Conference Agenda

Across European countries, sustaining students’ motivation for mathematics remains a persistent challenge. International studies document that students in many European countries report low motivation for the subject (OECD, 2023), with a particular decline across secondary education (Hannula, 2019). These trends are particularly concerning in light of European policy ambitions to broaden participation in STEM programs (e.g., as outlined in the European Commission's STEM Education Strategic Plan). Understanding how mathematics teachers can promote students’ motivation for mathematics is therefore of key importance.

The present study investigates this issue from the viewpoint of Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017). In short, SDT posits that students are more likely to develop high-quality motivation when their basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met. Teachers can nurture these needs through three need-supportive teaching practices (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009): autonomy support (e.g., acknowledging students’ perspectives and offering meaningful choices), involvement (e.g., warmth, care, and emotional availability), and structure (e.g., clear explanations, guidance, and informative feedback). To date, a substantial body of research has documented positive associations between these practices and students’ motivational functioning (Stroet et al., 2013). However, much of this research implicitly assumed that teaching practices influenced student motivation in a unidirectional manner, attributing (typically cross-sectional) associations to an effect of teaching on motivation (Howard et al., 2025). However, there are good theoretical reasons to assume also a reverse path, in which student motivation would affect subsequent need support. For example, need‑supportive teaching requires teachers to be flexible, emotionally available, and attentive to students’ needs. Investing such effort is more likely when teachers already experience some success in motivating students, as this would satisfy teachers’ own need for competence (Taylor et al., 2008). In addition, motivated students may elicit more need-supportive teaching through their engaged behavior. For example, when students ask a lot of questions and spontaneously signal when they get stuck with a problem, this may give teachers a better idea of students’ needs to which then can adjust their instruction (Jang et al., 2024). Teachers may also consciously decide to provide more need support to motivated students because they believe such practices are only efficacious to such students. For example, teachers tend to believe that granting autonomy only works for motivated students, but that coercion is needed to enforce cooperation from disaffected students (Hornstra et al., 2015).

This study thus investigates bidirectional relations between mathematics teachers’ provision of need-support (autonomy support, involvement, and structure) on one hand, and two aspects of students’ motivational functioning in mathematics (i.e., student autonomous motivation and behavioral engagement) on the other. We drew on a large longitudinal sample from Flanders in which students were surveyed four times across Grades 7 and 8. To differentiate between-student and within-student effects (Orth et al., 2021), we estimated both conventional cross-lagged panel models (CLPMs) and random intercept cross-lagged panel models (RI-CLPMs). In general, we hypothesized all three dimensions of need-supportive teaching to positively affect subsequent students’ autonomous motivation and behavioral engagement; the other way round, we expected student motivation to positively affect subsequent need-supportive teaching. We expected to find these associations both at the between-student level (i.e., in the CLPMs) and at the within-person-level (i.e., in the RI-CLPMs). Because of its more overt nature, we expected that behavioral engagement would exert a more pronounced influence on subsequent need-supportive teaching than autonomous motivation. Finally, because of changes in math teachers between Grades 7 and 8, we expected effects to be somewhat more pronounced within grades (i.e., between W1 and W2 and between W3 and W4) than across grades (i.e., between W2 and W3).

Recent research in mathematics education has increasingly focused on emotions and the affective dimensions, alongside cognitive factors, play a structural and decisive role in the development of mathematical competence (Schukajlow et al., 2022). The Control–Value Theory explains the fundamental psychological mechanisms determining the emergence of achievement emotions experienced by students in academic settings (Perkun, 2006). At the core of the theory are the individual's perception of control over achievement-related activities and the outcomes of these activities and the subjective value they attribute to these activities and outcomes. On the emotional level, there is a theoretical distinction between activity emotions (e.g., interest, enjoyment, boredom) accompanying the learning process and outcome emotions (e.g., pride, shame, anxiety) associated with success or failure outcomes. In this context, anxiety is positioned directly within the category of outcome emotions and is treated as an emotion closely related to the individual's expectations of success and evaluation processes. In the dynamic structure of the theory, emotions influence student participation, the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and academic achievement, while these outcomes shape the individual's future control and value assessments, creating a cyclical feedback mechanism. This theoretical framework provides a strong theoretical basis for understanding math anxiety, which refers to feelings of apprehension, tension or fear that hinders math performance (Ashcraft, 2002).

