predictor of math anxiety, as female students experience math anxiety higher than male students (Van Mier, Schleepen & Van den Berg, 2018; Xie et al., 2019), even when math performance and test anxiety were controlled (Chinn, 2009; Devine et al., 2012; Dowker, Sarkar & Looi, 2016; Else-Quest, Hyde & Linn, 2010). This gender difference has been attributed to math-related gender stereotypes, where math is traditionally viewed as a male domain (Plante, Theoret & Favreau, 2009). Therefore, math anxiety was thought to be responsible for the finding that far fewer women than men take part in high school and college mathematic courses (Hembree, 1990).

Science anxiety

Science anxiety is defined as fears and tensions that can occur before or during science learning (Bryant et al., 2013; Mallow et al., 2010). Therefore, highly science-anxious students tend to avoid science and STEM domains (Mallow, 1994). For example, science anxiety was positively associated with choosing university majors in humanities and social sciences (Mallow, 1994; Udo et al., 2001, 2004). In addition, increased science anxiety was found to relate with lower levels of science achievement (Britner & Pajares, 2006; Kupermintz, 2002; Pajares, Britner & Valiante, 2000), SAT-Quantitative scores (Brownlow, Jacobi & Rogers, 2000), science vocabulary knowledge (Ardasheva et al., 2018), and self-efficacy (Griggs et al., 2013; Ardasheva et al., 2018; Britner, 2008).

Female students experience higher science anxiety than male students (Ardasheva et al., 2018; Britner, 2008; Mallow, 1994; Mallow et al., 2010; Megreya, Szűcs & Moustafa, 2021). Consistently, previous studies showed that females carry more negative attitudes toward science than male students (George, 2006). In addition, females were found to achieve lower than males in physics (Taasoobshirazi & Carr, 2008), even when they outperform males in terms of GPA (Hofer & Stern, 2016). These gender differences might be due, at least in part, to gender-related stereotyping that considers science as a male domain (Mallow, 2006; Rahm & Charbonneau, 1997).

Current study

Previous studies have separately examined the contribution of math anxiety and science anxiety to the avoidance of STEM domains (e.g., Ahmed, 2018; Daker et al., 2021; Mallow, 1994; Udo et al., 2001, 2004). No study has previously compared the contributions of these two forms of topic anxiety. Fortunately, the constructs of math anxiety and science anxiety can be measured using two structurally related questionnaires: the modified Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale (m-AMAS; Carey et al., 2017) and the Abbreviated Science Anxiety Scale (ASAS; Megreya, Szűcs & Moustafa, 2021).

The m-AMAS was adapted for use with children from the Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale (AMAS; Hopko et al., 2003), which measures how anxious students would feel during certain situations in math class. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses consistently reported a two-factor structure for the AMAS (Hopko et al., 2003) that was robustly replicated for the m-AMAS (Carey et al., 2017). These factors are learning math anxiety (i.e., the feelings of tension induced during math learning activities) and math evaluation anxiety (i.e., the feelings of tension associated with taking assignments and tests in math). The ASAS (Megreya, Szűcs & Moustafa, 2021) is adapted from the m-AMAS (Carey et al., 2017) to measure science anxiety in children and adolescents by replacing “math” environments with “science” contexts. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the two-factor structure of the ASAS (learning science anxiety and science evaluation anxiety; Megreya, Szűcs & Moustafa, 2021).

The present study aimed to investigate math anxiety, science anxiety, and gender as predictors of students’ choices of Sciences and Arts tracks in secondary schools in Qatar. Based on preferences, during the end of the second semester of grade 10, secondary school students in most, if not all, Arab countries are divided into two main tracks: Sciences (which include advanced chemistry, physics, biology, and math) and Arts (which include history, geography, psychology, sociology, and philosophy). More information about this educational system can be found in UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring Report (UNESCO, 2019) in Arab countries.

Participants

A total of 344 students in grades 11 and 12 in two government secondary schools (one for females and one for males) in Qatar volunteered to participate in this study. This sample represented 51.9% of the student population in grades 11 and 12 in those two schools. A power analysis supported the generalizability of the sample size. The G*Power software (Faul et al., 2007) gave an actual power of 0.95, with an effect size ≥0.25 and a sample size of 280. All participants were asked to report their gender (giving 173 females and 171 males), age (with a mean of 18.9 years and 7 months SD). Table 1 shows the main descriptions of this sample. Data were collected with approval from the Ministry of Education and Higher Education in Qatar. In addition, eithical approval was obtained from Qatar University’s IRB committee (QU-IRB 1356-EA/20), which required a written consent approval from all participants.

Instruments

(1) The Modified-Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale: Arabic translation (m-AMAS- Ar.: Carey et al., 2017). The m-AMAS (Carey et al., 2017) was adapted from the AMAS (Hopko et al., 2003) to be more suitable for British children. It consists of nine items measuring Learning Math Anxiety (LMA; five items) and Math Evaluation Anxiety (MEA (four items)). In addition, a total score represents the summation of these two factors. Participants respond to each item using a 5-point Likert ranking scale, ranging from one (low anxiety) to five (high anxiety).

