Education 3-13

International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education

ISSN: 0300-4279 (Print) 1475-7575 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rett20

Middle school students perceptions of their self-

efficacy in visual mathematics and geometry: a
study of sixth to eighth grade pupils in Istanbul
province, Turkey

Yasemin Deringöl

To cite this article: Yasemin Deringöl (2020): Middle school students perceptions of their self-
efficacy in visual mathematics and geometry: a study of sixth to eighth grade pupils in Istanbul
province, Turkey, Education 3-13, DOI: 10.1080/03004279.2019.1709527

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2019.1709527

Published online: 03 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rett20
EDUCATION 3-13
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2019.1709527

Middle school students perceptions of their self-efficacy in visual

mathematics and geometry: a study of sixth to eighth grade pupils
in Istanbul province, Turkey
Yasemin Deringöl
Faculty of Hasan Ali Yücel Education, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul, Turkey

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study was conducted with students attending middle schools in the Received 11 November 2019
province of Istanbul in Turkey in order to examine middle school Accepted 20 December 2019
students’ visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perceptions and their
KEYWORDS
self-efficacy in geometry. Research data were collected using the ‘Visual Middle school students;
Mathematics Literacy Self-Efficacy Perceptions Scale’ and the ‘Self- visual mathematics literacy
Efficacy in Geometry Scale’, as well as a ‘Personal Information Form’ self-efficacy perceptions; self-
developed by the researcher. This study was conducted using a survey efficacy in geometry
model, and research data were analysed using the SPSS 16 software. It
was concluded that: the middle school students’ levels of self-sufficiency
perceptions of visual mathematics literacy and self-efficacy in geometry
were high, the female students’ levels of self-efficacy perceptions of
visual mathematics literacy and self-efficacy in geometry were higher
than those of the male students, the scale scores of the sixth grade
students were higher than those of the seventh and eighth grade
students, and the self-efficacy perceptions of visual mathematics literacy
and self-efficacy in geometry among the students who liked
mathematics were higher than those among the students who did not
like mathematics. Additionally, a significant relationship was found
between the quality of middle school students’ notes during the
mathematics course and their self-efficacy perceptions of visual
mathematics literacy and self-efficacy towards geometry.

Introduction
As much as mathematics is important, so is mathematics education. One of the tenets of mathematics
is the principle of ‘from concrete to discrete’ which is based on the notion that individuals tend to
learn things they see and perceive in a concrete form more easily than those they are merely
‘told’ about using discrete concepts. Given this principle, one may argue that ‘visuality’ (the quality
or state of being visual) is important in learning and it is notable that Mathematics and visual percep-
tion are areas in which children tend to improve swiftly during early childhood. Such learning takes
place unwittingly just as learning the mother tongue becomes richer, partly by employing clues
offered by the visual world (İlhan, Çelik, and Poçan 2016).
Visuals in educational environments assist in attracting students’ attention, motivating students
and providing information, hints and feedback (Akpınar 1999). Even in maintaining our daily lives,
it is necessary for us to understand visual stimuli, and to analyse and review them, or, in other
words, to be Visually Literate (Bekdemir and Duran 2012). According to Günay (2008), there is a
need for being visually literate to understand visual elements including both visual materials such

CONTACT Yasemin Deringöl dyasemin@istanbul.edu.tr, yderingl@gmail.com

© 2020 ASPE
2 Y. DERINGÖL

as maps and schemes used in the educational process and visual elements such as traffic signs,
photographs and PC software that individuals face in daily life. Defined by Şengül, Katrancı, and Gül-
bağcı (2012) as ‘the ability to understand, use and visually think about images’, visual literacy is con-
sidered as the fourth element of general education in the modern world along with reading, writing
and arithmetic (Feinstein and Hagerty 1994). Visual literacy has a powerful relationship with math-
ematics literacy (İpek 2003) in terms of making symbolic solutions related to problems easier with
the help of visual representations (Kar and İpek 2009), supporting different solutions of verbal
problem by visual representations (Arcavi 2003) and concretisation of abstract information (İşler
2003). In information rich societies, artistic mathematics or visual mathematics literacy emerge as a
result of the common characteristics of these distinct literacies and make it a necessity to define
these types of literacy (Bekdemir and Duran 2012).
According to Duchastel (1980), visual elements include ‘schemes, diagrams and drawings used for
describing mathematical relationships in logical-mathematical forms’. Visual mathematics literacy has
emerged as a new concept related to the ability to read, interpret, evaluate, use figures, tables,
graphics, images, non-visual shapes etc. in mathematics and create new visual situations (Çilingir
and Dinç Artut 2016). Bekdemir and Duran (2012) defined Visual Mathematics Literacy as ‘evaluating
daily problems visually and evaluating visual-based information mathematically’. Thanks to visual
mathematics literacy’s indispensable place in daily life and mathematics education, mathematical
relationships among visual objects will become more easily comprehensible (Tutkun, Erdoğan, and
Öztürk 2014). It may thus be seen that the importance attributed to the concept of visual mathemat-
ics literacy perception has been increasing in daily life and educational activities (İlhan and Aslaner
2017) and it is considered that students will learn more permanently and meaningfully in the case
that they are on a sufficient level of visual mathematics literacy (İlhan, Çelik, and Poçan 2016).
Mathematics instruction is as important as geometry instruction. Learning in the field of geometry
has an important place in the mathematics curriculum since it allows students to combine daily life
situations with mathematics topics and reach a conclusion (Erkek and Işıksal Bostan 2015). Learning
geometry should start in the form of games at early ages and be maintained in the form of puzzles in
a way which establishes a strong set of skills in intuition, concept formation and information gether-
ing (Gür 2005). Encountering problems during geometry instruction (Ubuz and Üstün 2003) and pro-
blems in teaching geometrical concepts are, however, among the leading problems (Kibar 2002) that
result in students’ perception of geometry as a mere set of rules that require memorising names of
shapes and the dry memorisation of formulae (Olkun and Aydoğdu 2003). The reasons why students
experience difficulty in geometry may include low levels of self-efficacy that are among effective
characteristics related to learning geometry (Yenilmez and Korkmaz 2013). Yet we should note
that if students acquire positive attitudes towards mathematics and geometry this may also affect
their proficiency in these courses positively. A strong self-efficacy belief affects which activities indi-
viduals choose, how much effort they spend to carry out these activities and how persistently they are
able to behave after facing an obstacle. Since self-efficacy is an individual’s perception about their
own capacity, it is expected from individuals who are successful in mathematics and geometry
courses to have higher levels of self-efficacy perceptions in these courses (Erdoğan, Baloğlu, and
Kesici 2011). In this case, another concept that is thought to affect geometry achievement and will
be analysed in terms of its relationship with geometry achievement is self-efficacy perception in geo-
metry. Perception of self-efficacy can be seen as ‘individuals’ foresights related to their own capacities
in terms of arranging and applying activities required for certain performances’ (Bandura, 1986 cited
in Ural, Umay, and Argün 2008). Sadly, however, for the reasons noted above one of the important
branches of mathematics which is an indispensable part of our life, geometry has been considered
as a difficult and boring course by students throughout their education process.
Analysing studies conducted on middle school students in the field literature, it can be seen that
there are numerous studies available on mathematics literacy, but there are fewer studies conducted
specifically on visual mathematics literacy (Aksu, Çalık Uzun, and Çelik 2019; Anderson 2002; Bekde-
mir and Duran 2012; Çilingir 2015; Deveci 2017; Duran 2011, 2013; Duran and Bekdemir 2013; Ev
 EDUCATION 3–13 3

