View
1.857
Download
3
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
11111
Critical Thinking, Self-Efficacy, and Self-
Regulated Learning in University Students
Cheryl Reining & Sarah ThelenThesis Supervisor: Catherine Arnold, MS, EdD, RD, LDN
22222
Background
Increased interest in how student’s underlying beliefs about knowledge and knowing are a part of the learning process (1)
Critical thinking is a construct of self-regulated learning and is the primary reason for higher education (2)
Self-efficacy is a central influence on and relates positively to academic performance (3)
Self-regulated learners (SRL) have a high awareness of self, which enhances their ability to achieve their academic goals
1. Hofer, 2001 2. Halpern, 1999 3. Bandura, 1989, Multon, Brown, Lent, 1991
3333
Literature Review
44
Outcome Expectancies
• There are two components of expectancies
1.) Expectancies for success:• “Refers to performance expectations, and relates specifically to
performing a task” (4)
2.) Self-efficacy:• Self-efficacy is a self-assessment of one’s ability to master a task
4. Pintrich, 2004
55
Critical Thinking
“The degree to which students report applying previous knowledge to new situations in order to solve problems, reach decisions, or make critical evaluations with respect to standards of excellence” (5)
The researchers found critical thinking to be significantly associated with course grades
5. Lynch, 2006
6666
Self-regulated Learning
SRL is the processes, or constructs, by which individual learners attempt to monitor and control their own learning
SRL is believed to include multiple constructs including background knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive regulation, strategy use, epistemological beliefs and various motivational constructs (6)
Researchers found correlations between SRL, expectancy and critical thinking
6. Sperling et al, 2004
77777
Purpose
To examine potential relationships between critical thinking strategies, expectancy (self-efficacy) and course grade in nutrition courses among undergraduate university students
To examine potential relationships between self-regulated learning, critical thinking, self-efficacy and cumulative GPA among undergraduate university students in education and nutrition courses
8888
Methods
99
Methodology: Data Collection
•An e-mail was sent to Nutrition Department faculty requesting assistance in the administration of the in-class tool
•The e-mail stated this was for a graduate research project, and the IRB proposal had been approved, it stated the general premise of the survey. It also stated it was a voluntary survey, that there was no right or wrong response, and that it would take approximately five minutes. •Surveys were completed in class, time estimated was 5 minutes per student
•Surveys were returned in sealed envelopes
101010
Measurement Tool: MSLQ
Instrumentation:Motivated Strategies for Learning (MSLQ)
questionnaire• Self-report tool designed to assess motivation and
learning strategies for a college course• 13 statements used to gauge critical thinking
and self-efficacy
1111111111
Online Participant Recruitment
Survey AdministrationE-mail invitations to Benedictine University students
enrolled in Spring 2011 semester/quarter3 separate e-mails – between April 28th and May 10th,
2011$100.00 incentive – random drawing Written invitation – included in the In-Class survey
packets
1212121212
Measurement Tool: Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI)
Instrumentation: Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI)
questionnaire • Self-report tool designed to measure adult
metacognitive awareness• 52 statements used to gauge knowledge of
cognition and regulation of cognition
13131313
Online Surveys
Participants completed the online surveys via SurveyMonkey, a web-based survey service
Completed surveys were linked to Benedictine’s website (all information was kept confidential)
Survey responses – entered into Excel doc and exported into IBM SPSS 19
http://www.surveymonkey.com/
14141414
Data Analysis
IBM SPSS 19 Frequency and Descriptive Factor Analysis Cronbach Alpha One Way ANOVA Independent t-test Pearson r
Independent• Age
• Gender
• Academic year
• Ethnicity
• Major
Dependent/Independent• MSLQ
• Critical thinking• Self-efficacy
• MAI
• Course grade
• Cumulative GPA
Variables
1515
Findings: In-Class Survey
15
1616
Participant Profile: Age DistributionIn-Class Survey
1717
Participant Profile: Ethnicity Distribution
66.3%
1818
Participant Profile: Nutrition Major vs. Non-Nutrition Majors
18
86%
1919
Analysis: Principle Component Analysis (PCA)
19
•The PCA was done to examine factors versus variables.