(2) The Abbreviated Science Anxiety Scale (ASAS; Megreya, Szűcs & Moustafa, 2021). The ASAS has been adapted from the m-AMAS (Carey et al., 2017) to measure science anxiety using a 5-point Likert ranking scale, ranging from one (low anxiety) to five (high anxiety). The ASAS consists of nine items, which belong to two main factors: LSA (five items) and SEA (four items). In addition, a total score represents the summation of these two factors.

Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Version 27.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA), except McDonald’s Omega coefficient (ω), which was conducted using JASP Version 0.16.3 (JASP Team, 2022). Using the whole sample, reliability and correlations were examined. McDonald’s ω was used to examine the internal reliability of the m-AMAS and the ASAS. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the inter-correlations between the sub-scales of each questionnaire and the correlations between math and science anxiety. In order to examine the differences between females/males in Sciences/Arts tracks in grades 11/12, a series of 2 × 2 × 2 between-participant Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) was conducted for math anxiety and science anxiety separately. A Binary Logistic Regression Analysis was conducted to examine the impact of math anxiety, science anxiety, and gender on Arts and Sciences choices (which were coded using 0 for Arts and 1 for Sciences). The Value of Wald test and the ROC curve were used to examine predictability. Finally, we report means, 95% confidence intervals, standard errors and standard deviations.

Internal reliability

Table 2 shows McDonald’s Omega coefficient (ω) of the scales, with 95% confidence Intervals (CIs) in parenthesis. Good to adequate reliabilities were observed for the math and science anxiety scores across the four groups of students that ranged from 0.78 to 0.93 (for the total score), from 0.64 to 0.90 (for the learning subscales), and from 0.74 to 0.89 (for the evaluation subscales).

Inter-correlations of math and science anxiety subscales

Positive inter-correlations were observed between learning vs. evaluation anxiety subscales for the m-AMAS-Ar, r (342) = 0.74, p ≤ 0.001 ([0.69–0.79], 95% CI) and the ASAS, r (342) = 0.49, p ≤ 0.001 ([0.40–0.57], 95% CI).

Correlations between math and science anxiety

There were strong positive correlations between math and science anxiety for the total score, r (342) = 0.54, p ≤ 0.001 ([0.46–0.61], 95% CI) and the two subscales: learning anxiety, r (342) = 0.51, p ≤ 0.001 ([0.43–0.58], 95% CI) and evaluation anxiety r (342) = 0.55, p ≤ 0.001 ([0.47–0.62], 95% CI).

Differences between sciences and arts tracks

Figure 1 presents descriptive statistics of math anxiety and science anxiety for female and male students in Sciences and Arts tracks in Grades 11 and 12. For science anxiety, 2 × 2 × 2 between-participant ANOVAs showed main effects of Tracks for the total score, F (1, 336) = 68.78, p ≤ 0.001 (means of 22.7 vs 17.1), LSA, F (1, 336) = 78.29, p ≤ 0.001 (means of 10.8 vs 7.6), and SEA, F (1, 336) = 30.56, p ≤ 0.001 (means of 11.8 vs 9.5, all for Arts and Sciences; respectively). In addition, there was a main effect of Gender for SEA, F (1, 336) = 11.91, p ≤ 0.001 (means of 11.4 vs 9.9, for females and males; respectively). Furthermore, there was a main effect of Grade for LSA, F (1, 336) = 4.41, p = 0.04 (means of 9.4 vs 8.9, for Grade 11 and Grade 12; respectively). No other main effects nor interactions were found, F (1, 336) ≤ 1.

For math anxiety, similar analyses revealed main effects of Tracks for the total score, F (1, 336) = 21.51, p ≤ 0.001 (means of 23 vs 19.1), LSA, F (1, 336) = 26.38, p ≤ 0.001 (means of 11.7 vs 9.3), and SEA, F (1, 336) = 11.99, p ≤ 0.001 (means of 11.3 vs 9.8, all for Arts and Sciences; respectively). In addition, there were main effects of Gender for MLA, F (1, 336) = 13.01, p ≤ 0.001 (means of 11.4 vs 9.6, for females and males; respectively). Furthermore, there were main effects of Grade for the total score F (1, 336) = 26.83, p ≤ 0.001 (means of 23.3 vs 18.9), LSA, F (1, 336) = 29.96, p ≤ 0.001 (means of 11.8 vs 9.2), and SEA, F (1, 336) = 17.23, p ≤ 0.001 (means of 11.5 vs 9.6, all for Grade 11 and Grade 12; respectively). No other main effects nor interactions were found, F (1, 336) ≤ 1.

Arts vs sciences choices

The model of a Binary Logistic Regression Analysis was significant, X² (5) = 72.532, p ≤ 0.001, with an overall classification percentage of 68.3. However, as presented in Table 3, only science learning anxiety was a significant predictor (Value of Wald test = 24.879, p = ≤ 0.001 Exp(B) = 0.78). Figure 2 presents the ROC curve for science learning anxiety, where the area under the curve was 0.757 ([0.707–0.808], 95% CI), SE = 0.026, p ≤ 0.001. The coordinates of the ROC curve reported a cut-off point of 9.5 or higher that predicts Arts track with = 76.2% sensitivity. The value under the cut-point predicts Sciences track with specificity 63%.