Çimen and Aygüner 2018; İlhan, Çelik, and Poçan 2016; Özdemir, Duran, and Kaplan 2016; Şengül,
Katrancı, and Gülbağcı 2012). It may also be seen that there are many studies conducted on self-
efficacy in geometry, which is one of the dimensions of this study (Baloğlu, Erdoğan, and Kesici
2011; Çadırlı 2017; Çağırgan Gülten and Soytürk 2013; Çontay and Duatepe-Aksu 2018; Erdoğan,
Baloğlu, and Kesici 2011; Kaba, Boğazlıyan, and Daymaz 2016; Kaba, Özdişçi, and Soylu 2019;
Özkan 2010; Pintrich and De Groot 1990; Ünlü 2014; Yenilmez and Korkmaz 2013; Yenilmez and
Uygan 2010). By contrast, there no studies available in which both middle school students’ visual
mathematics literacy and self-efficacy perceptions in geometry were analysed. Therefore, this
study is important in terms of shedding light on designing an educational programme designed
to increase students’ achievements in geometry, thus paving the way for implementing new edu-
cational arrangements towards improving students’ visual mathematics literacy, as well as their
self-efficacy perceptions of geometry. In this respect, this study was conducted to analyse middle
school students’ visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perceptions and their self-efficacy
towards geometry in terms of different variables. The research questions determined for this
purpose are as follows:

(1) What are students’ levels of visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perceptions and self-efficacy
in geometry?
(2) Do students’ visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perceptions and self-efficacy beliefs in geo-
metry vary according to gender, their grade level and their level of interest in the course?
(3) Is there any relationship between students’ mathematics grades and their visual mathematics lit-
eracy self-efficacy perceptions and self-efficacy in geometry?
(4) Is there a relationship between students’ visual mathematics literacy self- efficacy perceptions
and their self-efficacy in geometry?

Method
In terms of data, the study has a quantitative paradigm. As the main objective was to determine
middle school students’ visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perceptions and their self-efficacy
towards geometry, the study was conducted as a correlational survey model. As stated by Karasar
(2005, p. 77), the survey model aims at ‘describing a situation existing in the past or recently as it is’.

Sample
The sample consisted of a total of 291 middle school students selected by the simple random
sampling method from schools in the province of Istanbul in Turkey as of the academic year of
2017–2018. According to the Law No. 6287 adopted on 30 March 2012 with the decisions taken at
the 18th National Education Council, compulsory education was organised as 12 years, 4 years of
primary school, 4 years of middle school and 4 years of high school education (Ministry of National
Education 2012). Formal education in Turkey, preschool education, primary education, middle edu-
cation and is divided into education in higher education institutions. Preschool education includes
the education of children who have not reached compulsory primary school age, children in the
6–13 age group of primary school age. This age begins at the end of September of the year when
the child finishes 5 years of age and ends at the end of the academic year of the year in which he
turns 13 and turns 14. Middle education; the four-year mandatory mesh based on the primary or
common education which generally includes all the vocational training centres and vocational and
technical education institutions (Kol 2019). Students in the 6–9 age group in Turkey elementary
school; 10–13 year-old students in middle school and the 14–17 year-old students are high school
students. Primary and middle school level is the primary level and high school is the secondary
level. The students involved in this study 6, 7 and 8th grade students that middle school students
4 Y. DERINGÖL

are aged 11–13. The distribution of the students in the sample based on genders and grade levels is
presented below (Table 1).

Data collection tools

In the study, the ‘Personal information form’, the ‘Visual Mathematics Literacy Self Efficacy Perception
Scale (VMLSEPS)’ and the ‘Self-Efficacy towards Geometry Scale’ were used as data collection tools.
These tools include the following elements:

Personal information form

The first data collection tool was the ‘Personal Information Form’ created by the researcher. This form
consisted of demographic information about the students and questions on whether they liked
mathematics or not.

‘Visual Math Literacy Self Efficacy Perception Scale (VMLSEPS)’

This scale was developed by Bekdemir and Duran (2012) and consists of 38 items that includs 3 sub-
dimensions. These dimensions are ‘Field Content’, ‘Process’ and ‘Places of Use’. The scale was pre-
pared in the form of 5-point Likert-type scale, and the items are graded in the form of ‘never’,
‘seldom’, ‘occasionally’, ‘often’ and ‘always’. Since two items were written in the negative form in
the scale, the items are scored in reverse while scoring the total scale. Positive items are scored
from 1 to 5, from the option ‘never’ to the option ‘always’; negative items are scored from 5 to 1,
from the option ‘never’ to the option ‘always’. The lowest score that can be obtained from the
scale is 38, and the highest possible score is 190. A high score shows high level of perception of
self-efficacy in visual mathematics literacy, and low score shows low level of perception of self-
efficacy in visual mathematics literacy (Bekdemir and Duran 2012). The internal consistency coeffi-
cient of the scale was found as .94, while this value was .83 in this study.

