The Examination of the Relationships among Middle School Students' Epistemological Beliefs, Goal Orientations, and Achievement Emotions: A Structural Equation Modeling Study

The Examination of the Relationships among Middle School Students' Epistemological Beliefs, Goal Orientations, and Achievement Emotions: A Structural Equation Modeling Study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Examination of the Relationships among Middle School Students' Epistemological Beliefs, Goal Orientations, and Achievement Emotions: A Structural Equation Modeling Study Barışcan SAVAŞ, Mehmet DEMİRBAĞ This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7049497/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 23 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Psychology → Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study examined the relationships among middle school students' epistemological beliefs, achievement emotions, and goal orientations, and it was conducted with the participation of 1073 middle school students from seven different public schools in Turkey. A correlative research design was employed, and structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was conducted. According to the results, sophisticated epistemological beliefs were positively related to mastery and performance goal orientations. In the relationship between epistemological beliefs and achievement emotions, it was observed that generally sophisticated epistemological beliefs positively predicted positive achievement emotions and negatively predicted negative achievement emotions. An analysis of the relationships between goal orientations and achievement emotions found no significant relationship between performance-approach goals and positive–negative achievement emotions, whereas there was a significant relationship between all other subdimensions. However, the study discussed inconsistent results for some subdimensions of epistemological beliefs and goal orientations. Further research is needed to examine the relationship between epistemological beliefs and achievement emotions in middle school students. achievement emotions epistemological belief goal orientations middle school students Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Introduction Students' achievement in a subject is inevitably influenced by their emotional structures. Perceptions of achievement or failure and the basic emotions they feel in this situation, such as shame or pride, directly affect the goal related to the lesson in an attributional manner (Pekrun et al., 2011 ). Researchers have recently reported that these emotions possess a multifaceted structure, encompassing emotional, cognitive, physiological, motivational, and expressive-behavioral components (Scherer, 2000 ; Muis et al., 2018 ). For example, anxiety before an exam typically includes nervous, uneasy feelings (affective), worries about possible failure (cognitive), physiological arousal (physiological), impulses to avoid taking the exam (motivation), and anxious facial expressions (expressive behavior) (Pekrun et al., 2023 ). One of these types of emotions is achievement emotion. Achievement emotions are based on Pekrun’s ( 2006 ) control–value theory framework and are defined as emotions directly tied to achievement activities or outcomes (Pekrun, 2006 , p.317). Many studies on achievement emotions have revealed that achievement emotions are intertwined with cognitive and motivational structures such as academic achievement in the domains of science and mathematics (Bellocchi & Ritchie, 2015 ; Putwain et al., 2021 ), critical thinking and problem-solving (Jarrell et al., 2016 ; Villavicencio, 2011 ), teachers' preferred learning approaches (Schweder, 2020 ), self-regulation, coping strategies (de la Fuente, et al., 2020 ), classroom engagement (Gong & Bergey, 2020 ), and goal orientation (Huang, 2011 ). A growing body of literature on these topics is available. However, despite this relationship, the connection between achievement emotions and cognitive and motivational factors in general tends to be somewhat fragmented (Pekrun, 2024a ). In recent years, theoretical claims have been made to combine theories and construct a "general theory of human emotions" to overcome the fragmented structure of achievement emotions and other motivational factors (Pekrun, 2024b ). Conducting more studies that empirically test and demonstrate how achievement emotions intertwine with various structures to support these initiatives could contribute to theoretical discussions. In this context, some studies in the literature have tested the relationship between achievement emotions and multiple variables (at least three) via structural equation modeling (Heddy et al., 2017 ; Membiela, et al., 2023 ). In the context of science education, few studies have been conducted, and no structural equation modeling studies testing achievement emotions together with epistemological beliefs and goal orientation have been conducted. Epistemological beliefs are a profound predictor of many concepts. The “general theory of human emotions” is closely related to emotions within science, such as epistemic emotions (Pekrun, 2024b ); this is supported by empirical evidence (e.g., Rosman & Mayer, 2018 ). However, despite epistemic and achievement emotions have based on different object focuses, the relationship between epistemological beliefs and achievement emotions has not yet been clarified. Therefore, the aim of this study was to test the structural relationships among epistemological beliefs, goal orientation, and achievement emotions. This study selected the achievement emotions and goal orientations of middle school students toward science courses. (1) Many cognitive and motivational factors emerge during the learning experience in this course, such as exam anxiety, emphasis on performance, beliefs about the nature and acquisition of knowledge, etc; however, this also provides us with a natural field environment to understand and test many variables, such as epistemological beliefs, goal orientations, and emotions. 2) Achievement emotions have been studied empirically in the context of science education at the middle school level to a very limited extent (Camacho-Morles et al., 2021 ). 1.1. Theoretical Framework 1.1.1. Epistemological Beliefs A key concept in the field of education and cognitive psychology is epistemological beliefs. Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 ). When examining the historical development of epistemological beliefs in the field of educational psychology, three different approaches emerge. The first approach is the developmental perspective, which began with Perry ( 1970 ) and is based on the work of the researchers King and Kitchener ( 1994 ). These researchers considered epistemological beliefs personal epistemology. They argued that personal epistemology progresses from a less developed to a more developed position, in accordance with the Piagetian perspective (Piaget, 1970 ), through factors such as biological development and social interaction. According to developmental researchers, individuals' belief systems are classified from undeveloped to developed across all subfactors of beliefs about knowing and the nature of knowledge and are unidimensional (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 ; Bahçivan, 2017 ). For example, Kuhn et al. ( 2008 ), important representatives of this perspective, examined epistemological beliefs from a developmental perspective as absolutist, multiplist, and evaluativist. Accordingly, the absolutist position views scientific knowledge as a collection of certainties and facts. In the evaluativist position, knowledge consists of judgments that must be supported within the framework of alternatives, evidence, and arguments. One of the pioneering researchers of the second approach, Schommer ( 1990 ), took a different perspective from those who advocate a developmental view, approaching personal epistemology through epistemological beliefs that are more or less independent. According to Schommer ( 1990 ), epistemological beliefs are more or less independent in nature and constitute a multidimensional structure divided into certainty of knowledge, simplicity of knowledge, source of knowledge, quick learning, and innate ability. Since the subdimensions of knowledge are independent characteristics, individuals can exhibit various degrees of each subdimension. According to Schommer ( 1990 ), this classification falls within the contrast between naive and sophisticated. According to Schommer ( 1990 ) and researchers who adopt this perspective, individuals may hold different beliefs across various epistemological dimensions. For example, an individual may hold a naive belief in the certainty of knowledge (knowledge is certain) while having a sophisticated belief in the structure of knowledge (knowledge is a complex, interconnected structure). Although Schommer ( 1990 ) initially considered the dimensions of quick learning and innate ability as dimensions of epistemological beliefs, some researchers later removed these dimensions, as they pertain to the nature of learning rather than knowledge. For example, Hofer and Pintrich ( 1997 ) removed these two dimensions from the subdimensions of epistemological beliefs and added the justification dimension of knowledge instead. According to Hofer and Pintrich ( 1997 ), four dimensions are clustered into two main directions: the nature of knowledge, comprising the certainty of knowledge and simplicity of knowledge, and the nature of knowing, comprising the source of knowledge and justification for knowing. Many empirical studies have used this four-dimensional structure to test the relationships between variables. In the final approach, referred to as integrative perspectives, developmental stages from the developmental perspective (e.g., evaluativist) and dimensions from the multidimensional perspective (e.g., certainty of knowledge) are simultaneously utilized to understand epistemological beliefs within domain- and context-specific frameworks (Merk et al., 2018 ). Researchers of this approach argue that epistemological beliefs are not independent of the subject and context but are specific to the domain, topic, and context (Buehl & Alexander 2006 ; Hammer & Elby 2002; Palmer & Marra 2008 ). For example, students can develop different beliefs in different areas, such as mathematics and social studies, based on their learning experiences (Muis et al., 2006 ). In fact, students can develop specialized epistemological beliefs about any specific topic independently of their general beliefs (Stahl & Bromme, 2007 ). Many researchers have shown that epistemological beliefs play an important role in learning and motivation outcomes such as academic achievement (Stathopoulou & Vosniadou 2007 ), self-efficacy (Yilmaz-Tuzun & Topcu 2008 ), self-regulation (Muis & Franco 2009 ), conceptual change (Mason et al., 2008 ), epistemic emotions (Muis et al., 2015 ), and achievement goals (Chen, 2012 ). When closely examining the relationship between epistemological beliefs and goal orientation, it is expected that sophisticated epistemological beliefs would positively predict mastery-approach goals but negatively predict performance-approach goals (general expectation) (DeBacker & Crowson, 2006 ; Muis, 2007 ). Specifically, in their examination of some studies, Kizilgünes et al. (2009) reported that the advanced scientific epistemological beliefs of 6th-grade students positively predict their mastery goal orientations. Using a sample of elementary and high school students, Chen ( 2012 ) reported that students' advanced epistemological beliefs in the development and justification dimensions were positively related to their mastery goals but negatively related to their performance-avoidance goals. However, mixed results have been obtained in some studies. For example, in a study by Demirbağ and Bahçivan (2022), the development and justification dimensions presented unexpected relationships with performance-approach goal orientations. Similarly, sophisticated epistemological beliefs in some dimensions are positively related to performance-approach goals (Lin & Tsai, 2017 ; Mason et al., 2013 ). Even in studies where the general expectation was confirmed, such mixed results are also present (Kızılgüneş et al., 2009; Winberg et al., 2019 ). In summary, many studies have shown that epistemological beliefs are strong predictors of goal orientation components, and some surprising results have been obtained. However, to understand the existence of these surprising results, further research may be needed on the achievement goals and epistemological beliefs of middle school students, particularly in the younger age group. 1.1.2. Achievement Goals Achievement goals are an important part of motivation theory, including definitions and evaluations of competence. The beliefs attributed to competence (how it is defined) and evaluations (how it is valenced) lead to the emergence of different achievement goals (Elliot & McGregor, 2001 ). According to the theory, in the early years, competence was conceptualized as (1) understanding and mastering a task (setting standards and succeeding in them) and (2) performing better than others (Ames, 1992 ; Elliot & McGregor, 2001 ; Nicholls, 1984 ), with two dimensions: mastery goals and performance goals. Mastery goals involve individuals' approaches to competence related to mastery, whereas performance goals (performance approach) focus on normative comparisons, where individuals aim to perform better than others (Elliot & McGregor, 2001 ). In subsequent years, psychologists proposed that competence was valenced in that it is either a positive, desirable possibility (i.e., success) or a negative, undesirable possibility (i.e., failure); this suggests that achievement goals can be recategorized into two categories: approach and avoidance (Elliot et al., 2011 ). Therefore, this 2×2 matrix presents the four-dimensional structure of achievement goals: mastery approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach and performance avoidance. According to Hulleman et al. ( 2010 ), this fourfold structure focuses on achievement, failure, or avoidance in terms of interpersonal and intrapersonal characteristics. Avoidance and approach are intrapersonal (self-approach) characteristics of mastery goals, whereas performance goals stem from interpersonal (other approach) characteristics (Elliot et al., 2011 ; Elliot & Hulleman, 2017 ). Achievement goals are closely related to many cognitive and motivational concepts. For example, many studies have shown that achievement goals are closely related to self-regulation skills (Duffy & Azevedo, 2015 ; Won, Wolters, & Mueller, 2018 ), learning approaches (Kizilgunes et al. 2009 ; Valle et al., 2003 ), cognitive engagement (Ravindran et al., 2005 ), epistemological beliefs (Lin & Tsai, 2017 ; Madjar et al., 2017 ), and achievement emotions (Bross et al., 2024 ). When the relationship between achievement goals and achievement emotions is closely examined, these two concepts are theoretically reciprocal. For example, it is assumed that the speed of progress toward achieving a goal leads to the experience of certain emotions. Conversely, emotional experiences affect achievement goals (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002 ; Linnenbrink-Garcia & Barger, 2014 ). According to Pekrun ( 2006 ), emotions are particularly dependent on achievement goals that trigger and contribute to them. According to the theoretical assumption, mastery and performance approaches are generally associated with positive emotions, whereas avoidance orientations are associated with negative emotions (Pekrun et al., 2006 ). In a comprehensive meta-analysis (Bross et al., 2024 ) of 312 empirical studies testing these theoretical assumptions, some unexpected results emerged; however, the theoretical connections between achievement emotions and achievement goals were largely confirmed. In other words, mastery-approach goals are related to activity emotions, performance-approach goals are associated with positive outcome emotions, and performance-avoidance goals are linked to negative outcome emotions (Bross et al., 2024 ). 