•There were two factors that were created out of the variables- based on Eigenvalues less than 1.
•The PCA results were an EXACT match to the results by the researchers who created the scale
•The two factors were named:•Self Efficacy (48.47% variance)•Critical Thinking (21.18% variance)
2020
Analysis: Cronbach Alpha Results
20
Item N Cronbach’s Alpha
Interpretation
Self-Efficacy 8 .932 “Excellent”
Critical Thinking
5 .889 “Good”
2121
H01: There is no Difference in Self Efficacy & Critical Thinking between Majors
21
• Self efficacy:•T = -2.487, df = 170, p = .014•Nutrition: mean = 5.9122; Standard deviation = .84973•Other: mean = 6.3646; Standard deviation = .66135•Non-nutrition majors report greater levels of self-efficacy
•Critical thinking: •T = -.187, df = 32.515, p = .853
•There is no significance between majors for either factor
2222
H02: There is no Difference in Self Efficacy & Critical Thinking between Age
22
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
F Sig. t dfSig. (2-tailed)
self_efficacy Equal variances assumed
4.862 .029 .656 142 .513
Equal variances not assumed .575 61.074 .567
•.656 (142) .513 No significance
•Null Hypothesis accepted
2323
H03: There is no Difference in Self Efficacy between Academic Year
23
Nutrition Majors
Other
•.697 (24) .846 No Significance
•1.922 (11) .138 No significance
•Null Hypothesis Accepted
2424
H04a: Self Efficacy does not Differ Across Course Grade in Nutrition Majors
24
•F=3.722 (24) p<.001 significance
ANOVAa
gradeSum of
Squares dfMean
Square F Sig.Between Groups 41.393 24 1.725 3.722 .000
Within Groups 53.292 115 .463Total 94.686 139a. major_NUTR_other = Nutrition
•Null hypothesis accepted
2525
H04b: Self efficacy does not Differ Across Course Grade in Non-Nutrition Majors
25
•1.138 (11) .412 no significance
ANOVAa
grade
Sum of Squares df
Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 4.000 11 .364 1.138 .412
Within Groups 3.833 12 .319
Total 7.833 23a. major_NUTR_other = Other
•Null hypothesis accepted
2626
H04: Self efficacy does not Differ Across Course Grade
Nutrition Majors:t=5.663 (138) p<.001 (significant)Grade A & B: N = 119, Mean = 6.0798, Std Dev = .76568Grade C, D, F: N = 21, Mean = 5.0655, Std Dev = .70225
Non-Nutrition Majors:t=.363 (22) p=.720 Grade A & B: N = 23, Mean = 6.3750, Std Dev = .67420Grade C, D, F: N = 1, Mean = 6.1250
26
•Null hypothesis accepted
2727
H05a: There is no Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and Course Grade among Nutrition
Majors
27
Correlationsa
grade self_efficacy
gradePearson Correlation 1 .496**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 140 140
self_efficacyPearson Correlation .496** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 140 148
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).a. major_NUTR_other = Nutrition
•The relationship between self efficacy and nutrition majors was investigated•N = 140, p = .496
•Null hypothesis rejected
2828
H05b: There is no Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and Course Grade Among Other
Majors
28
Correlationsa
grade self_efficacy
gradePearson Correlation 1 .242
Sig. (2-tailed) .255N 24 24
self_efficacyPearson Correlation .242 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .255N 24 24
a. major_NUTR_other = Other
•The relationship between self efficacy and other (non-nutrition majors) was investigated•N = 24, p = .255
•Null hypothesis accepted
2929
H06: Critical Thinking does not Differ Across Course Grade
29
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances
F Sig. t dfSig. (2-tailed)
Criticalthinking
Equal variances assumed
.942 .333 2.586 163 .011
Equal variances not assumed
2.400 26.546 .024
2.586 (163) .011; F= .942
•H06: Hypothesis Rejected
3030
H07: There is no Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Course Grade
30
Correlations
grade critical_thinkgrade Pearson
Correlation 1 .119Sig. (2-tailed) .127N 165 165
Criticalthinking
Pearson Correlation .119 1Sig. (2-tailed) .127N 165 173
•The relationship between critical thinking and course grade was investigated. N = 173, p = .127
•Null hypothesis accepted
3131
In-Class Significant Findings
31
• Non-nutrition reported greater levels of self-efficacy than Nutrition majors
• H05a: Significant finding between self efficacy and course grade (individual grades and categories) in nutrition majors
• H06: Significant findings between critical thinking and course grade
32323232
Findings: Online Survey
33333333
Participants Profile: Gender & Age Distribution
Total participants= 8879 females = 90% 9 males = 10%
Females age:63 = 23 and under16 = 24 and over
Males age:9 = 23 and under0 = 24 and over
34343434
Participant Profile: Ethnicity Distribution Online Survey