‘Self-efficacy towards geometry scale’

This scale was developed by Cantürk-Günhan and Başer (2007) consists of 25 items and includes 3
sub-dimensions. These dimensions include ‘Positive Self-efficacy Beliefs (PSB)’, ‘Using Geometrical
Knowledge (UGK)’ and ‘Negative Self-efficacy Beliefs (NSB)’. Items on the scale are graded in the
form of ‘1: Never, 2: Occasionally, 3: I am neutral, 4: Mostly, 5: Always’. The scale has six negative
items, these items are rated negatively while scoring. The internal consistency coefficient of the
scale was found as .90, while this value was .80 in this study.

Data collection
First of all, teachers were interviewed in their classrooms with the knowledge of the principals of the
schools to be researched. The classes of the teachers willing to participate voluntarily were selected
and the students in the selected classes were informed about the content of the study. The measure-
ment instruments that were selected for their suitability in relation to the objectives of the study and

Table 1. Distribution of students based on gender and grade levels.

Girl Boy Total
Grade f % f % f %
Sixth grade 58 58.0 42 42.0 100 34.4
Seventh grade 54 52.9 48 47.1 102 35.1
Eighth grade 48 53.9 41 46.1 89 30.6
Total 160 55.0 131 45.0 291 100.0
Note: The sample included 160 (55%) girls and 131 (45%) boys. 100 (34.4%) of the students attended the sixth grade, 102 (35.1%)
attended the seventh grade, and 89 (30.6%) attended the eighth grade.
 EDUCATION 3–13 5

were distributed during a mathematics class to the middle students who volunteered to participate in
the study, and the participants were asked to fill these forms out. The students filled out the measure-
ment instruments individually and handed them out to the researched after completion.

Data analysis
The statistical analyses of the measurement tools were conducted using SPSS 16.0. Before starting the
analyses, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was conducted to test the suitability of the data to normal dis-
tribution, and at the same time, the Skewness-Kurtosis values of the scores were evaluated. Since
the level of significance was found to lower than .05 according to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test
results, and the skewness coefficient was between +2.0 and −2.0 as reported by George and
Mallery (2010), it was observed that the data showed normal distribution, and parametric tests
were used. Accordingly, in data analysis, Independent-Samples t-Test, One-Way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) and Pearson Moment Correlation tests were applied and the results were calculated.

Findings
Findings obtained depending the on middle school students’ visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy
perceptions and their self-efficacy towards geometry based on the variables are given below. The
findings related to the first problem are presented in Tables 2–11.

Discussion
In the study, it was concluded that the middle school students’ visual mathematics literacy self-
efficacy perceptions were mainly at the higher levels. As mentioned by the definition by Bekdemir
and Duran (2012) of ‘the Visual Mathematics Literacy Self-Efficacy Perceptions Scale’, a high score
from the scale shows a high level of visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perception. The high
level of visual mathematics literacy and the self-efficacy perceptions among the students who
were included the study may be explained by their positive attitudes towards their proficiency in
mathematically interpreting expressions using a mathematical language in basic mathematical oper-
ations and their proficiency in determining daily mathematical relationships (Bekdemir and Duran
2012). Duran and Bekdemir (2013) reported that there was a medium-level positive and significant
relationship between visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perceptions and achievement in
visual mathematics. In another study conducted by Duran (2013), students reported that they under-
stood visual problems better in comparison to verbal problems since ‘visual problems appeal to the
eye, they are catchy and attract attention’. Özdemir, Duran, and Kaplan (2016), in their study con-
ducted with middle school students, determined that visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy

Table 2. Mean visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perception scores in the sample.
Scale N Mean Std. D.
Field content 291 3.54 .64
Process 291 3.74 .78
Places of use 291 3.94 .79
VMLSEPS 291 3.76 .70
Note: The middle school students’ mean scores obtained from the 7-item ‘Field Content’, 21-item
‘Process’ and 10-item ‘Places of Use’ dimensions are presented in Table 2. To determine the stu-
dents’ levels based on their scores obtained from the scales, the range width of the scale was
calculated by using the ‘array width/number of groups to be applied’ (4/5 = 0.80) formula (Tekin
1993). The ranges of the arithmetic mean scores of the scale were determined as 1.00–1.79 ‘Very
Low’, 1.80–2.59 ‘Low’, 2.60–3.39 ‘Medium’ 3.40–4.19 ‘High’ and 4.20–5.00 ‘Very High’. Accord-
ingly, analysing the mean scores in the total scale and from ‘Field Content’, ‘Process’, ‘Places of
Use’ dimensions, it may be seen that the students achieved high scores (Table 2).
6 Y. DERINGÖL

Table 3. Mean scores of self-efficacy towards geometry in the sample.

Scale N Mean Std. D.
Positive self-efficacy beliefs 291 3.74 .84
Using of geometrical knowledge 291 3.40 .91
Negative self-efficacy beliefs 291 3.47 .93
Self-efficacy scale toward geometry 291 3.58 .69
Note: The mean scores of the middle school students obtained from the 12-item ‘Positive Self-
efficacy Beliefs’, 6-item ‘Using of Geometrical Knowledge’ and 7-item ‘Negative Self-efficacy
Beliefs’ dimensions are presented in Table 3. To determine the students’ levels based on their
scores obtained from the scales, the range width of the scale was calculated by using the ‘array
width/number of groups to be applied’ (4/5 = 0.80) formula (Tekin 1993). The arithmetic mean
ranges of the scale were determined as 1.00–1.79 ‘Very Low’, 1.80–2.59 ‘Low’, 2.60–3.39
‘Medium’ 3.40–4.19 ‘High’ and 4.20–5.00 ‘Very High’. Based on this, analysing scale mean scores
and scores from the ‘Positive Self-efficacy Beliefs’, ‘Using of Geometrical Knowledge’, ‘Negative
Self-efficacy Beliefs’ dimensions, it may be seen that the students achieved high scores (Table 3).
Findings related to the second problem are presented in Tables 4–9.