1.1.3. Achievement emotions Achievement emotions are directly linked to achievement activities or achievement outcomes (Pekrun, 2006 ). Activity emotions are experienced during participation in an activity (for example, solving a science problem). Outcome emotions include both prospective outcome emotions (for example, those related to potential achievements or failures) and retrospective outcome emotions (for example, those related to previous achievements and failures), and all three fall under the broader category of academic emotions (Muis, et al., 2015 ). Achievement emotions based on control–value theory are as follows: (1) subjective/internal control over achievement activities and their outcomes (e.g., the expectation that persistence in studying can lead to success) and (2) the subjective values of these activities and outcomes (e.g., the perceived importance of achievement) (Pekrun, 2006 , p.317). Additionally, achievement emotions arise from conceptualizing achievement activities or outcomes based on time (past, present, future) (Pekrun et al., 2023 ). In this framework, pleasure (or enjoyment) is considered a positive activating emotion that arises when students positively evaluate their learning activities or outcomes. Anxiety is a negative activating emotion linked to the anticipation of failure or lack of control over learning tasks. Shame is a negative deactivating emotion associated with negative evaluations of one's abilities or efforts following failure (Bross et al., 2024 ; Pekrun, 2006 ). Recent studies on achievement emotions suggest that these emotions are closely related to others derived from control–value theory (Pekrun, 2024a ). For example, achievement emotions, along with epistemic emotions, are included in the "Emotions" section of the "General Theory of Human Emotions." Given that epistemological beliefs are considered a core concept of epistemic emotions and many other cognitive and motivational concepts, they are also closely related to achievement emotions. For example, in domains where knowledge is more certain and unchanging, individuals' subjective control and values related to initiating and sustaining an activity and ultimately achieving success can influence the formation of different emotions. In more detail, physics knowledge is not certain, and knowledge is interconnected. A statement such as “I have not experienced this task related to physics, and I struggled. I might insist on this task or I might not, and as a result, I expect either achievement or failure” could trigger both positive and negative achievement emotions. Similarly, an individual who sees themselves as the source of knowledge and holds the belief in evaluating evidence through multiple justifications (sophisticated epistemological beliefs) may experience positive emotions during and as a result of a science-related activity (such as problem-solving or engaging in argumentation) because the process aligns with and supports their epistemological belief. For example, positive emotions may be generated if individuals reach the best argument and succeed. Owing to such theoretical assumptions, we believe that epistemological beliefs may significantly impact achievement emotions, and we aim to test this possibility empirically. Interestingly, the relationship between achievement emotions and epistemological beliefs in the context of science education has rarely been established. Achievement emotions have been associated not with epistemological beliefs but rather with the concept of epistemic emotions. However, epistemological beliefs are a central concept that deeply influences epistemic emotions. Testing the structural relationships of goal orientation and achievement emotions, which are nested within this central concept, may yield surprising results. 1.1.4. Proposed Model Considering the aforementioned literature, the structural model in Fig. 1 was proposed. While the dotted lines represent a negative estimate, the solid lines represent a positive estimate in Fig. 1 . The model suggests that middle school students' epistemological beliefs predict their goal orientations and achievement emotions. Additionally, goal orientations are related to achievement emotions. First, since epistemological beliefs are a central concept (Hofer, 1997 ), we placed them at the beginning of the model and drew a path from it to goal orientation and achievement emotions. Although the relationship between goal orientation and emotions is reciprocal, we identified a direction from goal orientation to achievement emotions, which is consistent with control–value theory (Pekrun, 2006 , p.328) and many studies. First, mixed results can be expected when the relationship between epistemological beliefs and goal orientations is considered. Generally, a well-developed epistemological belief positively predicts learning-oriented goal orientations, whereas avoidance goals are expected to be negatively predicted. However, owing to some of the studies mentioned above, as well as the high-stakes exams and competition in contexts such as Turkey, the results from our previous studies led us to revise our hypothesis. Sophisticated epistemological beliefs may positively predict mastery-and performance-approach goal orientations. For example, students with an advanced epistemology (e.g. Knowledge is tentative) may have goal orientations that align with their epistemological beliefs, such as a mastery approach to learning changing knowledge and demonstrate their performance to others (presenting multiple pieces of evidence). However, students with advanced epistemological beliefs may have mastery-avoidance beliefs, such as "Knowledge can change, I feel that I should control the learning process of these changing facts, I am afraid of not learning all of this knowledge." Therefore, sophisticated epistemological beliefs may positively predict mastery avoidance. On the other hand, the relationship between epistemological beliefs and performance avoidance may be negative, which is consistent with previous studies. When examining the relationship between goal orientation and achievement emotions, it can be expected that mastery- and performance-approach goal orientations positively predict positive emotions and negatively predict negative emotions. For example, the goal of mastering an entire topic and being more successful than others can trigger positive emotions. Similarly, since mastery- and performance-avoidance goal orientations are closely related to anxiety and fear, it can be expected that avoidance goal orientations predict negative emotions. For example, hesitating to understand the entire content of science lessons or fearing poor performance in front of others may positively predict negative emotions. Although no study has directly tested the structural relationships between epistemological beliefs and achievement emotions, some assumptions can be proposed. Similar to goal orientation, mixed results can be expected. In the theoretical framework section above, we present some speculations regarding our expectations. However, having an advanced epistemological belief can generally enable participation in a science-related activity and positively evaluate the achievement status after the activity. In this case, it can be expected that a developed epistemological belief positively predicts positive emotions and negatively predicts negative emotions. For example, an advanced epistemological belief triggers skills related to constructivist learning, such as initiating a task and actively participating in and completing the task. In such environments, students who take control of their own learning processes and achieve success are expected to experience positive emotions such as pleasure, pride, and enjoyment. Research Questions Considering the aim of the study, the following research question was addressed: What are the relationships among middle school students’ epistemological beliefs, achievement goals and achievement emotions? 2. Method This study investigated the relationships among the variables presented in Fig. 1 using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis. Therefore, a correlational research design was applied in the study (Fraenkel & Wallen 2009 ). The study sample consists of middle school students attending different public middle schools selected through a convenience sampling method. 2.1. Participants and Instruments 2.1.1. Participants The data for the study were collected from approximately 1200 students studying in seven different public schools located in southeastern Türkiye. After the data were collected, some students did not fill out the questionnaires adequately. For this reason, 1073 students were included in the study. The students are at the 5th - to 8th-grade level. Middle school students were selected for this study because they participate in science courses starting from this grade level. The instruments consist of four sections: class level and gender, the epistemological beliefs questionnaire, the goal orientations questionnaire, and the achievement emotions questionnaire. 2.1.2. Scientific Epistemological Beliefs Scale The epistemological beliefs scale developed by Conley et al. ( 2004 ) comprises four subdimensions: certainty of knowledge (e.g., scientific knowledge is always true), source (e.g., whatever the teacher says in the science class is true), justification (e.g., there can be more than one way for scientists to test their ideas), and development (e.g., ideas in science sometimes change). The scale comprises 26 items measured via a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree), and the subdimensions of certainty, source, justification, and development include 6, 5, 9, and 6 items, respectively. Before the analysis, the items in the certainty and source dimensions were recoded so that higher scores on the scale in these dimensions corresponded to more advanced epistemological beliefs. Bahcivan ( 2014 ) adapted the scale to Turkish using a sample of Turkish preservice science teachers and reported acceptable fit indices (χ2/df = 1.44, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.95, Tucker‒Lewis index (TLI) = 0.93, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.04) and acceptable alpha reliability scores ranging from 0.66 to 0.82. The scale adapted by Özkan ( 2008 ) for middle school students differs from that used in the study by Conley et al; this is because elements from the domain of the nature of knowledge (certainty) merged with elements from the domain of the nature of knowing (source) (Özkan, 2008 ). This three-factor structure was examined via structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results demonstrated the model's fit (GFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06, S-RMR = 0.06). The reliability of the questionnaire is represented by a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.76. The reliability of the "justification" dimension was found to be a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.77, the "development" dimension had a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.59, and the "resources/certainty" dimension had a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.70. In this study, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in accordance with the adaptation of Bahcivan ( 2014 ) and by adhering to the four subdimensions of the scale; the results supported the four-factor structure. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the epistemological beliefs questionnaire were 0.562 for the certainty subdimension, 0.588 for the source subdimension, 0.644 for the development subdimension, and 0.809 for the justification subdimension. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed fit indices (χ2/df = 2,54, GFI = 0.950, CFI = 0.914 and RMSEA = 0.038), demonstrating that the epistemological belief scale used in the present study has structural validity. 2.1.3. Achievement Goal Orientations Scale The Achievement Goal Questionnaire developed by Elliot and McGregor ( 2001 ) is answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 "Strongly Disagree" to 5 "Strongly Agree." It comprises 4 subscales and a total of 12 items. The mastery-approach goal comprises 3 items (e.g., "I want to learn as much as possible from this class"), the mastery-avoidance goal comprises 3 items (e.g., "I worry that I may not learn all that I possibly could in this class"), the performance-approach goal comprises 3 items (e.g., "It is important for me to do better than others"), and the performance-avoidance goal comprises 3 items (e.g., "I just want to avoid doing poorly in this class"). Şenler and Sungur ( 2007 ) translated the scale into Turkish and conducted a validity study with 616 middle school students. The alpha coefficients for the sample are as follows: learning approach, 0.81; learning avoidance, 0.65; performance approach, 0.69; and performance avoidance, 0.64. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis supported the four-factor structure of the scale (GFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.92, NFI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.07) (Şenler and Sungur, 2007 ). This study used the Goal Orientations Questionnaire to measure middle school students' goal orientations in science classes. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the Goal Orientations Questionnaire were 0.772 for the learning-approach subdimension, 0.576 for the learning-avoidance subdimension, 0.735 for the performance-approach subdimension, and 0.494 for the performance-avoidance subdimension. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) conducted to validate the four-factor structure revealed fit indices (χ2/df = 3,30, GFI = 0.976, CFI = 0.960 and RMSEA = 0.046), which demonstrated that the goal orientation scale used in the present study has structural validity. 2.1.4. Achievement Emotions Scale The Achievement Emotion Questionnaire (AEQ) was developed by Elliot and later adapted by Peixoto, Mata, Monteiro, Sanches, and Pekrun ( 2015 ) for students in grades 5–7 (ages 10–13). It is a five-point Likert scale adapted into Turkish by Alpaslan and Ulubey ( 2018 ). The scale has six dimensions: pride, enjoyment, anger, anxiety, hopelessness, and boredom. Each dimension comprises four items. CFA was conducted to ensure the validity of the data collected within the scope of the study. The CFA results were χ2 (df = 293, p = .000) = 697.28, SRMR = .050, RMSEA = .056, CFI = .93. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for reliability are as follows: 0.80, 0.75, 0.84, 0.88, 0.88, and 0.77. In the present study, to measure middle school students' achievement emotions in science classes, the achievement emotions scale developed by Alpaslan and Ulubey ( 2018 ) for mathematics classes was modified by replacing 'mathematics' with 'science' and then administered to middle school students. The six subdimensions of achievement emotions were reduced to two subdimensions for further analysis (such as SEM and others). In some studies, achievement emotions were reduced to positive (e.g., "I feel proud of my contribution in science class") and negative (e.g., "I feel tense in science class") emotions (Shao et al., 2023 ). For this purpose, when conducting CFA, second-order factor analysis was used to reflect whether the six factors of the AEQ could be replicated and whether they fit the proposed model, as shown in Fig. 2 . The emotions were grouped under the second-order factors of positive and negative emotions. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed fit indices (χ2/df = 4,71, GFI = 0.908, CFI = 0.932 and RMSEA = 0.059), demonstrating that the Achievement Emotions Scale used in the present study has structural validity. Finally, Cronbach's alpha values for these factors were 0.903 for positive emotions and 0.919 for negative emotions. 2.2. Procedure and Analysis In this study, the necessary permission was obtained from a state university's Research and Publication Ethics Committee and, subsequently, from the Provincial Directorate of National Education of the city where the study was conducted. During the data collection phase of the study, students' voluntary participation was ensured. Before the study, the students' parents were informed about the study, and parental consent forms were obtained. The data collection process was conducted by the researcher, who visited schools and gathered data during a single class period. It took the students approximately one class period (40 minutes) to answer the questionnaires. Before the questionnaires were administered to the students, the researcher explained the aim and importance of the study and communicated that participation information would be kept completely confidential. The questions of the students who voluntarily participated in the study were answered immediately by the researcher, and necessary explanations were provided. The students were informed that they should read the questionnaire items carefully and independently from each other and that the voluntary participants could withdraw from the study at any time if they wished. The authors obtained permission from the scientists who developed the study's data collection scales. Additionally, the study results comply with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments, as well as comparable ethical standards. The data were entered into SPSS 23, and structural equation modeling (n = 1073) was conducted via the AMOS program to answer the research question. 