Total Participants = 8867% White33% Non-white
33%
67%
35353535
Participant Profile: Distribution by Major
40%
60%
Total participants= 8860% Education majors40% Nutrition majors
36363636
MSLQ PCA
MSLQ – consists of two factors:Critical thinkingExpectancy (self-efficacy)
There was an exact match to the scale for undergraduate Nutrition majors and undergraduate Education majors, but there was a significant mismatch between all other majors. Thus, for purposes of this study, which included the
intent to focus on nutrition majors, only the results from Nutrition and Education were retained
37373737
MAI PCA
MAI – consists of two broad categories containing multiple factors:
Knowledge of cognition Regulation of cognition
There was a significant mismatch between ‘all majors’ and MAI PCA results reported by the researchers (Gregory Shraw & Rayne Sperling Dennison), who developed the scale, therefore the factors could not be used in the data analyses
There was a mismatch between Nutrition and Education and all other majors, which suggests different SRL skills are utilized by different majors
3838383838
MAI Scale
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items N of Items
.976 .977 52
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation Score Interpretation
Stop and reread 89.55 18.630 Good
Use strategies from past 88.75 18.304 Good
Good judge of understanding 87.78 15.863 Good
Consider all options 68.58 29.483 Questionable
Learned as much as could have 67.89 29.188 Questionable
Question material prior 60.24 32.666 Questionable
Scale: MAI
A high value for Cronbach’s Alpha (> .9), indicates an excellent internal consistency
39393939
Cronbach Alpha: Reliability
A high value for Cronbach’s Alpha (> .9), indicates an excellent internal consistency of the items in the scale.
Factor N Alpha Score Score Interpretation
Critical thinking 5 .902 Excellent
Self-efficacy 8 .944 Excellent
MSLQ 13 .933 Excellent
MAI 52 .977 Excellent
40
Null Hypotheses for Self-efficacy
Null H08 - Null H012b
41414141
H08: There is No Difference Between Majors in Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy
N Mean
Education 53 6.2382
Nutrition 35 5.8607
sig. .036
Null H0 is rejected
Majors
http://www.clker.com/clipart-thumb-up.html
t = 2.125 df = 86
42424242
H09a : There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Academic Years for Nutrition Majors
Null H0 is accepted
Self-efficacy
N Mean
Freshman 7 5.6964
Sophomore 3 5.4583
Junior 11 5.5341
Senior 14 6.2857
Total 35 5.8607
sig. .162
Nutrition
f = 1.833df = 3, 31
43434343
H09b : There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Academic Years for Education Majors
Self-efficacy
N Mean
Freshman 6 5.8958
Sophomore 8 5.5938
Junior 17 6.4779
Senior 22 6.3807
Total 53 6.2382
sig. .014
Education
f = 3.919df = 3, 49 Null H0 is rejected
444444
H010a: There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Age Categories for Nutrition Majors
Self-efficacy
N Mean
23 and under 26 5.7115
24 and over 9 6.2917
Total 35 75.860
sig. .106
Nutrition
f = 2.770df = 1, 33 Null H0 is accepted
454545
H010b: There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Age Categories in Education Majors
Self-efficacy
N Mean
23 and under
46 6.1821
24 and over 7 6.6071
Total 53 6.2382
sig. .156
Education
f = 2.068df = 1, 51 Null H0 is accepted
4646
H011a: There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Ethnicity Groups in Nutrition Majors
Self-efficacy
N Mean
White 23 6.0326
Non-white 12 5.5313
sig. .130
Nutrition
Null H0 is acceptedt = 1.555df = 33
4747
H011b: There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Ethnicity Groups in Education Majors
Self-efficacy
N Mean
White 36 6.3403
Non-white 16 5.9766
sig. (2-tailed) .102
Null H0 is accepted
Education
t = 1.665 df = 50
484848
H012a: There is No Relationship Between Self-efficacy and Cumulative GPA in Nutrition
Majors
Correlations
Nutrition gpa self-efficacy
gpa Pearson Correlation 1 .308
Sig. (2-tailed) .076
N 34 34
self-efficacy Pearson Correlation .308 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .076
N 34 35
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Null H0 is accepted
494949
H012b: There is No Relationship Between Self-efficacy and Cumulative GPA in Education
Majors
Correlations
Education gpa self-efficacy
gpa Pearson Correlation 1 .449**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 53 53
self-efficacy Pearson Correlation .449** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 53 53
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Null H0 is rejected
50
Results of Self-efficacy Analyses
Hypotheses for Self-efficacy
Null H0 for Self-efficacy & … Sig.