Table 4. Independent-sample t-test results of the Visual Math Literacy Self Efficacy Perception Scale (VMLSEPS) scores based on the
variable gender in the sample.
Scale Gender N Mean S t p
Field content Girl 160 25.43 4.38 2.684 .008
Boy 131 24.00 4.63
Process Girl 160 80.50 16.96 2.038 .042
Boy 131 76.54 15.87
The places of use Girl 160 40.40 7.87 2.333 .020
Boy 131 38.23 7.86
VMLSEPS Girl 160 146.33 26.85 2.421 .016
Boy 131 138.78 25.94
Note: A significant difference was found between the genders in the sample in terms of the scores from ‘the Visual Math Literacy
Self Efficacy Perception Scale’s (VMLSEPS)’ ‘Field Content’ (t = 2,684; p = .008), ‘Process’ (t = 2.038; p = .042), ‘Places of Use’ (t =
2.333; p = .020) dimensions and scale total (t = 2.421; p = .016), and this difference was in favour of the girls (Table 4).

Table 5. Independent-sample t-test results of the scores in the self-efficacy towards geometry scale based on the variable gender in
the sample.
Scale Gender N Mean S t p
PSB Girl 160 46.13 10.35 2.143 .033
Boy 131 43.58 9.77
UGK Girl 160 20.86 5.66 1.448 .149
Boy 131 19.93 5.18
NSB Girl 160 24.76 6.76 1.319 .188
Boy 131 23.74 6.31
SETGS Girl 160 91.76 18.28 2.229 .027
Boy 131 87.26 15.61
Note: A significant difference was found between the genders in the sample in terms of the scores from the ‘Self-Efficacy towards
Geometry Scale (SETGS)’ ‘Positive Self-efficacy Beliefs (PSB)’ (t = 2.143; p = .033), ‘Using Geometrical Knowledge (UGK)’ (t = 1.448;
p = .149), ‘Negative Self-efficacy Beliefs (NSB)’ (t = 1.319; p = 188) dimensions and scale total (t = 2.229; p = .027). Based on this, as
seen in Table 5, the female students had higher scores in comparison to the male students in all dimensions and in the total score.

perceptions were between medium and high levels among the students, which was similar to the
results of this study.
It may be stated that the middle school students in the study had high levels of scores from the
‘Self-Efficacy towards Geometry Scale’ and its dimensions of ‘Positive Self-efficacy Beliefs’ ‘Using of
Geometrical Knowledge’ and ‘Negative Self-efficacy Beliefs’. As seen here, it was found that the stu-
dents had high levels of both Positive Self-efficacy Beliefs and Negative Self-efficacy Beliefs. Although
there was a difference, looking at the scale total, the students’ self-efficacy towards geometry were
higher. Due to low levels of self-efficacy, students are known to experience difficulty in geometry
 EDUCATION 3–13 7

Table 6. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results of the scores in perceptions of visual mathematics literacy based on the
grade levels in the sample.
Scale Grade N Mean S Sum of squares Mean of squares F p
th
Field content 6 grade 100 26.33 4.63 Between groups 384.618 192.309 9.859 .000
7th grade 102 23.65 4.04 Within groups 5617.595 19.506
8th grade 89 24.35 4.57 Total 6002.213
Process 6th grade 100 86.53 12.34 Between groups 9305.039 4652.519 19.043 .000
7th grade 102 74.44 15.23 Within groups 70363.855 244.319
8th grade 89 74.84 19.02 Total 79668.893
The places of use 6th grade 100 42.26 6.31 Between groups 1556.918 778.459 13.442 .000
7th grade 102 39.17 7.51 Within groups 16678.243 57.911
8th grade 89 36.52 8.93 Total 18235.162
VMLSEPS 6th grade 100 155.12 20.99 Between groups 22735.358 11367.679 17.832 .000
7th grade 102 137.27 24.07 Within groups 183600.402 637.501
8th grade 89 135.73 30.42 Total 206335.759
Note: ‘The Visual Mathematics Literacy Self Efficacy Perception Scale’s (VMLSEPS)’ ‘Field Content’ [F(2–288) = 9.859; p = .000], ‘Process’
[F(2–288) = 19.043; p = .000], ‘Places of Use’ [F(2–288) = 13.442; p = .000] dimensions and scale total scores [F(2–288) = 17.832;
p = .000] varied significantly based onbased on grade levels. According to results of the Post-hoc Tukey HSD test conducted
to determine the range of significance among the groups, the perception of self-efficacy in visual mathematics literacy scores
of the sixth-graders were found to be higher than those of the seventh- and eighth-graders.

Table 7. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results of scores in self-efficacy towards geometry based on grade level in the
sample.
Grade N Mean S Sum of squares Mean of squares F p
PSB 6th grade 100 49.75 7.94 Between groups 3621.884 1810.942 19.815 .000
7th grade 102 41.61 9.39 Within groups 26321.085 91.393
8th grade 89 43.50 11.25 Total 29942.969
UGK 6th grade 100 22.42 5.43 Between groups 609.155 304.578 10.885 .165
7th grade 102 19.15 5.01 Within groups 8058.659 27.981
8th grade 89 19.69 5.43 Total 8667.814
NSB 6th grade 100 25.32 7.05 Between groups 155.888 77.944 1.813 .000
7th grade 102 23.81 5.17 Within groups 12378.277 42.980
8th grade 89 23.74 7.34 Total 12534.165
SETGS 6th grade 100 97.49 15.80 Between groups 9409.255 4704.628 17.616 .000
7th grade 102 84.58 15.63 Within groups 76914.415 267.064
8th grade 89 86.94 17.67 Total 86323.670
Note: ‘Self-Efficacy towards Geometry Scale’s (SETGS)’ ‘Positive Self-efficacy Beliefs (PSB)’ [F(2–288) = 19.815; p = .000], ‘Negative Self-
efficacy Beliefs (NSB)’ [F(2–288) = 1.813; p = .000] dimensions and scale total scores [F(2–288) = 17.616; p = .000] were significantly
different based on grade levels. According to the Post-hoc Tukey HSD test, the scores among sixth-graders were higher than
those of the seventh- and eighth-graders. The students’ scores obtained from the ‘Using of Geometrical Knowledge (UGK)’
[F(2–288) = 10.885; p = .165] dimension did not differ significantly based on their grade levels (Table 7).