3. Results and Discussion SEM analysis was conducted to investigate the relationships between middle school students' scientific epistemological beliefs, goal orientations, and achievement emotions. The analysis produced a statistical model with acceptable fit indices (χ2/df = 3.15, GFI = 0.857, CFI = 0.847, TLI = 0.838 and RMSEA = 0.045). The structural relationships are provided in Fig. 2 . In this figure, the solid lines represent positive predictions, whereas the dashed lines represent negative predictions. The results indicated that middle school students' scientific epistemological beliefs significantly predict their goal orientations and achievement emotions. This finding aligns with Hofer and Pintrich’s ( 1997 ) emphasis on the central role of epistemological beliefs in cognitive and motivational factors. When examining the structural relationships between epistemological beliefs and goal orientations, it was observed that the subdimensions of development of knowledge, source of knowledge, and justification positively predicted mastery goals (approach and avoidance). These results are consistent with the proposed hypothesis. Epistemological beliefs are generally part of the internal conditions of self-regulated learning processes; therefore, they can be said to have a positive relationship with the mastery approach (Muis, 2007 ). Similarly, sophisticated beliefs in the dimensions of development and justification are positively related to the learning (mastery) approach (Kizilgunes, et al., 2009 ; Winberg et al., 2019 ). On the other hand, the present study revealed a positive correlation between performance goals and advanced epistemological beliefs in the dimensions of the source of knowledge and justification. These results generally contradict the expectation that advanced epistemological beliefs negatively predict performance goals. In recent years, many studies have reported mixed results, and advanced epistemological belief positively predicts students' performance goals in several subdimensions (Demirbağ and Bahçivan, 2022; Lin & Tsai, 2017 ). Our study also supports this outcome. This situation can be explained by the fact that competitive exams are a key component of the education system in countries such as Türkiye. Students develop beliefs about the nature of knowledge and its acquisition from a young age within a competitive education system. Although these environments include constructivist and learning-focused goals (e.g., argument-based science teaching), some students still develop a goal orientation focused on demonstrating their performance and abilities to others (Demirbağ and Bahçivan, 2022). Students may adopt positive roles in the science learning environment, align with advanced epistemological beliefs, and wish to demonstrate their epistemic understanding to other students, supported by multiple justifications and their role as a subject in the source of knowledge. Surprisingly, however, this does not apply to the dimension of certainty of knowledge. The certainty dimension is negatively related to the four subdimensions of goal orientation. Middle school students' belief that knowledge can change and evolve negatively predicts their learning of science subjects and their performance in front of others. Students might think, "If knowledge is constantly changing, there is no need to put effort into learning these things, and I feel no hesitation in not learning this science-related knowledge." The changing nature of knowledge may be perceived negatively by students, making it difficult for them to grasp, track, and perform with evolving knowledge. Thus, Muis and Franco ( 2009 ) argued that if students believe that knowledge is constantly changing, there is no fixed criterion to evaluate success, which may lead them to exhibit lower performance. In recent years, the unexpected results of epistemological beliefs with goal orientation in many studies may be due to each subdimension of epistemological beliefs interacting with goal orientations in different ways, thereby creating new belief sets. This situation arises from the tendency of seemingly independent beliefs to have an 'unbounded nature.' Owing to this unbounded structure, beliefs can easily extend to phenomena that may be irrelevant to the context in which they were formed (Abelson, 1979 ). When examining the relationship between epistemological beliefs and achievement emotions, it was found that holding a sophisticated belief—where the source of knowledge is the individual and where evidence and multiple justifications are important in justifying knowledge—positively predicts positive emotions while negatively predicting negative emotions. Epistemic beliefs are closely related to self-regulated learning, such as the ability to initiate, continue and reflect on a task (Muis et al., 2018 ). During self-regulated learning, emotions are closely related to epistemological beliefs and goals. Emotions can arise when striving to achieve, being hindered from achieving, or achieving an epistemic goal (Greene et al., 2010 ; Muis et al., 2018 ). In support of this, epistemological beliefs may have triggered students' initiation and completion of science-related achievement activities. The students who achieved this may have experienced positive emotions related to the activities and outcomes. Although no study has directly targeted achievement emotions through structural equation modeling of epistemological beliefs, advanced epistemological beliefs serve as precursors to emotional structures (e.g., epistemic emotions) and positively predict emotions (Muis et al., 2018 ). In this context, the relationships among the three subdimensions of advanced epistemological beliefs and emotions, with the exception of certainty, are consistent with the proposed model in this study. However, the certainty of the knowledge subdimension produced a surprising result in achievement emotions, similar to its effect on goal orientation. In the dimension of certainty of knowledge, holding a belief that knowledge can change and develop positively predicts negative emotions, whereas it negatively predicts positive emotions. The changing and evolving nature of knowledge may have decreased students' motivation and caused them to experience negative emotions. Because the presented knowledge may not align with the knowledge they already possess or may contradict their epistemic beliefs, it can lead them to experience negative emotions (Bendixen & Rule, 2004 ; Muis et al., 2015 ). During cognitive activities, some emotions may be experienced as epistemic or achievement emotions (Pekrun & Perry, 2014 ). When the relationship between goal orientations and achievement emotions was examined, the results were consistent with the model’s proposed hypothesis. Middle school students' mastery-approach orientations positively predict positive achievement emotions and negatively predict negative emotions. Many theoretical and empirical studies support this conclusion. For example, according to Linnenbrink and Pintrich ( 2002 ), mastery-approach goals are expected to increase positive emotions and decrease negative emotions, as individuals with these goals focus on understanding the task and believe they can achieve their learning objectives. As a result, they are likely to feel happy, proud, and experience greater joy while completing the task. However, mastery-avoidance orientations negatively predict positive emotions, whereas they positively predict negative emotions. This result aligns with our expectations, although it is significant enough to contribute to the literature. Because the previous meta-analysis by Huang ( 2011 ) revealed a significant positive relationship between mastery-avoidance goals and negative emotions, supporting our study, the recent meta-analysis only partially confirmed this finding. Researchers conducting meta-analyses have noted that more evidence is needed to clarify this relationship (Bross et al., 2024 ). Owing to its theoretical structure, individuals with mastery-avoidance goals may experience anxiety when they make no progress in avoiding the outcomes they wish to avoid, whereas they may experience positive emotions when they do make progress (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002 ). Our findings are consistent with the first theoretical assumption. Because mastery avoidance is a learning-oriented approach, it focuses more on avoiding negative (failure) outcomes rather than achieving positive (success) outcomes as a form of competency valence. The finding that middle school students with goal orientations such as " I hesitate that I may not learn the entire topic and feel anxious" may experience negative achievement emotions is closely related to our findings. When examining the relationship between performance goals and achievement emotions, it was concluded that only performance-avoidance goals predicted emotions. Performance-avoidance goals positively predict negative emotions (anxiety, shame, etc.). This result is consistent with the theoretical and empirical evidence (Bong, 2009 , Putwain & Symes, 2012 ; Pekrun et al., 2006 ). Students who fear they cannot showcase their skills and performance in front of others may experience negative emotions during, and as a result of, achievement-related activities (Goetz et al., 2016 ). 4. Conclusions and Limitations In summary, the study results show that the four subdimensions of epistemological beliefs are related to mastery goals. Advanced epistemological beliefs in the dimensions of source, development, and justification positively predict both mastery and avoidance goals. The certainty of knowledge negatively predicts both mastery approach and mastery avoidance. In addition, except for the development dimension of epistemological beliefs, the dimensions of source, justification, and certainty predicted performance approaches. The dimensions of source and justification positively predicted both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals, whereas the certainty dimension negatively predicted these dimensions. When examining the relationship between epistemological beliefs and achievement emotions, advanced epistemological beliefs in the dimensions of source and justification positively predicted positive emotions, whereas negative emotions were negatively predicted. However, the advanced beliefs in the certainty dimension negatively predict positive emotions, whereas negative emotions positively predict positive emotions. Among the goal orientations, only the mastery approach positively predicted positive emotions. Mastery and performance avoidance negatively predict positive emotions, whereas they positively predict negative emotions. Finally, the mastery approach positively predicted negative emotions. This study has several limitations. The first is that the participants were middle school students, and the measurements related to the study's variables focused on the science domain. The second important limitation is the scales used to collect the quantitative data. Finally, since the study did not include longitudinal data and was conducted with a cross-sectional research design, it was not possible to claim a true cause‒effect relationship, and the structural relationships were limited to the proposed model. 5. Implications Future researchers may focus on the reciprocal relationship of structural variables. Although goal orientations are considered important precursors of achievement emotions in the literature, the reciprocal relationship where emotions can trigger achievement goals can also be examined. On the other hand, more research is needed to demonstrate the structural relationship between epistemological beliefs and achievement emotions. While the relationship between epistemological beliefs and epistemic emotions has generally been established, the relationship with achievement emotions, which differ in terms of object focus, remains to be clarified. Some dimensions of epistemological beliefs have produced mixed results in recent years, and certain achievement goals have led to unexpected outcomes owing to their theoretical structure, which requires closer examination. Specifically, the certainty dimension of epistemological beliefs has yielded surprising results related to both goal orientations and achievement emotions. The relationships involving the mastery-avoidance dimension show similar patterns. In this context, there may be a need for studies that conduct in-depth qualitative research and measure emotions via different protocols. Data from countries such as Türkiye, where Eastern and Western cultures blend, and from Asia-Pacific countries, are important. However, different samples and results from various countries are needed. According to Pekrun ( 2024a ), for the theoretical integration of motivation in science, more research is needed to adequately consider the specificity of populations, situational conditions, and sociocultural contexts, including their differentiation. Declarations Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate Study results comply with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments, as well as comparable ethical standards. The necessary permission was obtained from a state university's Research and Publication Ethics Committee and, subsequently, from the Provincial Directorate of National Education of the city where the study was conducted. Participants were given detailed explanations about the study’s objectives. Consent for publication All authors have approved the manuscript for submission. Availability of Data and Materials The data are publicly available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/HYZ6QH Competing Interests Authors are required to disclose financial or non-financial interests that are directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication. Please refer to “Competing Interests and Funding” below for more information on how to complete this section. Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest. Funding Not applicable. The authors declare that there are no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests. Authors' contributions Author M.D. contributed to 60% of the study, including the conceptualization, methodology design, data analysis, and drafting of the manuscript. Author B. S. contributed to 40% of the study, primarily through literature review, data collection, and critical revision of the manuscript. Both authors approved the final version of the manuscript. Acknowledgements We thank all the participants. Author Details 1 Barışcan SAVAŞ, Ministry of Education, Bursa, Turkey. 2 Mehmet DEMİRBAĞ, Bursa Uludag University, Department of Science Education, Bursa, Turkey References Abelson RP. Differences between belief and knowledge systems. Cogn Sci. 1979;3(4):355–66. Alpaslan MM, Ulubey ve, Ö. Matematik dersindeki başarı duygusu, öz-düzenleyici öğrenme stratejileri ve akademik başarı arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2018;21(2):1–14. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.458020 . Ames C. Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. J Educ Psychol. 1992;84(3):261–71. Bahcivan E. Examining relationships among Turkishpre-service science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, scientific epistemological beliefs and science teaching efficacy beliefs. J Baltic Sci Educ. 2014;13(6):870–82. Bahçivan E. Eğitim bilimlerinde epistemoloji araştırmaları: Düne, bugüne ve gelecek perspektiflere eleştirel bakış. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2017;13(2):760–72. Bellocchi A, Ritchie SM. I was proud of myself that I didn't give up and I did it: Experiences of pride and triumph in learning science. Sci Educ. 2015;99(4):638–68. Bendixen LD, Rule DC. An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychol. 2004;39(1):69–80. Bross T, Nett UE, Daumiller M. Interrelations among achievement goals and achievement emotions: A meta-analytic examination. Educational Psychol Rev. 2024;36(3):98. Bong M. Age-related differences in achievement goaldifferentiation. J Educ Psychol. 2009;101(4):879–96. Buehl MM, Alexander PA. Examining the dual nature of epistemological beliefs. Int J Educational Res. 2006;45(1–2):28–42. Camacho-Morles J, Slemp GR, Pekrun R, Loderer K, Hou H, Oades LG. Activity achievement emotions and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychol Rev. 2021;33(3):1051–95. Chen JA. Implicit theories, epistemic beliefs, and science motivation: A person-centered approach. Learn Individual Differences. 2012;22(6):724–35. Conley AM, Pintrich PR, Vekiri I, Harrison D. Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2004;29(2):186–204. DeBacker TK, Crowson HM. Influences on cognitive engagement: Epistemological beliefs and need for closure. Br J Educ Psychol. 2006;76(3):535–51. Demirbag M, Bahcivan E. Psychological modeling of preservice science teachers’ argumentativeness, achievement goals, and epistemological beliefs: a mixed design. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2022;37:1–22. de la Fuente J, Paoloni P, Kauffman D, Yilmaz Soylu M, Sander P, Zapata L. Big five, self-regulation, and coping strategies as predictors of achievement emotions in undergraduate students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10):3602. Duffy MC, Azevedo R. Motivation matters: Interactions between achievement goals and agent scaffolding for self-regulated learning within an intelligent tutoring system. Comput Hum Behav. 2015;52:338–48. Elliot AJ, Hulleman CS. Achievement goals. In: Elliot AJ, Dweck CS, Yeager DS, editors. Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application. The Guilford Press; 2017. pp. 43–60. Elliot AJ, McGregor HA. A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2001;80(3):501–19. Elliot AJ, Murayama K, Pekrun R. A 3× 2 achievement goal model. J Educ Psychol. 2011;103(3):632. Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE. (2009). How to Design Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGrawHill Companies, 7th edition. Goetz T, Sticca F, Pekrun R, Murayama K, Elliot AJ. Intraindividual relations between achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: An experience sampling approach. Learn Instruction. 2016;41:115–25. Gong X, Bergey BW. The dimensions and functions of students’ achievement emotions in Chinese chemistry classrooms. Int J Sci Educ. 2020;42(5):835–56. Greene JA, Muis KR, Pieschl S. The role of epistemic beliefs in students’ self-regulated learning with computer-based learning environments: Conceptual and methodological issues . Educational Psychol. 2010;45(4):245–57. Hammer D, ve Elby A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. B. K. Hofer ve P. R. Pintrich (Yay. haz.). Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs içinde (s. 169–190). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Heddy BC, Danielson RW, Sinatra GM, Graham J. Modifying knowledge, emotions, and attitudes regarding genetically modified foods. J Experimental Educ. 2017;85(3):513–33. Hofer BK, Pintrich PR. The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Rev Educ Res. 1997;67(1):88–140. Huang C. Achievement goals and achievement emotions: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychol Rev. 2011;23:359–88. Hulleman CS, Schrager SM, Bodmann SM, Harackiewicz JM. A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychol Bull. 2010;136(3):422–49. Jarrell A, Harley JM, Lajoie SP. The link between achievement emotions, appraisals, and task performance: Pedagogical considerations for emotions in CBLEs. J Computers Educ. 2016;3:289–307. King PM, Kitchener KS, editors. Developing reflectivejudgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth andcritical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1994. Kizilgunes B, Tekkaya C, Sungur S. Modeling the relations among students' epistemological beliefs, motivation, learning approach, and achievement. J educational Res. 2009;102(4):243–56. Kuhn D, Iordanou K, Pease M, ve Wirkala C. Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cogn Dev. 2008;23:435–51. Lin TJ, Tsai CC. Developing instruments concerning scientific epistemic beliefs and goal orientations in learning science: a validation study. Int J Sci Educ. 2017;39(17):2382–401. Linnenbrink EA, Pintrich PR. Achievement Goal Theory and Affect: An Asymmetrical Bidirectional Model. Educational Psychol. 2002;37(2):69–78. Linnenbrink-Garcia L, Barger MM. Achievement goals and emotions. International handbook of emotions in education. Routledge; 2014. pp. 142–61. Madjar N, Weinstock M, Kaplan A. Epistemic beliefs and achievement goal orientations: Relations between constructs versus personal profiles. J Educational Res. 2017;110(1):32–49. Mason L, Boscolo P, Tornatora MC, Ronconi L. Besides knowledge: A cross-sectional study on the relations between epistemic beliefs, achievement goals, self-beliefs, and achievement in science. Instr Sci. 2013;41:49–79. Mason L, Gava M, Boldrin A. On warm conceptual change: The interplay of text, epistemological beliefs, and topic interest. J Educ Psychol. 2008;100(2):291. Membiela P, Acosta K, Yebra MA, González A. Motivation to learn science, emotions in science classes, and engagement towards science studies in Chilean and Spanish compulsory secondary education students. Sci Educ. 2023;107(4):939–63. Merk S, Rosman T, Muis KR, Kelava A, Bohl T. Topic specific epistemic beliefs: Extending the theory of integrated domains in personal epistemology. Learn Instruction. 2018;56:84–97. Muis KR. The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychol. 2007;42(3):173–90. Muis KR, Bendixen LD, Haerle FC. Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychol Rev. 2006;18:3–54. Muis KR, Chevrier M, Singh CA. The role of epistemic emotions in personal epistemology and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychol. 2018;53(3):165–84. Muis KR, Franco GM. Epistemic beliefs: Setting the standards for self-regulated learning. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2009;34(4):306–18. Muis KR, Pekrun R, Sinatra GM, Azevedo R, Trevors G, Meier E, Heddy BC. The curious case of climate change: Testing a theoretical model of epistemic beliefs, epistemic emotions, and complex learning. Learn Instruction. 2015;39:168–83. Nicholls JG. Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychol Rev. 1984;91(3):328. Özkan Ş. Modeling elementary students’ science achievement: the interrelationships among epistemological beliefs, learning approaches, and self-regulated learning strategies [Doktora Tezi]. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi; 2008. Palmer B, Marra RM. Individual domain-specific epistemologies: Implications for educational practice. Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2008. pp. 325–50. Peixoto F, Mata L, Monteiro V, Sanches C, Pekrun R. The achievement emotions questionnaire: Validation for pre-adolescent students. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2015;12(4):472–81. Pekrun R. The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychol Rev. 2006;18:315–41. Pekrun R. Overcoming Fragmentation in Motivation Science: Why, When, and How Should We Integrate Theories? Educational Psychol Rev. 2024a;36(1):27. Pekrun R. Control-value theory: From achievement emotion to a general theory of human emotions. Educational Psychol Rev. 2024b;36(3):83. Pekrun R, Elliot AJ, Maier MA. Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. J Educ Psychol. 2006;98(3):583. Pekrun R, Goetz T, Frenzel AC, Barchfeld P, Perry RP. Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemp Educ Psychol. 2011;36(1):36–48. Pekrun R, Marsh HW, Elliot AJ, Stockinger K, Perry RP, Vogl E, Vispoel WP. A three-dimensional taxonomy of achievement emotions. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2023;124(1):145. Pekrun R, Perry RP. Control-value theory of achievement emotions. International handbook of emotions in education. Routledge; 2014. pp. 120–41. Perry WG. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 1970. Piaget J. Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia University; 1970. Putwain DW, Schmitz EA, Wood P, Pekrun R. The role of achievement emotions in primary school mathematics: Control–value antecedents and achievement outcomes. Br J Educ Psychol. 2021;91(1):347–67. Putwain DW, Symes W. Achievement goals as mediators of the relationship between competence beliefs and test anxiety. Br J Educ Psychol. 2012;82(2):207–24. Ravindran B, Greene BA, DeBacker TK. Predicting preservice teachers' cognitive engagement with goals and epistemological beliefs. J Educational Res. 2005;98(4):222–33. Rosman T, Mayer AK. Epistemic beliefs as predictors of epistemic emotions: Extending a theoretical model. Br J Educ Psychol. 2018;88(3):410–27. Scherer KR. Psychological models of emotion. Neuropsychol Emot. 2000;137(3):137–62. Schommer M. Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. J Educ Psychol. 1990;82:498–504. Schweder S. Mastery goals, positive emotions and learning behavior in self-directed vs. teacher-directed learning. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2020;35(1):205–23. Shao K, Stockinger K, Marsh HW, Pekrun R. (2023). Applying control-value theory for examining multiple emotions in second language classrooms: Validating the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire-Second Language Learning. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221144497 Stahl E, Bromme R. The CAEB: An instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learn Instruction. 2007;17(6):773–85. Stathopoulou C, Vosniadou S. Exploring the relationship between physics-related epistemological beliefs and physics understanding. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2007;32(3):255–81. Şenler B, Sungur S. Hedef yönelimi anketinin Türkçeye çevrilmesi ve adaptasyonu. 1.Ulusal İlköğretim Kongresi. Ankara; 2007. Valle A, Cabanach RG, Nunez JC, Gonzalez-Pienda J, Rodriguez S, Pieniro I. Cognitive, motivational, and volitional dimension of learning. Res High Educt. 2003;44(5):557–80. Villavicencio FT. Critical thinking, negative academic emotions, and achievement: A mediational analysis. Asia-Pacific Educ Researcher. 2011;20(1):118–26. Winberg TM, Hofverberg A, Lindfors M. Relationships between epistemic beliefs and achievement goals: developmental trends over grades 5–11. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2019;34:295–315. Won S, Wolters CA, Mueller SA. Sense of belonging and self-regulated learning: Testing achievement goals as mediators. J Experimental Educ. 2018;86(3):402–18. Yilmaz-Tuzun O, Topcu MS. Relationships among preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views, and self‐efficacy beliefs. Int J Sci Educ. 2008;30(1):65–85. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 23 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Psychology → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 10 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 19 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 15 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 Aug, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 04 Aug, 2025 Editor invited by journal 10 Jul, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 08 Jul, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 08 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 04 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7049497","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":496684162,"identity":"9dccbd13-6f3b-4722-8ca2-c1e9b16f12e4","order_by":0,"name":"Barışcan SAVAŞ","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ministry of Education","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Barışcan","middleName":"","lastName":"SAVAŞ","suffix":""},{"id":496684164,"identity":"082609d2-551a-40fb-a386-aacaea7832c0","order_by":1,"name":"Mehmet DEMİRBAĞ","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bursa Uludag University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mehmet","middleName":"","lastName":"DEMİRBAĞ","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-04 21:23:07","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7049497/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7049497/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04488-4","type":"published","date":"2026-04-23T15:58:00+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":88534124,"identity":"2ab41876-aacb-4c05-9770-b6a9c4eb6aa4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-07 12:09:40","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":57099,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Proposed Model of the Study\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7049497/v1/66f4d4d9cbfe8566bb35bd3f.jpg"},{"id":88534125,"identity":"278be0f4-c9d5-4b91-9e46-6cca8d43cee8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-07 12:09:40","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":121082,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Statistical Model (\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003ep\u0026lt;0.05, \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003ep\u0026lt;0.001)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7049497/v1/a6a4bd3edf705e789b508e19.jpg"},{"id":107928102,"identity":"3275dccb-9af7-4f35-b176-1063ccf721f5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-27 16:07:51","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":471221,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7049497/v1/e9a942fd-012b-48e6-bb7c-74d486dc214c.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Examination of the Relationships among Middle School Students' Epistemological Beliefs, Goal Orientations, and Achievement Emotions: A Structural Equation Modeling Study","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eStudents' achievement in a subject is inevitably influenced by their emotional structures. Perceptions of achievement or failure and the basic emotions they feel in this situation, such as shame or pride, directly affect the goal related to the lesson in an attributional manner (Pekrun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Researchers have recently reported that these emotions possess a multifaceted structure, encompassing emotional, cognitive, physiological, motivational, and expressive-behavioral components (Scherer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Muis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). For example, anxiety before an exam typically includes nervous, uneasy feelings (affective), worries about possible failure (cognitive), physiological arousal (physiological), impulses to avoid taking the exam (motivation), and anxious facial expressions (expressive behavior) (Pekrun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). One of these types of emotions is achievement emotion. Achievement emotions are based on Pekrun\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) control\u0026ndash;value theory framework and are defined as emotions directly tied to achievement activities or outcomes (Pekrun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, p.317). Many studies on achievement emotions have revealed that achievement emotions are intertwined with cognitive and motivational structures such as academic achievement in the domains of science and mathematics (Bellocchi \u0026amp; Ritchie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Putwain et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), critical thinking and problem-solving (Jarrell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Villavicencio, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), teachers' preferred learning approaches (Schweder, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), self-regulation, coping strategies (de la Fuente, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), classroom engagement (Gong \u0026amp; Bergey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and goal orientation (Huang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). A growing body of literature on these topics is available.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, despite this relationship, the connection between achievement emotions and cognitive and motivational factors in general tends to be somewhat fragmented (Pekrun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e). In recent years, theoretical claims have been made to combine theories and construct a \"general theory of human emotions\" to overcome the fragmented structure of achievement emotions and other motivational factors (Pekrun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e). Conducting more studies that empirically test and demonstrate how achievement emotions intertwine with various structures to support these initiatives could contribute to theoretical discussions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this context, some studies in the literature have tested the relationship between achievement emotions and multiple variables (at least three) via structural equation modeling (Heddy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Membiela, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In the context of science education, few studies have been conducted, and no structural equation modeling studies testing achievement emotions together with epistemological beliefs and goal orientation have been conducted. Epistemological beliefs are a profound predictor of many concepts. The \u0026ldquo;general theory of human emotions\u0026rdquo; is closely related to emotions within science, such as epistemic emotions (Pekrun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e); this is supported by empirical evidence (e.g., Rosman \u0026amp; Mayer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). However, despite epistemic and achievement emotions have based on different object focuses, the relationship between epistemological beliefs and achievement emotions has not yet been clarified. Therefore, the aim of this study was to test the structural relationships among epistemological beliefs, goal orientation, and achievement emotions. This study selected the achievement emotions and goal orientations of middle school students toward science courses. (1) Many cognitive and motivational factors emerge during the learning experience in this course, such as exam anxiety, emphasis on performance, beliefs about the nature and acquisition of knowledge, etc; however, this also provides us with a natural field environment to understand and test many variables, such as epistemological beliefs, goal orientations, and emotions. 2) Achievement emotions have been studied empirically in the context of science education at the middle school level to a very limited extent (Camacho-Morles et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.1. Theoretical Framework\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.1.1. Epistemological Beliefs\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA key concept in the field of education and cognitive psychology is epistemological beliefs. Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing (Hofer \u0026amp; Pintrich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). When examining the historical development of epistemological beliefs in the field of educational psychology, three different approaches emerge.