Mathematics anxiety emerging in early childhood is considered a multidimensional risk factor that affects not only academic performance but also an individual's long-term learning processes, academic orientation, and lifelong career development. Mathematics anxiety observed in kindergarten and early elementary school years is directly related to mathematical performance and is associated with low achievement, weak problem-solving strategies, and difficulties in learning new information (Wu et al., 2012; Ramirez et al., 2013; Tomasetto et al., 2020). Longitudinal studies show that this early anxiety negatively affects the rate of mathematics learning in later years, academic achievement levels, and the perpetuation of achievement gaps (Vukovic et al., 2013; Cargnelutti et al., 2017). The process is not limited to individual cognitive and emotional mechanisms but is also strongly shaped by primary environmental factors such as the parental math anxiety and the teacher's math anxiety affect the child's attitudes toward math, learning experiences, self-efficacy perception, and indirectly academic performance, reinforcing this developmental cycle (Tomasetto et al., 2025; Park et al., 2024). This holistic perspective reveals that math anxiety is a long-term developmental risk area that begins in early years, is fueled by environmental factors, and shapes the individual's academic life and professional future.

This study uses a systematic review method to examine scientific research addressing math anxiety in early childhood. The review will comprehensively analyze the current state of the field, key findings, and methodological trends. The aim of this study is to reveal research trends and gaps in the literature on early math anxiety, synthesize existing findings, and provide a holistic perspective for theoretical and applied work in the field.

RQ: What are the prevailing trends, key findings, and methodological approaches in scientific research on math anxiety in early childhood?

A 2022 PISA report (De Bortoli et al., 2023) highlighted an ‘unprecedented drop in performance’ since 2018, with average mathematics scores falling by almost 15 points—equivalent to about three‑quarters of a year of learning. Although Australian performance in 2022 remained stable compared with 2018, mathematics outcomes have continued to drive policy reforms and system‑wide initiatives across the country.

In 2021, the Department for Education, South Australia, provided an online one-to-one mathematics tutoring program commencing with a pilot program for Year 6 and Year 8 students. In 2022 the online one-to-one program was extended to include students from Years 6, 7, 8 and 9 with an additional online group tutoring program trialled with high performing Year 7 students in groups with up to three students.

Other Australian states also implemented similar initiatives that targeted schooling disruptions due to COVID-19 with tutoring programs designed as ‘COVID catch-up’ for students negatively impacted during this time. Internationally, various programs have been established to support students, such as the Global Education Coalition supporting up to one million students with online and offline opportunities to support continuity of learning (UNESCO, 2021). The Department for Education in England established one-to-one and small group tutoring programs to support vulnerable students (DfE, 2020) while the French Ministry of Education allocated additional teaching hours after school to support students (OECD, 2020). South Australian students had minimal disruptions to their education in 2020.

The Learning+ pilot program was designed to provide no-cost online tutoring for all students with students from Years 6 and 8 in the pilot program chosen from a representative sample of schools. In 2022 this one-to-one online program was extended to include students from Years 6, 7, 8 and 9. Altogether 277 qualified teachers have tutored 2890 students from 137 schools across South Australia.

Four key principles of design were considered for the online mathematics tutoring initiative: Strategic Design, Structural Design, Technical Design and Systematic Development (adapted from Burkhardt & Swan, 2017). Strategic Design focuses on ensuring that the design complements the existing system and that it can be embedded in the existing system while meeting the needs of all stakeholders. Structural Design ensures that the structure, tools and resources are designed to support teaching and to target student learning. The Technical Design components relate to creative design and research-based decision-making. Finally, Systematic Development utilizes feedback and evaluation systems to guide ongoing improvement.