Table 8. Independent-samples t-test results of the Visual Math Literacy Self Efficacy Perception Scale (VMLSEPS) scores based on
the state of liking the mathematics course in the sample.
Scale Ans. N Mean S t p
Field content Yes 197 25.43 4.66 3.549 .000
No 94 23.44 4.00
Process Yes 197 83.17 14.77 7.204 .000
No 94 69.37 16.32
Places of use Yes 197 40.72 7.41 4.160 .000
No 94 36.70 8.30
VMLSEPS Yes 197 149.33 24.49 6.310 .000
No 94 129.52 26.18
Note: There was a significant difference in ‘the Visual Math Literacy Self Efficacy Perception Scale’ (VMLSEPS)’ ‘Field Content’ (t =
3.549; p = .000), ‘Process’ (t = 7.204; p = .000), ‘Places of Use’ (t = 4.160; p = .000) dimensions and scale total (t = 6.310; p = .000)
scores based on the answers given to the question ‘Do you like mathematics?’. Accordingly, it was found that the visual math-
ematics literacy self-efficacy perception scores among the students who liked mathematics were higher than those of the stu-
dents who did not like mathematics (Table 8).
8 Y. DERINGÖL

Table 9. Independent-samples t-test results of the scores in the self-efficacy towards geometry scale based on the state of liking
mathematics course in the sample.
Scale Ans. N Mean S t p
PSB Yes 197 47.48 8.73 6.486 .000
No 94 39.75 10.96
UGK Yes 197 21.68 5.07 5.932 .000
No 94 17.84 5.36
NSB Yes 197 24.90 6.79 2.267 .024
No 94 23.05 5.93
SETGS Yes 197 94.08 15.62 6.658 .000
No 94 80.64 17.04
Note: A significant difference was found between the genders in the sample based on the students’ scores from the ‘Self-Efficacy
towards Geometry Scale’s (SETGS)’ ‘Positive Self-efficacy Beliefs (PSB)’ (t = 6,486; p = .000), ‘Using Geometrical Knowledge (UGK)’
(t = 5.932; p = .000), ‘Negative Self-efficacy Beliefs (NSB)’ (t = 2.267; p = 024) dimensions and scale total (t = 6.658; p = .000). Con-
sidering the groups the difference existed, it was found that the self-efficacy towards geometry scores among those who liked
the mathematics course were higher in both all dimensions and scale total than the scores of those who did not like the math-
ematics course (Table 9).
Findings related to the third problem are presented in Table 10.

Table 10. Pearson product moment correlation analysis results of the scores from the perceptions of
visual mathematics literacy and the self-efficacy towards geometry scores based on mathematics
grades.
Scales-grades N r p
Mathematics grade 291 .567 .000
VMLSEPS
Mathematics grade 291 .468 .000
Self-efficacy towards geometry scale
Note: As seen in Table 10, a positive and significant relationship was determined between the middle
school students’ grades in the mathematics course and their scores in ‘the Visual Math Literacy Self
Efficacy Perception Scale (VMLSEPS)’ (r = .567; p = .000) and ‘the Self-Efficacy towards Geometry
Scale’ (r = .468; p = .000).
Findings related to the fourth problem are presented in Table 11.

Table 11. Pearson product moment correlation analysis results of the scores from perceptions of
visual mathematics literacy and self-efficacy towards geometry.
Scales N r p
VMLSEPS 291 .737 .000
Self-efficacy scale toward geometry
Note: As seen in Table 11, there was a positive and significant relationship between the middle
school students’ scores from ‘the Visual Math Literacy Self Efficacy Perception Scale (VMLSEPS)’
and ‘the Self-Efficacy towards Geometry Scale’ (r = .737; p = .000).

(Yenilmez and Korkmaz 2013). Moreover, Yenilmez and Uygan (2010) determined that students had
high levels of self-efficacy beliefs towards geometry. Again, a similar result was found by Ünlü (2014),
where the self-efficacy beliefs among middle school students were analysed. In an experimental
study investigating the effect of Jigsaw-I, one of the collaborative learning methods on the attitude
and self-efficacy of middle school 7th grade students, the self-efficacy of the students in the exper-
imental group was significantly higher than the scores of the control group (Kaba, Özdişçi, and
Soylu 2019). In another experimental study in which the effect of writing activities on the success
of 8th grade students on surface areas and volumes of geometric objects and their self-efficacy
beliefs about geometry (Çontay and Duatepe-Aksu 2018), students’ self-efficacy beliefs towards geo-
metry were found higher in favour of the experimental group. Kandil and Işıksal-Bostan (2019)’s
research has been found that mathematics activities enriched with origami activities positively
affect students’ self-efficacy beliefs about geometry. As can be seen, it can be said that the self-
efficacy beliefs of the students studying in the appropriate environment may increase.
 EDUCATION 3–13 9