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first approach is the developmental perspective, which began with Perry (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e) and is based on the work of the researchers King and Kitchener (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). These researchers considered epistemological beliefs personal epistemology. They argued that personal epistemology progresses from a less developed to a more developed position, in accordance with the Piagetian perspective (Piaget, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e), through factors such as biological development and social interaction. According to developmental researchers, individuals' belief systems are classified from undeveloped to developed across all subfactors of beliefs about knowing and the nature of knowledge and are unidimensional (Hofer \u0026amp; Pintrich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Bah\u0026ccedil;ivan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). For example, Kuhn et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), important representatives of this perspective, examined epistemological beliefs from a developmental perspective as absolutist, multiplist, and evaluativist. Accordingly, the absolutist position views scientific knowledge as a collection of certainties and facts. In the evaluativist position, knowledge consists of judgments that must be supported within the framework of alternatives, evidence, and arguments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne of the pioneering researchers of the second approach, Schommer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e), took a different perspective from those who advocate a developmental view, approaching personal epistemology through epistemological beliefs that are more or less independent. According to Schommer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e), epistemological beliefs are more or less independent in nature and constitute a multidimensional structure divided into certainty of knowledge, simplicity of knowledge, source of knowledge, quick learning, and innate ability. Since the subdimensions of knowledge are independent characteristics, individuals can exhibit various degrees of each subdimension. According to Schommer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e), this classification falls within the contrast between naive and sophisticated. According to Schommer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e) and researchers who adopt this perspective, individuals may hold different beliefs across various epistemological dimensions. For example, an individual may hold a naive belief in the certainty of knowledge (knowledge is certain) while having a sophisticated belief in the structure of knowledge (knowledge is a complex, interconnected structure). Although Schommer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e) initially considered the dimensions of quick learning and innate ability as dimensions of epistemological beliefs, some researchers later removed these dimensions, as they pertain to the nature of learning rather than knowledge. For example, Hofer and Pintrich (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) removed these two dimensions from the subdimensions of epistemological beliefs and added the justification dimension of knowledge instead. According to Hofer and Pintrich (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), four dimensions are clustered into two main directions: the nature of knowledge, comprising the certainty of knowledge and simplicity of knowledge, and the nature of knowing, comprising the source of knowledge and justification for knowing. Many empirical studies have used this four-dimensional structure to test the relationships between variables.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the final approach, referred to as integrative perspectives, developmental stages from the developmental perspective (e.g., evaluativist) and dimensions from the multidimensional perspective (e.g., certainty of knowledge) are simultaneously utilized to understand epistemological beliefs within domain- and context-specific frameworks (Merk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Researchers of this approach argue that epistemological beliefs are not independent of the subject and context but are specific to the domain, topic, and context (Buehl \u0026amp; Alexander \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Hammer \u0026amp; Elby 2002; Palmer \u0026amp; Marra \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). For example, students can develop different beliefs in different areas, such as mathematics and social studies, based on their learning experiences (Muis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). In fact, students can develop specialized epistemological beliefs about any specific topic independently of their general beliefs (Stahl \u0026amp; Bromme, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMany researchers have shown that epistemological beliefs play an important role in learning and motivation outcomes such as academic achievement (Stathopoulou \u0026amp; Vosniadou \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), self-efficacy (Yilmaz-Tuzun \u0026amp; Topcu \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), self-regulation (Muis \u0026amp; Franco \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), conceptual change (Mason et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), epistemic emotions (Muis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), and achievement goals (Chen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). When closely examining the relationship between epistemological beliefs and goal orientation, it is expected that sophisticated epistemological beliefs would positively predict mastery-approach goals but negatively predict performance-approach goals (general expectation) (DeBacker \u0026amp; Crowson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Muis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecifically, in their examination of some studies, Kizilg\u0026uuml;nes et al. (2009) reported that the advanced scientific epistemological beliefs of 6th-grade students positively predict their mastery goal orientations. Using a sample of elementary and high school students, Chen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) reported that students' advanced epistemological beliefs in the development and justification dimensions were positively related to their mastery goals but negatively related to their performance-avoidance goals. However, mixed results have been obtained in some studies. For example, in a study by Demirbağ and Bah\u0026ccedil;ivan (2022), the development and justification dimensions presented unexpected relationships with performance-approach goal orientations. Similarly, sophisticated epistemological beliefs in some dimensions are positively related to performance-approach goals (Lin \u0026amp; Tsai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Mason et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Even in studies where the \u003cb\u003egeneral expectation\u003c/b\u003e was confirmed, such mixed results are also present (Kızılg\u0026uuml;neş et al., 2009; Winberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In summary, many studies have shown that epistemological beliefs are strong predictors of goal orientation components, and some surprising results have been obtained. However, to understand the existence of these surprising results, further research may be needed on the achievement goals and epistemological beliefs of middle school students, particularly in the younger age group.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.1.2. Achievement Goals\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAchievement goals are an important part of motivation theory, including definitions and evaluations of competence. The beliefs attributed to competence (how it is defined) and evaluations (how it is valenced) lead to the emergence of different achievement goals (Elliot \u0026amp; McGregor, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). According to the theory, in the early years, competence was conceptualized as (1) understanding and mastering a task (setting standards and succeeding in them) and (2) performing better than others (Ames, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e; Elliot \u0026amp; McGregor, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Nicholls, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e), with two dimensions: mastery goals and performance goals. Mastery goals involve individuals' approaches to competence related to mastery, whereas performance goals (performance approach) focus on normative comparisons, where individuals aim to perform better than others (Elliot \u0026amp; McGregor, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). In subsequent years, psychologists proposed that competence was valenced in that it is either a positive, desirable possibility (i.e., success) or a negative, undesirable possibility (i.e., failure); this suggests that achievement goals can be recategorized into two categories: approach and avoidance (Elliot et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, this 2\u0026times;2 matrix presents the four-dimensional structure of achievement goals: mastery approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach and performance avoidance. According to Hulleman et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), this fourfold structure focuses on achievement, failure, or avoidance in terms of interpersonal and intrapersonal characteristics. Avoidance and approach are intrapersonal (self-approach) characteristics of mastery goals, whereas performance goals stem from interpersonal (other approach) characteristics (Elliot et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Elliot \u0026amp; Hulleman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Achievement goals are closely related to many cognitive and motivational concepts. For example, many studies have shown that achievement goals are closely related to self-regulation skills (Duffy \u0026amp; Azevedo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Won, Wolters, \u0026amp; Mueller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), learning approaches (Kizilgunes et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Valle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), cognitive engagement (Ravindran et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), epistemological beliefs (Lin \u0026amp; Tsai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Madjar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), and achievement emotions (Bross et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). When the relationship between achievement goals and achievement emotions is closely examined, these two concepts are theoretically reciprocal. For example, it is assumed that the speed of progress toward achieving a goal leads to the experience of certain emotions. Conversely, emotional experiences affect achievement goals (Linnenbrink \u0026amp; Pintrich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Linnenbrink-Garcia \u0026amp; Barger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). According to Pekrun (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), emotions are particularly dependent on achievement goals that trigger and contribute to them. According to the theoretical assumption, mastery and performance approaches are generally associated with positive emotions, whereas avoidance orientations are associated with negative emotions (Pekrun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). In a comprehensive meta-analysis (Bross et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) of 312 empirical studies testing these theoretical assumptions, some unexpected results emerged; however, the theoretical connections between achievement emotions and achievement goals were largely confirmed. In other words, mastery-approach goals are related to activity emotions, performance-approach goals are associated with positive outcome emotions, and performance-avoidance goals are linked to negative outcome emotions (Bross et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.1.3. Achievement emotions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAchievement emotions are directly linked to achievement activities or achievement outcomes (Pekrun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Activity emotions are experienced during participation in an activity (for example, solving a science problem). Outcome emotions include both prospective outcome emotions (for example, those related to potential achievements or failures) and retrospective outcome emotions (for example, those related to previous achievements and failures), and all three fall under the broader category of academic emotions (Muis, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Achievement emotions based on control\u0026ndash;value theory are as follows: (1) subjective/internal control over achievement activities and their outcomes (e.g., the expectation that persistence in studying can lead to success) and (2) the subjective values of these activities and outcomes (e.g., the perceived importance of achievement) (Pekrun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, p.317).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, achievement emotions arise from conceptualizing achievement activities or outcomes based on time (past, present, future) (Pekrun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In this framework, pleasure (or enjoyment) is considered a positive activating emotion that arises when students positively evaluate their learning activities or outcomes. Anxiety is a negative activating emotion linked to the anticipation of failure or lack of control over learning tasks. Shame is a negative deactivating emotion associated with negative evaluations of one's abilities or efforts following failure (Bross et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Pekrun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecent studies on achievement emotions suggest that these emotions are closely related to others derived from control\u0026ndash;value theory (Pekrun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e). For example, achievement emotions, along with epistemic emotions, are included in the \"Emotions\" section of the \"General Theory of Human Emotions.\" Given that epistemological beliefs are considered a core concept of epistemic emotions and many other cognitive and motivational concepts, they are also closely related to achievement emotions. For example, in domains where knowledge is more certain and unchanging, individuals' subjective control and values related to initiating and sustaining an activity and ultimately achieving success can influence the formation of different emotions. In more detail, physics knowledge is not certain, and knowledge is interconnected. A statement such as \u0026ldquo;I have not experienced this task related to physics, and I struggled. I might insist on this task or I might not, and as a result, I expect either achievement or failure\u0026rdquo; could trigger both positive and negative achievement emotions. Similarly, an individual who sees themselves as the source of knowledge and holds the belief in evaluating evidence through multiple justifications (sophisticated epistemological beliefs) may experience positive emotions during and as a result of a science-related activity (such as problem-solving or engaging in argumentation) because the process aligns with and supports their epistemological belief. For example, positive emotions may be generated if individuals reach the best argument and succeed. Owing to such theoretical assumptions, we believe that epistemological beliefs may significantly impact achievement emotions, and we aim to test this possibility empirically. Interestingly, the relationship between achievement emotions and epistemological beliefs in the context of science education has rarely been established. Achievement emotions have been associated not with epistemological beliefs but rather with the concept of epistemic emotions. However, epistemological beliefs are a central concept that deeply influences epistemic emotions. Testing the structural relationships of goal orientation and achievement emotions, which are nested within this central concept, may yield surprising results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.1.4. Proposed Model\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsidering the aforementioned literature, the structural model in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e was proposed. While the dotted lines represent a negative estimate, the solid lines represent a positive estimate in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The model suggests that middle school students' epistemological beliefs predict their goal orientations and achievement emotions. Additionally, goal orientations are related to achievement emotions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, since epistemological beliefs are a central concept (Hofer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), we placed them at the beginning of the model and drew a path from it to goal orientation and achievement emotions. Although the relationship between goal orientation and emotions is reciprocal, we identified a direction from goal orientation to achievement emotions, which is consistent with control\u0026ndash;value theory (Pekrun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, p.328) and many studies. First, mixed results can be expected when the relationship between epistemological beliefs and goal orientations is considered. Generally, a well-developed epistemological belief positively predicts learning-oriented goal orientations, whereas avoidance goals are expected to be negatively predicted. However, owing to some of the studies mentioned above, as well as the high-stakes exams and competition in contexts such as Turkey, the results from our previous studies led us to revise our hypothesis. Sophisticated epistemological beliefs may positively predict mastery-and performance-approach goal orientations. For example, students with an advanced epistemology (e.g. Knowledge is tentative) may have goal orientations that align with their epistemological beliefs, such as a mastery approach to learning changing knowledge and demonstrate their performance to others (presenting multiple pieces of evidence). However, students with advanced epistemological beliefs may have mastery-avoidance beliefs, such as \"Knowledge can change, I feel that I should control the learning process of these changing facts, I am afraid of not learning all of this knowledge.