Many factors affect students’ mathematics achievement. In addition to cognitive factors, many studies also highlight and show that non-cognitive factors of students and school resources become important factors in influencing students’ mathematical achievement. This study analyzed the relationship between students’ non-cognitive factors and school resources to mathematics achievement. The data were taken from 9,620 of the 338 schools in Indonesia involved in participating in the 2018 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). The results of the multilevel analysis found that the students’ happy feelings, the students’ cooperation and the students’ belief were a statistically significant relationship to mathematics achievement with all positive relationships. The low quality of educational materials and teaching staff in schools were statistically significant and negatively correlated with mathematics achievement. This study showed that the non-cognitive factors and low quality of teaching staff had an important role for students in achieving mathematics.

1.
OECD
,
PISA 2018 Results:What Student Student Know and Can Do Vol.
I
(
2019
).
2.
OECD
,
PISA 2018 Insights and Interpretations OECD
Publ.
64
(
2019
).
3.
OECD
,
PISA 2018 Greece: What 15-year-old students in Greece know and can do
Figure 1. Snapshot of performance in reading, mathematics and science
1
10
(
2018
).
4.
R. B.
King
,
D.M.
McInerney
,
F.A.
Ganotice
, and
J.B.
Villarosa
,
Learn. Individ. Differ.
39
,
64
(
2015
).
5.
C.J.
Roseth
,
D.W.
Johnson
, and
R.T.
Johnson
,
Psychol. Bull.
134
,
223
(
2008
).
6.
L.
Stankov
,
Pers. Individ. Dif.
55
,
727
(
2013
).
7.
OECD
,
PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful
Vol.
IV
(
2013
).
8.
OECD
,
Who Are The Low-Performing Students?
(
2016
).
9.
OECD
,
PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework
(
2019
).
10.
W.H.
Finch
,
J.E.
Bolin
, and
K.
Kelley
,
Multilevel Modeling Using R
(
2016
).
12.
K.
Kartianom
and
O.
Ndayizeye
,
J. Ris. Pendidik. Mat.
4
,
200
(
2017
).
13.
D.W. Johnson
and
 et al,
Psychol. Bull.
89
,
47
(
1981
).
14.
A.
Karakolidis
,
V.
Pitsia
, and
A.
Emvalotis
,
Int. J. Educ. Res.
79
,
106
(
2016
).
15.
S.
Lyubomirsky
,
L.
King
, and
E.
Diener
,
Psychol. Bull.
(
2005
).
16.
J.E.
Rockoff
,
Am. Econ. Rev.
94
,
247
(
2004
).
17.
E.A.
Hanushek
,
M.
Piopiunik
, and
S.
Wiederhold
,
J. Hum. Resour.
54
,
857
(
2019
).
18.
19.
G.J.
Palardy
and
R.W.
Rumberger
,
Educ. Eval. Policy Anal.
30
,
111
(
2008
).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.