Analysing the scores achieved by the students from the scales based on their gender, it may be
seen that visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perceptions and self-efficacy towards geometry
varied in favour of the girls. Özdemir, Duran, and Kaplan (2016), in their study that examined
middle school students’ visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perceptions, found that girls had
higher levels of visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perceptions in comparison to boys. Again,
Tutkun, Erdoğan, and Öztürk (2014) reached similar conclusions in their study. Aksu, Çalık Uzun,
and Çelik (2019) examined the relationship between visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy percep-
tions and metacognitive reading comprehension awareness of secondary school students, and it was
concluded that visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perceptions of middle school students did
not show significant differences according to gender. In many other studies, girls’ visual mathematics
literacy was found to be higher than that of boys (Deveci 2017; Özdemir, Duran, and Kaplan 2016;
Tanoğlu et al. 2017; Tutkun, Erdoğan, and Öztürk 2014). As can be seen, gender variable was not
very determinant in research.
According to the middle school students’ scores from the scales based on their grade level, it was
concluded that the sixth-grade students had higher levels of scores in both visual mathematics lit-
eracy self-efficacy perceptions and self-efficacy towards geometry than the scores of students
from the upper grades, namely the seventh and eighth grades. This situation can be thought to
stem from the fact that, as grade level increases, new subjects are taught in geometry, and as new
subjects are taught, students get the idea that they cannot learn these subjects, or as the number
of subjects increases, students’ anxiety towards geometry increases. In a study conducted by
Deveci (2017), analysing middle school students’ mathematics self-reports and visual mathematics
literacy self-efficacy perceptions, it was found that students from lower grades had higher levels of
visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perceptions in comparison to students from upper grades.
Kaba, Boğazlıyan, and Daymaz (2016), in their study which examined the relationship between stu-
dents’ attitudes towards geometry and their self-efficacy, again found out that students from
lower grades had higher levels of self-efficacy towards geometry than that of students from upper
grades. Yenilmez and Korkmaz (2013), in their study which examined the relationship between
sixth, seventh and eighth-grade students’ self-efficacy towards geometry and their levels of geometri-
cal thinking, found out that sixth grade students had higher levels of self-efficacy towards geometry
in comparison to students from other grades as we found in this study. As seen here, there are many
studies supporting the finding that, as the grade level increases, self-efficacy towards geometry
decreases (Çadırlı 2017; Özkan 2010).
In this study, the students were asked the question ‘Do you like the mathematics course?’, and the
answers that were received were separately analysed in relation to the scores obtained from the
scale. Accordingly, it was found that the students who liked the mathematics course had high
levels of both visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perceptions and self-efficacy toward geometry
in comparison to students who did not like the mathematics course. This finding was an expected
result, since the state of liking a course may increase the self-efficacy perception felt toward that
course.
The students’ grades from mathematics course and their self-sufficiency perceptions of visual
mathematics literacy and self-efficacy towards geometry had a positive relationship. In other
words, students who are successful in the mathematics course have higher levels of visual mathemat-
ics literacy and self-efficacy towards geometry. Şengül, Katrancı, and Gülbağcı (2012) reported in their
study that the teacher can increase students’ mathematics achievement by increasing students’
visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perceptions. Moreover, Duran and Bekdemir (2013) found
a significant relationship between students’ visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perceptions
and their visual mathematics achievements, and these are significant predictors. 85% of students
in their study believed that thinking visual to a well extent and grasping visuals effectively, easily
solving visual problems, having visual intelligence, persistence of images in the mind and paying
importance to mathematics, in other words, being mathematics-literate will increase achievement
in mathematics. In a qualitative study conducted by Duran (2013) with seventh grade students,
10 Y. DERINGÖL

the number of students saying that ‘I can understand visual problems better’, one of the findings
under the main theme of ‘understanding verbal or visual problems better’ was higher. Many
studies have concluded that use of images by teachers in courses will increase students’ achieve-
ments (Çilingir 2015; Çilingir and Dinç Artut 2016; Deveci 2017; Duran 2011; van Garderen and Mon-
tague 2003; Guzman 2002; Hembree 1992; Koğ and Başer 2012; Özmen, Taşkın, and Güven 2012;
Presmeg and Balderas-Cañas 2001; Tanoğlu et al. 2017; Yung and Paas 2015). Erdoğan, Baloğlu,
and Kesici (2011) examined the relationship between students’ self-efficacy beliefs towards geometry
and their geometry achievements and found a significant relationship between these two variables.
Çağırgan Gülten and Soytürk (2013), in their study which examined the relationship between sixth
grade students’ geometry self-efficacy and their academic achievement grade averages, found
that, as students’ academic achievement grade points increased, their geometry self-efficacy also
increased. Similarly, Yenilmez and Korkmaz (2013) concluded that self-efficacy towards geometry
varied significantly based on mathematics achievement. Analysing the literature in the field, it was
observed that the students’ geometry self-efficacy beliefs, some important characteristics of students,
are associated with their achievement (Baloğlu, Erdoğan, and Kesici 2011; Kaba, Boğazlıyan, and
Daymaz 2016; Özkan 2010).
Consequently, visual mathematics literacy self-efficacy perceptions and self-efficacy towards geo-
metry are positively associated. In other words, the higher students’ visual mathematics literacy self-
efficacy perceptions are, the higher their self-efficacy towards geometry would be.

Conclusion and suggestions

Çalık Uzun and Çelik (2017) stated that prospective classroom teachers do not have sufficient levels of
visual mathematics literacy, and this should be improved. However, it is clear that teachers who will
train students should also have these skills. Çalık and Aydın (2014) suggested that it is necessary to
determine self-efficacy among prospective teachers and teachers who will examine and improve stu-
dents’ abilities since mathematics literacy is a new concept entering the literature in the field. An
effective teaching of geometry not only includes conveying geometric formulas and drawings to stu-
dents but also requires bringing students in visual abilities and geometrical skills by means of mean-
ingful learning (Kesici, Erdoğan, and Özteke 2011). Therefore, since the teacher is one of the most
important factors in the development of students, teachers’ and educators’ attention must be
taken upon their self-efficacy perceptions towards geometry. This way, it is thought that environ-
ments supporting students’ self-efficacy perceptions will be provided, and this will bring in success.