\" Therefore, sophisticated epistemological beliefs may positively predict mastery avoidance. On the other hand, the relationship between epistemological beliefs and performance avoidance may be negative, which is consistent with previous studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen examining the relationship between goal orientation and achievement emotions, it can be expected that mastery- and performance-approach goal orientations positively predict positive emotions and negatively predict negative emotions. For example, the goal of mastering an entire topic and being more successful than others can trigger positive emotions. Similarly, since mastery- and performance-avoidance goal orientations are closely related to anxiety and fear, it can be expected that avoidance goal orientations predict negative emotions. For example, hesitating to understand the entire content of science lessons or fearing poor performance in front of others may positively predict negative emotions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough no study has directly tested the structural relationships between epistemological beliefs and achievement emotions, some assumptions can be proposed. Similar to goal orientation, mixed results can be expected. In the theoretical framework section above, we present some speculations regarding our expectations. However, having an advanced epistemological belief can generally enable participation in a science-related activity and positively evaluate the achievement status after the activity. In this case, it can be expected that a developed epistemological belief positively predicts positive emotions and negatively predicts negative emotions. For example, an advanced epistemological belief triggers skills related to constructivist learning, such as initiating a task and actively participating in and completing the task. In such environments, students who take control of their own learning processes and achieve success are expected to experience positive emotions such as pleasure, pride, and enjoyment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResearch Questions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsidering the aim of the study, the following research question was addressed:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat are the relationships among middle school students\u0026rsquo; epistemological beliefs, achievement goals and achievement emotions?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2. Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated the relationships among the variables presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis. Therefore, a correlational research design was applied in the study (Fraenkel \u0026amp; Wallen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). The study sample consists of middle school students attending different public middle schools selected through a convenience sampling method.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1. Participants and Instruments\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1.1. Participants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data for the study were collected from approximately 1200 students studying in seven different public schools located in southeastern T\u0026uuml;rkiye. After the data were collected, some students did not fill out the questionnaires adequately. For this reason, 1073 students were included in the study. The students are at the 5th - to 8th-grade level. Middle school students were selected for this study because they participate in science courses starting from this grade level.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe instruments consist of four sections: class level and gender, the epistemological beliefs questionnaire, the goal orientations questionnaire, and the achievement emotions questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1.2. Scientific Epistemological Beliefs Scale\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe epistemological beliefs scale developed by Conley et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) comprises four subdimensions: certainty of knowledge (e.g., scientific knowledge is always true), source (e.g., whatever the teacher says in the science class is true), justification (e.g., there can be more than one way for scientists to test their ideas), and development (e.g., ideas in science sometimes change). The scale comprises 26 items measured via a 5-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly Disagree to 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly Agree), and the subdimensions of certainty, source, justification, and development include 6, 5, 9, and 6 items, respectively. Before the analysis, the items in the certainty and source dimensions were recoded so that higher scores on the scale in these dimensions corresponded to more advanced epistemological beliefs. Bahcivan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) adapted the scale to Turkish using a sample of Turkish preservice science teachers and reported acceptable fit indices (χ2/df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.44, comparative fit index (CFI)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.95, Tucker‒Lewis index (TLI)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.93, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04) and acceptable alpha reliability scores ranging from 0.66 to 0.82.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe scale adapted by \u0026Ouml;zkan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) for middle school students differs from that used in the study by Conley et al; this is because elements from the domain of the nature of knowledge (certainty) merged with elements from the domain of the nature of knowing (source) (\u0026Ouml;zkan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). This three-factor structure was examined via structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results demonstrated the model's fit (GFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.92, AGFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.91, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, S-RMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06). The reliability of the questionnaire is represented by a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.76. The reliability of the \"justification\" dimension was found to be a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.77, the \"development\" dimension had a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.59, and the \"resources/certainty\" dimension had a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.70. In this study, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in accordance with the adaptation of Bahcivan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) and by adhering to the four subdimensions of the scale; the results supported the four-factor structure. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the epistemological beliefs questionnaire were 0.562 for the certainty subdimension, 0.588 for the source subdimension, 0.644 for the development subdimension, and 0.809 for the justification subdimension. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed fit indices (χ2/df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2,54, GFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.950, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.914 and RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.038), demonstrating that the epistemological belief scale used in the present study has structural validity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1.3. Achievement Goal Orientations Scale\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Achievement Goal Questionnaire developed by Elliot and McGregor (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) is answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 \"Strongly Disagree\" to 5 \"Strongly Agree.\" It comprises 4 subscales and a total of 12 items. The mastery-approach goal comprises 3 items (e.g., \"I want to learn as much as possible from this class\"), the mastery-avoidance goal comprises 3 items (e.g., \"I worry that I may not learn all that I possibly could in this class\"), the performance-approach goal comprises 3 items (e.g., \"It is important for me to do better than others\"), and the performance-avoidance goal comprises 3 items (e.g., \"I just want to avoid doing poorly in this class\"). Şenler and Sungur (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) translated the scale into Turkish and conducted a validity study with 616 middle school students. The alpha coefficients for the sample are as follows: learning approach, 0.81; learning avoidance, 0.65; performance approach, 0.69; and performance avoidance, 0.64. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis supported the four-factor structure of the scale (GFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.92, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.92, NFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.90, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.07) (Şenler and Sungur, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). This study used the Goal Orientations Questionnaire to measure middle school students' goal orientations in science classes. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the Goal Orientations Questionnaire were 0.772 for the learning-approach subdimension, 0.576 for the learning-avoidance subdimension, 0.735 for the performance-approach subdimension, and 0.494 for the performance-avoidance subdimension. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) conducted to validate the four-factor structure revealed fit indices (χ2/df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3,30, GFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.976, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.960 and RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.046), which demonstrated that the goal orientation scale used in the present study has structural validity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1.4. Achievement Emotions Scale\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Achievement Emotion Questionnaire (AEQ) was developed by Elliot and later adapted by Peixoto, Mata, Monteiro, Sanches, and Pekrun (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) for students in grades 5\u0026ndash;7 (ages 10\u0026ndash;13). It is a five-point Likert scale adapted into Turkish by Alpaslan and Ulubey (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The scale has six dimensions: pride, enjoyment, anger, anxiety, hopelessness, and boredom. Each dimension comprises four items. CFA was conducted to ensure the validity of the data collected within the scope of the study. The CFA results were χ2 (df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;293, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.000)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;697.28, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.050, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.056, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.93. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for reliability are as follows: 0.80, 0.75, 0.84, 0.88, 0.88, and 0.77. In the present study, to measure middle school students' achievement emotions in science classes, the achievement emotions scale developed by Alpaslan and Ulubey (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) for mathematics classes was modified by replacing 'mathematics' with 'science' and then administered to middle school students. The six subdimensions of achievement emotions were reduced to two subdimensions for further analysis (such as SEM and others). In some studies, achievement emotions were reduced to positive (e.g., \"I feel proud of my contribution in science class\") and negative (e.g., \"I feel tense in science class\") emotions (Shao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). For this purpose, when conducting CFA, second-order factor analysis was used to reflect whether the six factors of the AEQ could be replicated and whether they fit the proposed model, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. The emotions were grouped under the second-order factors of positive and negative emotions. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed fit indices (χ2/df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4,71, GFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.908, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.932 and RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.059), demonstrating that the Achievement Emotions Scale used in the present study has structural validity. Finally, Cronbach's alpha values for these factors were 0.903 for positive emotions and 0.919 for negative emotions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2. Procedure and Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, the necessary permission was obtained from a state university's Research and Publication Ethics Committee and, subsequently, from the Provincial Directorate of National Education of the city where the study was conducted. During the data collection phase of the study, students' voluntary participation was ensured. Before the study, the students' parents were informed about the study, and parental consent forms were obtained. The data collection process was conducted by the researcher, who visited schools and gathered data during a single class period. It took the students approximately one class period (40 minutes) to answer the questionnaires. Before the questionnaires were administered to the students, the researcher explained the aim and importance of the study and communicated that participation information would be kept completely confidential. The questions of the students who voluntarily participated in the study were answered immediately by the researcher, and necessary explanations were provided. The students were informed that they should read the questionnaire items carefully and independently from each other and that the voluntary participants could withdraw from the study at any time if they wished. The authors obtained permission from the scientists who developed the study's data collection scales. Additionally, the study results comply with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments, as well as comparable ethical standards. The data were entered into SPSS 23, and structural equation modeling (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1073) was conducted via the AMOS program to answer the research question.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eSEM analysis was conducted to investigate the relationships between middle school students' scientific epistemological beliefs, goal orientations, and achievement emotions. The analysis produced a statistical model with acceptable fit indices (χ2/df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.15, GFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.857, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.847, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.838 and RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.045). The structural relationships are provided in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. In this figure, the solid lines represent positive predictions, whereas the dashed lines represent negative predictions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results indicated that middle school students' scientific epistemological beliefs significantly predict their goal orientations and achievement emotions. This finding aligns with Hofer and Pintrich\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) emphasis on the central role of epistemological beliefs in cognitive and motivational factors. When examining the structural relationships between epistemological beliefs and goal orientations, it was observed that the subdimensions of development of knowledge, source of knowledge, and justification positively predicted mastery goals (approach and avoidance). These results are consistent with the proposed hypothesis. Epistemological beliefs are generally part of the internal conditions of self-regulated learning processes; therefore, they can be said to have a positive relationship with the mastery approach (Muis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, sophisticated beliefs in the dimensions of development and justification are positively related to the learning (mastery) approach (Kizilgunes, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Winberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, the present study revealed a positive correlation between performance goals and advanced epistemological beliefs in the dimensions of the source of knowledge and justification. These results generally contradict the expectation that advanced epistemological beliefs negatively predict performance goals. In recent years, many studies have reported mixed results, and advanced epistemological belief positively predicts students' performance goals in several subdimensions (Demirbağ and Bah\u0026ccedil;ivan, 2022; Lin \u0026amp; Tsai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Our study also supports this outcome. This situation can be explained by the fact that competitive exams are a key component of the education system in countries such as T\u0026uuml;rkiye. Students develop beliefs about the nature of knowledge and its acquisition from a young age within a competitive education system. Although these environments include constructivist and learning-focused goals (e.g., argument-based science teaching), some students still develop a goal orientation focused on demonstrating their performance and abilities to others (Demirbağ and Bah\u0026ccedil;ivan, 2022). Students may adopt positive roles in the science learning environment, align with advanced epistemological beliefs, and wish to demonstrate their epistemic understanding to other students, supported by multiple justifications and their role as a subject in the source of knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSurprisingly, however, this does not apply to the dimension of certainty of knowledge. The certainty dimension is negatively related to the four subdimensions of goal orientation. Middle school students' belief that knowledge can change and evolve negatively predicts their learning of science subjects and their performance in front of others. Students might think, \"If knowledge is constantly changing, there is no need to put effort into learning these things, and I feel no hesitation in not learning this science-related knowledge.