In 2018, The Office of the Chief Scientist released an Occasional Paper outlining key findings for school-wide improvement in mathematics outcomes. One suggestion for leading improvement in mathematics is a focus on learning, understanding and developing skills rather than a focus on ability, performance and competition (Smith, Ladewig & Prinsley, 2018). The Learning+ initiative focused on developing and consolidating conceptual understanding of key mathematical topics from the Number Strand, designed to improving student engagement and results.

While the Learning+ program was based on Educational Design Research which included resources to support mathematics teaching and learning the researchers also considered how the available learning time could be maximised for each student. Resources included research-based one-to-one number assessment interviews, resource books and ongoing professional development for tutors, and the creation of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) with PLC leaders appointed to work with groups of 10 teachers.

Group tuition for up to three high performing students was introduced during Term 3, 2022. This presentation focuses on assessment results for the for 76 high performing Year 7 South Australian students who participated in the small group online tutoring sessions. In particular, this presentation examines the results for student confidence when completing mathematics assessment tasks.

This paper reflects on ‘community mathematics’ as a way of attending to forms of mathematical participation that take shape beyond formal schooling and carry transformative potential for how mathematics is recognised and valued. A substantial body of research has documented persistent inequalities in school mathematics, affecting not only attainment but also students’ socio-emotional relationships to the subject (Black, Mendick, & Solomon, 2009). These inequalities are closely tied to broader social divisions of gender, race, class, language, and institutional notions of ability, through the privileging of particular experiences and forms of competence, especially among young people from historically marginalised communities (Ladson-Billings, 1997; Watson et al., 2014). These patterns are reflected across European education systems, where PISA 2022 documents large and persistent gaps in mathematics performance associated with students’ socio-economic background (OECD, 2023). This points to an exclusionary mathematical landscape in which access to mathematics is shaped by enduring social and institutional hierarchies.

The idea of ‘community mathematics’ has begun to take shape through our recent work (Mégrourèche, Black, & Herington, 2025). It is informed by research examining mathematical activity in informal environments such as homes, museums, and interactive exhibitions (Black et al., 2016; Kelton & Nemirovsky, 2023), highlighting how informal settings can rework conventional boundaries of inclusion. Developed in response to enduring representation of mathematics as an elite pursuit, the notion draws inspiration from the British community arts movement, which sought to democratise cultural production by embedding creative practices within local communities and affirming the value of diverse cultural expressions developed outside mainstream institutions (Matarasso, 2018). In this light, community mathematics redirects attention to how mathematical participation can be supported and celebrated beyond formal schooling, becoming visible in initiatives that support young people’s engagement with mathematics through creative, collective and interdisciplinary practices.

The paper asks what does community mathematics look like in practice? And what forms of mathematical possibility and participation do such practices open? Conceptually, the analyses of community mathematics presented in this paper are supported by work in mathematics education that has contributed to expanded understandings of mathematics, drawing attention to its embodied, material, aesthetic, and affective dimensions (de Freitas & Sinclair, 2014; Sinclair, 2018). This body of work opens an important conceptual space for recognising and celebrating forms of mathematical engagement that do not align with dominant school norms.

Empirically, the paper draws on the Very Local Maths project (https://verylocalmaths.org.uk/) developed in collaboration with a community center in Manchester. The project involved collaborating with a group of seven young people aged 13-16, many of whom had SEND and experienced disrupted school trajectories. Over seven months, we co-developed and facilitated six interdisciplinary workshops exploring mathematics with practices such as music, poetry or origami. Using video-based micro-ethnographic analysis (Lebaron, 2012), the paper examines two selected episodes from these workshops to assemble a situated portrait of community mathematics. The first centres on a session in which young people each produced an origami creation, followed by a collective discussion about how much they might price one another’s pieces. The second follows a young person designing a net to construct a cube, where inventive and materially situated forms of measurement appear alongside childhood memories. The analysis attends to bodily and material dimensions of interaction.

The paper engages debates on inclusion in mathematics education by using our concept of community mathematics to interrogate how mathematical participation can be recognised and sustained beyond formal schooling. By grounding this analysis in fine-grained empirical detail, it contributes to reframing inclusion not as a sole question of access to mainstream forms of mathematics, but as a situated process through which mathematical possibilities themselves are questioned and reworked.