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

ORCID
Yasemin Deringöl http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3030-7049

References
Akpınar, Y. 1999. “BDE and Human Qualities in Information Society.” BTIE 99 Notify Book, 145–151.
Aksu, Z., S. Çalık Uzun, and S. Çelik. 2019. “The Relationship between Visual Mathematics Literacy Self-efficacy Perceptions
and Metacognitive Reading Comprehension Awareness.” Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education
19 (3): 710–720.
Anderson, E. 2002. “Enhancing Visual Literacy through Cognitive Activities.” Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE/SEF/TUB
Colloquium Carnegie Mellon University, American Society for Engineering Education.
 EDUCATION 3–13 11

Arcavi, A. 2003. “The Role of Visual Representations in the Learning of Mathematics.” Educational Studies in Mathematics
52: 215–241.
Baloğlu, M., A. Erdoğan, and Ş Kesici. 2011. “Gender Differences in Geometry and Mathematics Success and Geometry
Self-efficacy Beliefs.” Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 43: 91–106.
Bekdemir, M., and M. Duran. 2012. “Development of a Visual Math Literacy Self-efficacy Perception Scale for Elementary
Student.” Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Faculty of Education 31 (1): 89–115.
Çadırlı, G. 2017. “An Analysis of the Middle School Students’geometry Self-efficacy Beliefs and Their Geometric Thinking
Skill.” Master thesis, Kahramanmaraş Sutcu Imam University Social Sciences Institute, Kahramanaraş.
Çağırgan Gülten, D., and İ. Soytürk. 2013. “The Relation between 6th Grade Elementary School Students’ Self-efficacy
Beliefs and Academic Achievement in Geometry.” Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty 25: 55–70.
Çalık, B., and Y. Ç. Aydın. 2014. “Development of Visual Mathematics Literacy Self Efficacy Scale for Prospective Teachers.”
Conference: ECER, The Past, the Present and the Future of Educational Research.
Çalık Uzun, S., and S. Çelik. 2017. “Analysis of Preservice Elementary Teachers Visual Mathematics Literacy: A Qualitative
Perspective.” Studies in Educational Research and Development 1 (1): 132–156.
Cantürk-Günhan, E., and N. Başer. 2007. “The Development of Self-efficacy Scale Toward Geometry.” Hacettepe University
Journal of Education 33: 68–76.
Çilingir, E. 2015. “The Effect of the Realistic Mathematic Education (RME) Approach on Visual Math Literacy Self Efficacy
Perceptions and Problem Solving Achievement of 4th Grade Student.” Master thesis, Cukurova University Social
Sciences Institute.
Çilingir, E., and P. Dinç Artut. 2016. “Effect of Realistic Mathematics Education Approach on Visual Mathematics Literacy
Perceptions and Problem Solving Attitude of Students.” Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education 7 (3):
578–578.
Çontay, E. G., and A. Duatepe-Aksu. 2018. “The Effect of Journal Writing on Achievement and Geometry Self-efficacy of
8th Grade Students.” Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 12 (2):
167–198.
Deveci, Ö. 2017. “Middle School Students’ Math Self-report Level and Visual Math Literacy Self-efficacy Perceptions.”
Master thesis, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla.
Duchastel, P. C. 1980. “Research on Illustrations in Instructional Text.” ERIC Document. ED215324.
Duran, M. 2011. “Relationship between Visual Math Literacy Self-efficacy Perceptions with Visual Mathematics Achievements
of Elementary 7th Grade Students.” Master thesis, Erzincan University Institute of Science and Technology, Erzincan.
Duran, M. 2013. “Opinions of Primary 7th Grade Students About Visual Mathematics Literacy.” Mehmet Akif Ersoy
University Journal of Educational Sciences Institute 2 (2): 38–51.
Duran, M., and M. Bekdemir. 2013. “Evaluation of Visual Math Literacy Self-efficacy Perception with Visual Mathematics
Accomplishment.” Pegem Journal of Education & Instruction 3 (3): 27–40.
Erdoğan, A., M. Baloğlu, and Ş. Kesici. 2011. “Gender Differences in Geometry and Mathematics Achievement and Self-
efficacy Beliefs in Geometry.” Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 43: 188–205.
Erkek, Ö., and M. Işıksal Bostan. 2015. “The Role of Spatial Anxiety, Geometry Self-efficacy and Gender in Predicting
Geometry Achievement.” Elementary Education Online 14 (1): 164–180.
Ev Çimen, E., and E. Aygüner. 2018. “An Analysis of Eight Grade Students’ Self-efficacy Perception of Visual Mathematics
Literacy and Their Actual Performance.” Elementary Education Online 17 (2): 675–669.
Feinstein, H., & Hagerty, R. 1994. Visual Literacy in General Education at the University of Cincinnati. In Visual Literacy in
the Digital Age: Selected Readings from the [25th] Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association.
Rochester, New York, October 13–17, 1993; (ERIC Document No. ED 370602).
George, D., and M. Mallery. 2010. Spss for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. 17.0 Update. Boston:
Pearson.
Günay, V. D. 2008. “Visual Literacy and the Meaning of Images.” Art-e Art Magazine 1 (1): 12–24.
Gür, H. 2005. “Fear of Math.” In Primary Education in the Light of Current Developments: Mathematics-Technology-manage-
ment, edited by A. Altun and S. Olkun, 22–38. Ankara: Anı Publishing.
Guzman, M. D. 2002. “The Role of Visualization in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Analysis.” International
Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics at the Undergraduate Level 1, 10–13.
Hembree, R. 1992. “Experiments and Relational Studies in Problem Solving: A Meta-analysis.” Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education 23 (3): 242–273.
İlhan, A., and R. Aslaner. 2017. “Investigation of the Effects of the Use of Dynamic Geometry Software on the Teaching of
Geometry Subjects to Visual Mathematics Literacy Perception Levels of Elementary Mathematics Teacher Candidates.”
Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 11 (2): 136–155.
İlhan, A., H. Ç. Çelik, and S. Poçan. 2016. “Math and Visual Mathematical Literacy: A Compilation Study.” International
Engineering Science and Education Conference, December 1–3.
İpek, İ. 2003. “Computers, Visual Design and Visual Learning Strategies.” The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology 2 (3): 68–76.
İşler, A. Ş. 2003. “Place and Importance of Illustration Use in Written Course Materials.” Journal of Milli Eğitim 157: 55–63.
12 Y. DERINGÖL