\" The changing nature of knowledge may be perceived negatively by students, making it difficult for them to grasp, track, and perform with evolving knowledge. Thus, Muis and Franco (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) argued that if students believe that knowledge is constantly changing, there is no fixed criterion to evaluate success, which may lead them to exhibit lower performance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn recent years, the unexpected results of epistemological beliefs with goal orientation in many studies may be due to each subdimension of epistemological beliefs interacting with goal orientations in different ways, thereby creating new belief sets. This situation arises from the tendency of seemingly independent beliefs to have an 'unbounded nature.' Owing to this unbounded structure, beliefs can easily extend to phenomena that may be irrelevant to the context in which they were formed (Abelson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen examining the relationship between epistemological beliefs and achievement emotions, it was found that holding a sophisticated belief\u0026mdash;where the source of knowledge is the individual and where evidence and multiple justifications are important in justifying knowledge\u0026mdash;positively predicts positive emotions while negatively predicting negative emotions. Epistemic beliefs are closely related to self-regulated learning, such as the ability to initiate, continue and reflect on a task (Muis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). During self-regulated learning, emotions are closely related to epistemological beliefs and goals. Emotions can arise when striving to achieve, being hindered from achieving, or achieving an epistemic goal (Greene et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Muis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In support of this, epistemological beliefs may have triggered students' initiation and completion of science-related achievement activities. The students who achieved this may have experienced positive emotions related to the activities and outcomes. Although no study has directly targeted achievement emotions through structural equation modeling of epistemological beliefs, advanced epistemological beliefs serve as precursors to emotional structures (e.g., epistemic emotions) and positively predict emotions (Muis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this context, the relationships among the three subdimensions of advanced epistemological beliefs and emotions, with the exception of certainty, are consistent with the proposed model in this study. However, the certainty of the knowledge subdimension produced a surprising result in achievement emotions, similar to its effect on goal orientation. In the dimension of certainty of knowledge, holding a belief that knowledge can change and develop positively predicts negative emotions, whereas it negatively predicts positive emotions. The changing and evolving nature of knowledge may have decreased students' motivation and caused them to experience negative emotions. Because the presented knowledge may not align with the knowledge they already possess or may contradict their epistemic beliefs, it can lead them to experience negative emotions (Bendixen \u0026amp; Rule, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Muis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). During cognitive activities, some emotions may be experienced as epistemic or achievement emotions (Pekrun \u0026amp; Perry, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen the relationship between goal orientations and achievement emotions was examined, the results were consistent with the model\u0026rsquo;s proposed hypothesis. Middle school students' mastery-approach orientations positively predict positive achievement emotions and negatively predict negative emotions. Many theoretical and empirical studies support this conclusion. For example, according to Linnenbrink and Pintrich (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), mastery-approach goals are expected to increase positive emotions and decrease negative emotions, as individuals with these goals focus on understanding the task and believe they can achieve their learning objectives. As a result, they are likely to feel happy, proud, and experience greater joy while completing the task.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, mastery-avoidance orientations negatively predict positive emotions, whereas they positively predict negative emotions. This result aligns with our expectations, although it is significant enough to contribute to the literature. Because the previous meta-analysis by Huang (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) revealed a significant positive relationship between mastery-avoidance goals and negative emotions, supporting our study, the recent meta-analysis only partially confirmed this finding. Researchers conducting meta-analyses have noted that more evidence is needed to clarify this relationship (Bross et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Owing to its theoretical structure, individuals with mastery-avoidance goals may experience anxiety when they make no progress in avoiding the outcomes they wish to avoid, whereas they may experience positive emotions when they do make progress (Linnenbrink \u0026amp; Pintrich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings are consistent with the first theoretical assumption. Because mastery avoidance is a learning-oriented approach, it focuses more on avoiding negative (failure) outcomes rather than achieving positive (success) outcomes as a form of competency valence. The finding that middle school students with goal orientations such as \" I hesitate that I may not learn the entire topic and feel anxious\" may experience negative achievement emotions is closely related to our findings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen examining the relationship between performance goals and achievement emotions, it was concluded that only performance-avoidance goals predicted emotions. Performance-avoidance goals positively predict negative emotions (anxiety, shame, etc.). This result is consistent with the theoretical and empirical evidence (Bong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, Putwain \u0026amp; Symes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Pekrun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Students who fear they cannot showcase their skills and performance in front of others may experience negative emotions during, and as a result of, achievement-related activities (Goetz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Conclusions and Limitations","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn summary, the study results show that the four subdimensions of epistemological beliefs are related to mastery goals. Advanced epistemological beliefs in the dimensions of source, development, and justification positively predict both mastery and avoidance goals. The certainty of knowledge negatively predicts both mastery approach and mastery avoidance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, except for the development dimension of epistemological beliefs, the dimensions of source, justification, and certainty predicted performance approaches. The dimensions of source and justification positively predicted both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals, whereas the certainty dimension negatively predicted these dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen examining the relationship between epistemological beliefs and achievement emotions, advanced epistemological beliefs in the dimensions of source and justification positively predicted positive emotions, whereas negative emotions were negatively predicted. However, the advanced beliefs in the certainty dimension negatively predict positive emotions, whereas negative emotions positively predict positive emotions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmong the goal orientations, only the mastery approach positively predicted positive emotions. Mastery and performance avoidance negatively predict positive emotions, whereas they positively predict negative emotions. Finally, the mastery approach positively predicted negative emotions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study has several limitations. The first is that the participants were middle school students, and the measurements related to the study's variables focused on the science domain. The second important limitation is the scales used to collect the quantitative data. Finally, since the study did not include longitudinal data and was conducted with a cross-sectional research design, it was not possible to claim a true cause‒effect relationship, and the structural relationships were limited to the proposed model.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Implications","content":"\u003cp\u003eFuture researchers may focus on the reciprocal relationship of structural variables. Although goal orientations are considered important precursors of achievement emotions in the literature, the reciprocal relationship where emotions can trigger achievement goals can also be examined.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, more research is needed to demonstrate the structural relationship between epistemological beliefs and achievement emotions. While the relationship between epistemological beliefs and epistemic emotions has generally been established, the relationship with achievement emotions, which differ in terms of object focus, remains to be clarified.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome dimensions of epistemological beliefs have produced mixed results in recent years, and certain achievement goals have led to unexpected outcomes owing to their theoretical structure, which requires closer examination. Specifically, the certainty dimension of epistemological beliefs has yielded surprising results related to both goal orientations and achievement emotions. The relationships involving the mastery-avoidance dimension show similar patterns. In this context, there may be a need for studies that conduct in-depth qualitative research and measure emotions via different protocols.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eData from countries such as T\u0026uuml;rkiye, where Eastern and Western cultures blend, and from Asia-Pacific countries, are important. However, different samples and results from various countries are needed. According to Pekrun (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e), for the theoretical integration of motivation in science, more research is needed to adequately consider the specificity of populations, situational conditions, and sociocultural contexts, including their differentiation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eand Consent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e Study results comply with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments, as well as comparable ethical standards. The necessary permission was obtained from a state university\u0026apos;s Research and Publication Ethics Committee and, subsequently, from the Provincial Directorate of National Education of the city where the study was conducted. Participants were given detailed explanations about the study\u0026rsquo;s objectives. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAll authors have approved the manuscript for submission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of Data and Materials\u003c/strong\u003e The data are publicly available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/HYZ6QH\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e Authors are required to disclose financial or non-financial interests that are directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication. Please refer to \u0026ldquo;Competing Interests and Funding\u0026rdquo; below for more information on how to complete this section.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/strong\u003e The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable. The authors declare that there are no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e Author M.D. contributed to 60% of the study, including the conceptualization, methodology design, data analysis, and drafting of the manuscript. Author B. S. \u0026nbsp; contributed to 40% of the study, primarily through literature review, data collection, and critical revision of the manuscript. Both authors approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e We thank all the participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Details\u003c/strong\u003e \u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eBarışcan SAVAŞ,\u003cem\u003eMinistry of Education, Bursa, Turkey.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003eMehmet DEMİRBAĞ, \u003cem\u003eBursa Uludag University, Department of Science Education, Bursa, Turkey\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbelson RP. Differences between belief and knowledge systems. Cogn Sci. 1979;3(4):355\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlpaslan MM, Ulubey ve, \u0026Ouml;. Matematik dersindeki başarı duygusu, \u0026ouml;z-d\u0026uuml;zenleyici \u0026ouml;ğrenme stratejileri ve akademik başarı arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Erzincan \u0026Uuml;niversitesi Eğitim Fak\u0026uuml;ltesi Dergisi. 2018;21(2):1\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.458020\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17556/erziefd.458020\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmes C. Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. J Educ Psychol. 1992;84(3):261\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBahcivan E. Examining relationships among Turkishpre-service science teachers\u0026rsquo; conceptions of teaching and learning, scientific epistemological beliefs and science teaching efficacy beliefs. J Baltic Sci Educ. 2014;13(6):870\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBah\u0026ccedil;ivan E. Eğitim bilimlerinde epistemoloji araştırmaları: D\u0026uuml;ne, bug\u0026uuml;ne ve gelecek perspektiflere eleştirel bakış. Mersin \u0026Uuml;niversitesi Eğitim Fak\u0026uuml;ltesi Dergisi. 2017;13(2):760\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBellocchi A, Ritchie SM. I was proud of myself that I didn't give up and I did it: Experiences of pride and triumph in learning science. Sci Educ. 2015;99(4):638\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBendixen LD, Rule DC. An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychol. 2004;39(1):69\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBross T, Nett UE, Daumiller M. Interrelations among achievement goals and achievement emotions: A meta-analytic examination. Educational Psychol Rev. 2024;36(3):98.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBong M. Age-related differences in achievement goaldifferentiation. J Educ Psychol. 2009;101(4):879\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBuehl MM, Alexander PA. Examining the dual nature of epistemological beliefs. Int J Educational Res. 2006;45(1\u0026ndash;2):28\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCamacho-Morles J, Slemp GR, Pekrun R, Loderer K, Hou H, Oades LG. Activity achievement emotions and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychol Rev. 2021;33(3):1051\u0026ndash;95.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen JA. Implicit theories, epistemic beliefs, and science motivation: A person-centered approach. Learn Individual Differences. 2012;22(6):724\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConley AM, Pintrich PR, Vekiri I, Harrison D. Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2004;29(2):186\u0026ndash;204.