H08 Majors .036
H09a Academic year for NUTR. majors .162
H09b Academic year for Ed. majors .014
H010a Age categories for NUTR. Majors .106
H010b Age categories for Ed. majors .156
H011a Ethnicities for NUTR majors .130
H011b Ethnicities for Ed. majors .102
H012a Cumulative GPA for NUTR. majors .076
H012b Cumulative GPA for Ed. majors .001
51
Null Hypotheses for Critical Thinking
Null H013 - Null H017b
52525252
H013: There is No Difference in Critical Thinking Between Majors
Critical thinking
N Mean
Education 53 5.5283
Nutrition 35 5.1657
sig. .135
Null H0 is accepted
Majors
t = 1.509 df = 86
535353
H014: There is No Difference in Critical
Thinking Across Academic Years
Critical Thinking
N Mean
Freshman 13 5.1077
Sophomore 11 4.7636
Junior 28 5.4929
Senior 36 5.5889
Total 88 5.3841
sig. .124
f = 1.973df = 3, 84 Null H0 is accepted
Academic Year
5454
H015: There is No Difference in Critical Thinking Across Ethnicity Groups
Critical Thinking
N Mean
White 59 5.4169
Other 28 5.32876
sig. .732
Null H0 is acceptedt = .343 df = 85
555555
H016: There is No Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Cumulative GPA
Correlations
gpa critical_thinking
gpa Pearson Correlation 1 .071
Sig. (2-tailed) .516
N 87 87
Critical thinking Pearson Correlation .071 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .516
N 87 88
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Null H0 is accepted
565656
H017: There is No Difference in Critical Thinking Across Age Groups
Critical Thinking
N Mean
23 and under 72 5.2639
24 and over 16 5.9250
Total 88 5.3841
sig. .030
Age
Null H0 is rejected f = 4.840df = 1, 86
5757
H017a: There is No Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Cumulative GPA in
Students Aged 23 and Under
Correlations
23 and under gpa critical_thinking
gpa Pearson Correlation 1 .140
Sig. (2-tailed) .241
N 72 72
Critical thinking Pearson Correlation .140 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .241
N 72 72
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Null H0 is accepted
5858
H017b: There is No Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Cumulative GPA in
Students Aged 24 and Over
Correlations
24 and over gpa critical_thinking
gpa Pearson Correlation 1 -.278
Sig. (2-tailed) .316
N 15 15
Critical thinking Pearson Correlation -.278 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .316
N 15 16
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Null H0 is accepted
59
Results for Critical Thinking Analyses
Hypotheses for Critical Thinking
Null H0 for Critical Thinking & … Sig.