Kaba, Y., D. Boğazlıyan, and B. Daymaz. 2016. “Middle School Students’ Attitudes and Self-efficacy Towards Geometry.”
International Journal of Social 52: 335–350.
Kaba, Y., S. Özdişçi, and Ş. Soylu. 2019. “The Effect of Jigsaw-I Technique on 7th Grade Middle School Students’ Attitude
and Self-efficacy Toward Geometry.” International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or
Turkic 12/28: 473–488.
Kandil, S., and M. Işıksal-Bostan. 2019. “Effect of Inquiry-based Instruction Enriched with Origami Activities on
Achievement, and Self-efficacy in Geometry.” International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and
Technology 50 (4): 557–576. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2018.1527407.
Kar, T., and A. S. İpek. 2009. “Use of Visual Representations to Solve Verbal Problems in the History of Mathematics.”
Journal of Qafqaz University 28: 138–147.
Karasar, N. 2005. Scientific Research Method. 13th ed. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
Kesici, Ş., A. Erdoğan, and H. İ. Özteke. 2011. “Are the Dimensions of Metacognitive Awareness Differing in Prediction of
Mathematics and Geometry Achievement?” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 15: 2658–2662.
Kibar, A. 2002. “Problems Encountered in Teaching Middle School Geometry Course.” Master thesis, Dokuz Eylül
University Educational Sciences Institute, Izmir.
Koğ, O. U., and N. E. Başer. 2012. “The Role of Visualization Approach on Students’ Attitudes Towards and Achievements in
Mathematics.” Elementary Education Online 11 (4): 945–957.
Kol, S. 2019. “Türkiye ve Azerbaycan’daki eğitim sistemlerinin incelenmesi. azərbaycan və türkiyə universitetlərinin
əməkdaşliq istiqamətləri: mövcud vəziyyət və perspektivlər.” 124–181. Bakı: UNEC.
Ministry of National Education. 2012. B.08.0.ÖKM.O.OO-00.00/401 Sayılı, 12 Yıllık Zorunlu Eğitime Yönelik Uygulamalar
Konulu Genelge. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2012/04/20120411-8.htm.
Olkun, S., and T. Aydoğdu. 2003. “What is the Third International Mathematics and Science Research (TIMSS)? Question
What? Sample Geometry Questions and Activities.” Elementary Education Online 2 (1): 28–35.
Özdemir, F., M. Duran, and A. Kaplan. 2016. “Investigation of Middle School Students’ Self-efficacy Perceptions of Visual
Mathematics Literacy and Perceptions of Problem-solving Skill.” Journal of Theoretical Educational Science 9 (4):
532–554.
Özkan, E. 2010. “The Relationships between Geometry Self-efficacy, Gender, Grade Level, Parents’ Education Level and
Geometry Achievement.” Master thesis, Abant Izzet Baysal University Social Sciences Institute, Bolu.
Özmen, Z. M., D. Taşkın, and B. Güven. 2012. “Determining the Types of Problems Used by 7th Grade Math Teachers.”
Education and Science 37 (165): 243–261.
Pintrich, P. R., and E. V. De Groot. 1990. “Motivational and Self-regulated Learning Components of Classroom Academic
Performance.” Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 33–40.
Presmeg, N. C., and P. E. Balderas-Cañas. 2001. “Visualization and Affect in Nonroutine Problem Solving.” Mathematical
Thinking and Learning 3 (4): 289–313.
Şengül, S., Y. Katrancı, and H. Gülbağcı. 2012. “Middle School Students ‘Self-efficacy Perceptions of the Visual Examination
of Mathematical Literacy.” 21. National Educational Science Congress, Istanbul, Turkey.
Tanoğlu, Ş., O. Taşkesen, A. Bakırhan, and A. Taşkesen. 2017. “Investigating the Relationship Between Three Dimensional
Objects Drawing Achievement and Visual Mathematical Literacy Self-efficacy Perceptions of 5th, 6th and 7th Graders.”
Journal of Strategic Research in Social Science 2 (3): 29–40.
Tekin, H. 1993. Measurement and Evaluation in Education. Ankara: Yargı Publications.
Tutkun, Ö. E., D. G. Erdoğan, and B. Öztürk. 2014. “Levels of Visual Mathematics Literacy Self-efficacy Perception of the
Middle School Students.” Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research 8: 19–27.
Ubuz, B., and I. Üstün. 2003. “Figural and Conceptual Aspects in Identifying Polygons.” Proceedings of the 27th
International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, USA, 1, 328.
Ünlü, M. 2014. “Factors Affecting Geometry Success: A Structural Equation Modelling.” PhD thesis, Necmettin Erbakan
University Educational Sciences Institute.
Ural, A., A. Umay, and Z. Argün. 2008. “The Effect of Students Teams-achievement Divisions Method Based Instruction on
Mathematics Academic Achievement and Self-efficacy.” H. U. Journal of Education 35: 307–318.
van Garderen, D., and M. Montague. 2003. “Visual-spatial Representation, Mathematical Problem Solving and Students of
Varying Abilities.” Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 18 (4): 246–254.
Yenilmez, K., and D. Korkmaz. 2013. “Relationship between 6th, 7th and 8th Grade Students’ Self-efficacy Towards
Geometry and Their Geometric Thinking Levels.” Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education 7 (2): 268–283.
Yenilmez, K., and C. Uygan. 2010. “The Effects of Creative Drama Method on 7th Grade Students’ Self-efficacy Beliefs on
Geometry.” Journal of Kastamonu Education 18 (3): 931–942.
Yung, H. I., and F. Paas. 2015. “Effects of Computer-based Visual Representation on Mathematics Learning and Cognitive
Load.” Journal of Educational Technology & Society 18 (4): 70–77.