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeBacker TK, Crowson HM. Influences on cognitive engagement: Epistemological beliefs and need for closure. Br J Educ Psychol. 2006;76(3):535\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDemirbag M, Bahcivan E. Psychological modeling of preservice science teachers\u0026rsquo; argumentativeness, achievement goals, and epistemological beliefs: a mixed design. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2022;37:1\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede la Fuente J, Paoloni P, Kauffman D, Yilmaz Soylu M, Sander P, Zapata L. Big five, self-regulation, and coping strategies as predictors of achievement emotions in undergraduate students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10):3602.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuffy MC, Azevedo R. Motivation matters: Interactions between achievement goals and agent scaffolding for self-regulated learning within an intelligent tutoring system. Comput Hum Behav. 2015;52:338\u0026ndash;48.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElliot AJ, Hulleman CS. Achievement goals. In: Elliot AJ, Dweck CS, Yeager DS, editors. Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application. The Guilford Press; 2017. pp. 43\u0026ndash;60.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElliot AJ, McGregor HA. A 2 \u0026times; 2 achievement goal framework. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2001;80(3):501\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElliot AJ, Murayama K, Pekrun R. A 3\u0026times; 2 achievement goal model. J Educ Psychol. 2011;103(3):632.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFraenkel JR, Wallen NE. (2009). How to Design Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGrawHill Companies, 7th edition.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoetz T, Sticca F, Pekrun R, Murayama K, Elliot AJ. Intraindividual relations between achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: An experience sampling approach. Learn Instruction. 2016;41:115\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGong X, Bergey BW. The dimensions and functions of students\u0026rsquo; achievement emotions in Chinese chemistry classrooms. Int J Sci Educ. 2020;42(5):835\u0026ndash;56.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreene JA, Muis KR, Pieschl S. The role of epistemic beliefs in students\u0026rsquo; self-regulated learning with computer-based learning environments: \u003cem\u003eConceptual and methodological issues\u003c/em\u003e. Educational Psychol. 2010;45(4):245\u0026ndash;57.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHammer D, ve Elby A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. B. K. Hofer ve P. R. Pintrich (Yay. haz.). Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs i\u0026ccedil;inde (s. 169\u0026ndash;190). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeddy BC, Danielson RW, Sinatra GM, Graham J. Modifying knowledge, emotions, and attitudes regarding genetically modified foods. J Experimental Educ. 2017;85(3):513\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHofer BK, Pintrich PR. The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Rev Educ Res. 1997;67(1):88\u0026ndash;140.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang C. Achievement goals and achievement emotions: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychol Rev. 2011;23:359\u0026ndash;88.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHulleman CS, Schrager SM, Bodmann SM, Harackiewicz JM. A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychol Bull. 2010;136(3):422\u0026ndash;49.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJarrell A, Harley JM, Lajoie SP. The link between achievement emotions, appraisals, and task performance: Pedagogical considerations for emotions in CBLEs. J Computers Educ. 2016;3:289\u0026ndash;307.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKing PM, Kitchener KS, editors. Developing reflectivejudgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth andcritical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1994.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKizilgunes B, Tekkaya C, Sungur S. Modeling the relations among students' epistemological beliefs, motivation, learning approach, and achievement. J educational Res. 2009;102(4):243\u0026ndash;56.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKuhn D, Iordanou K, Pease M, ve Wirkala C. Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cogn Dev. 2008;23:435\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLin TJ, Tsai CC. Developing instruments concerning scientific epistemic beliefs and goal orientations in learning science: a validation study. Int J Sci Educ. 2017;39(17):2382\u0026ndash;401.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLinnenbrink EA, Pintrich PR. Achievement Goal Theory and Affect: An Asymmetrical Bidirectional Model. Educational Psychol. 2002;37(2):69\u0026ndash;78.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLinnenbrink-Garcia L, Barger MM. Achievement goals and emotions. International handbook of emotions in education. Routledge; 2014. pp. 142\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMadjar N, Weinstock M, Kaplan A. Epistemic beliefs and achievement goal orientations: Relations between constructs versus personal profiles. J Educational Res. 2017;110(1):32\u0026ndash;49.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMason L, Boscolo P, Tornatora MC, Ronconi L. Besides knowledge: A cross-sectional study on the relations between epistemic beliefs, achievement goals, self-beliefs, and achievement in science. Instr Sci. 2013;41:49\u0026ndash;79.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMason L, Gava M, Boldrin A. On warm conceptual change: The interplay of text, epistemological beliefs, and topic interest. J Educ Psychol. 2008;100(2):291.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMembiela P, Acosta K, Yebra MA, Gonz\u0026aacute;lez A. Motivation to learn science, emotions in science classes, and engagement towards science studies in Chilean and Spanish compulsory secondary education students. Sci Educ. 2023;107(4):939\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMerk S, Rosman T, Muis KR, Kelava A, Bohl T. Topic specific epistemic beliefs: Extending the theory of integrated domains in personal epistemology. Learn Instruction. 2018;56:84\u0026ndash;97.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuis KR. The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychol. 2007;42(3):173\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuis KR, Bendixen LD, Haerle FC. Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychol Rev. 2006;18:3\u0026ndash;54.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuis KR, Chevrier M, Singh CA. The role of epistemic emotions in personal epistemology and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychol. 2018;53(3):165\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuis KR, Franco GM. Epistemic beliefs: Setting the standards for self-regulated learning. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2009;34(4):306\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuis KR, Pekrun R, Sinatra GM, Azevedo R, Trevors G, Meier E, Heddy BC. The curious case of climate change: Testing a theoretical model of epistemic beliefs, epistemic emotions, and complex learning. Learn Instruction. 2015;39:168\u0026ndash;83.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNicholls JG. Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychol Rev. 1984;91(3):328.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ouml;zkan Ş. \u003cem\u003eModeling elementary students\u0026rsquo; science achievement: the interrelationships among epistemological beliefs, learning approaches, and self-regulated learning strategies\u003c/em\u003e [Doktora Tezi]. Orta Doğu Teknik \u0026Uuml;niversitesi; 2008.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePalmer B, Marra RM. Individual domain-specific epistemologies: Implications for educational practice. Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2008. pp. 325\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeixoto F, Mata L, Monteiro V, Sanches C, Pekrun R. The achievement emotions questionnaire: Validation for pre-adolescent students. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2015;12(4):472\u0026ndash;81.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePekrun R. The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychol Rev. 2006;18:315\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePekrun R. Overcoming Fragmentation in Motivation Science: Why, When, and How Should We Integrate Theories? Educational Psychol Rev. 2024a;36(1):27.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePekrun R. Control-value theory: From achievement emotion to a general theory of human emotions. Educational Psychol Rev. 2024b;36(3):83.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePekrun R, Elliot AJ, Maier MA. Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. J Educ Psychol. 2006;98(3):583.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePekrun R, Goetz T, Frenzel AC, Barchfeld P, Perry RP. Measuring emotions in students\u0026rsquo; learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemp Educ Psychol. 2011;36(1):36\u0026ndash;48.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePekrun R, Marsh HW, Elliot AJ, Stockinger K, Perry RP, Vogl E, Vispoel WP. A three-dimensional taxonomy of achievement emotions. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2023;124(1):145.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePekrun R, Perry RP. Control-value theory of achievement emotions. International handbook of emotions in education. Routledge; 2014. pp. 120\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePerry WG. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart \u0026amp; Winston; 1970.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePiaget J. Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia University; 1970.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePutwain DW, Schmitz EA, Wood P, Pekrun R. The role of achievement emotions in primary school mathematics: Control\u0026ndash;value antecedents and achievement outcomes. Br J Educ Psychol. 2021;91(1):347\u0026ndash;67.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePutwain DW, Symes W. Achievement goals as mediators of the relationship between competence beliefs and test anxiety. Br J Educ Psychol. 2012;82(2):207\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRavindran B, Greene BA, DeBacker TK. Predicting preservice teachers' cognitive engagement with goals and epistemological beliefs. J Educational Res. 2005;98(4):222\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRosman T, Mayer AK. Epistemic beliefs as predictors of epistemic emotions: Extending a theoretical model. Br J Educ Psychol. 2018;88(3):410\u0026ndash;27.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScherer KR. Psychological models of emotion. Neuropsychol Emot. 2000;137(3):137\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchommer M. Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. J Educ Psychol. 1990;82:498\u0026ndash;504.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchweder S. Mastery goals, positive emotions and learning behavior in self-directed vs. teacher-directed learning. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2020;35(1):205\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShao K, Stockinger K, Marsh HW, Pekrun R. (2023). Applying control-value theory for examining multiple emotions in second language classrooms: Validating the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire-Second Language Learning. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221144497\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/13621688221144497\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStahl E, Bromme R. The CAEB: An instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learn Instruction. 2007;17(6):773\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStathopoulou C, Vosniadou S. Exploring the relationship between physics-related epistemological beliefs and physics understanding. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2007;32(3):255\u0026ndash;81.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eŞenler B, Sungur S. Hedef y\u0026ouml;nelimi anketinin T\u0026uuml;rk\u0026ccedil;eye \u0026ccedil;evrilmesi ve adaptasyonu. 1.Ulusal İlk\u0026ouml;ğretim Kongresi. Ankara; 2007.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eValle A, Cabanach RG, Nunez JC, Gonzalez-Pienda J, Rodriguez S, Pieniro I. Cognitive, motivational, and volitional dimension of learning. Res High Educt. 2003;44(5):557\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVillavicencio FT. Critical thinking, negative academic emotions, and achievement: A mediational analysis. Asia-Pacific Educ Researcher. 2011;20(1):118\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWinberg TM, Hofverberg A, Lindfors M. Relationships between epistemic beliefs and achievement goals: developmental trends over grades 5\u0026ndash;11. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2019;34:295\u0026ndash;315.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWon S, Wolters CA, Mueller SA. Sense of belonging and self-regulated learning: Testing achievement goals as mediators. J Experimental Educ. 2018;86(3):402\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYilmaz-Tuzun O, Topcu MS. Relationships among preservice science teachers\u0026rsquo; epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views, and self‐efficacy beliefs. Int J Sci Educ. 2008;30(1):65\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"achievement emotions, epistemological belief, goal orientations, middle school students","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7049497/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7049497/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the relationships among middle school students' epistemological beliefs, achievement emotions, and goal orientations, and it was conducted with the participation of 1073 middle school students from seven different public schools in Turkey. A correlative research design was employed, and structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was conducted. According to the results, sophisticated epistemological beliefs were positively related to mastery and performance goal orientations. In the relationship between epistemological beliefs and achievement emotions, it was observed that generally sophisticated epistemological beliefs positively predicted positive achievement emotions and negatively predicted negative achievement emotions. An analysis of the relationships between goal orientations and achievement emotions found no significant relationship between performance-approach goals and positive\u0026ndash;negative achievement emotions, whereas there was a significant relationship between all other subdimensions. However, the study discussed inconsistent results for some subdimensions of epistemological beliefs and goal orientations. Further research is needed to examine the relationship between epistemological beliefs and achievement emotions in middle school students.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Examination of the Relationships among Middle School Students' Epistemological Beliefs, Goal Orientations, and Achievement Emotions: A Structural Equation Modeling Study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-07 12:09:35","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7049497/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-11-10T11:31:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-19T10:45:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-15T10:20:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"196649832310530243977915771919684648788","date":"2025-08-11T13:03:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"44833372741162085675810518770065853341","date":"2025-08-11T09:25:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"290304783701996886871717686521486134777","date":"2025-08-06T15:01:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-08-04T10:13:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-07-10T15:41:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-07-09T03:51:19+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-07-09T03:51:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2025-07-04T21:14:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"929ec6c2-5d22-4c97-97c6-11d33549c62f","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 7th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-27T16:05:24+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7049497","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04488-4","journal":{"identity":"bmc-psychology","isVorOnly":false,"title":"BMC Psychology"},"publishedOn":"2026-04-23 15:58:00","publishedOnDateReadable":"April 23rd, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-07 12:09:35","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s40359-026-04488-4","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04488-4","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7049497","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7049497","identity":"rs-7049497","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}