H013 Majors .130
H014 Academic year .124
H015 Ethnicity groups .732
H016 Cumulative GPA .516
H017 Age groups .030
H017a Cumulative GPA in 23 years and under .241
H017b Cumulative GPA in 24 years and over .316
60
Null Hypotheses for MAI/SRL
Null H018 - Null H023
616161
H018: There is No Difference in MAI/SRL Between Majors
MAI/SRL
N Mean
Education 53 80.0708
Nutrition 35 79.1797
sig. .795
Null H0 is accepted
Majors
t = .261 df = 86
62626262
H019: There is No Difference in MAI/SRL
Between Academic Years
MAI/SRL
N Mean
Freshman 13 76.0740
Sophomore 11 70.6818
Junior 28 83.1408
Senior 36 81.1287
Total 88 79.7163
sig. .107
f = 3.84df = 3, 84 Null H0 is accepted
6363
H020: There is No Relationship Between MAI/SRL and Ethnicity
MAI/SRL
N Mean
White 59 80.6750
Other 28 77.0165
sig. (2-tailed) .308
Null H0 is accepted t = 1.026 df = 85
6464
H021: There is No Difference Between MAI/SRL and Age Groups
MAI/SRL
N Mean
23 and under 72 77.9111
24 and over 16 87.8401
sig. .020
Null H0 is rejected t = - 2.365df = 86
6565
H022a: There is No Relationship Between MAI/SRL and Cumulative GPA in Students
Aged 23 and Under
Correlations
23 and under gpa MAI
gpa Pearson Correlation 1 -.070
Sig. (2-tailed) .558
N 72 72
MAI Pearson Correlation -.070 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .558
N 72 72
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Null H0 is accepted
6666
H022b: There is No Relationship Between MAI/SRL and Cumulative GPA in Students
Aged 24 and Over
Correlations
24 and over gpa MAI
gpa Pearson Correlation 1 .651**
Sig. (2-tailed) .009
N 15 15
MAI Pearson Correlation .651** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .009
N 15 16
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Null H0 is rejected
6767676767
H023: There is No Relationship Between MAI/SRL, Critical Thinking & Self-efficacy
MAI/SRL, Critical Thinking & Self-efficacy Null H0 is rejected
Correlations
MAI Critical thinking self-efficacy
MAI/SRL Pearson Correlation 1 .340** .312**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .003
N 88 88 88
Critical thinking Pearson Correlation .340** 1 .524**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000
N 88 88 88
self-efficacy Pearson Correlation .312** .524** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .000
N 88 88 88
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
68
Results for MAI/SRL Analyses
Hypotheses for MAI/SRL
Null H0 for MAI/SRL & … Sig.
H018 Majors .795
H019 Academic year .107
H020 Ethnicity groups .308
H021 Age groups .020
H022a Cumulative GPA in 23 yrs and under .558
H022b Cumulative GPA in 24 yrs and over .009
H023 Critical thinking & self-efficacy .003
69696969
Summary
As with Sperling et al (2004), significant correlations between the MAI/SRL component and the MSLQ critical thinking and self-efficacy scales for undergraduate students were found
The greatest significant findings in SRL were found in students:24 and older with greater self-efficacywith a major in Education
7070707070
Strengths
Use of existing questionnaires that are valid, reliable and easily accessible In-Class
• Captive audience • Overall participation response rate = 77% (209 out of a possible
272)Online
• Cash incentive • Intercorrelations between self-efficacy, critical thinking and SRL
consistent with what the researchers found • High Cronbach Alpha scores demonstrate high validity and
reliability to findings• High Cronbach Alpha scores excellent for SRL – demonstrates
high reliability
7171717171
Limitations and Future Research
LimitationsData was collected during one semester/quarter onlyData was only collected from one universityCampus e-mails not always readOnline survey was time-consuming causing:
A few participants to answer all of the questions with the same response
Incomplete data
Future Research – comparisons of:Other nutrition programsGraduates vs. undergraduates
727272
References
1. Hofer, B.K. Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review. 2001;13:353-383.
2. Halpern, D.E. Teaching for critical thinking: helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 1999;80:69-74.
3. Bandura, A. Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist. 1989;44:1179-1184.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., Lent, R.W. Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1991; 38:30-38.
4. Pintrich, P.R., A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning in College Students. Educational Psychology Review. 2004;16 (4)
5. Lynch, D.J., Motivation Factors, Learning strategies, and resources management as predictors in course grades. The College Student Journal. 2006;40(2): 423-428
6. Sperling, R.A., Howard, B.C., Staley, R., DuBois, N. Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation. 2004;10:117-139.
73737373
Thank You!
Any Questions?
Recommended