Upload
octavia-little
View
220
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Chris Evans, University of WinchesterDr Paul Redford, UWE
Chris Evans, University of WinchesterDr Paul Redford, UWE
Self-Efficacy and Academic Performance:the effect of self-evaluation interventions
Self-Efficacy and Academic Performance:the effect of self-evaluation interventions
PLAT June 2006
2
Research Aims and ContextTheoretical backgroundExperimental designInitial HypothesesThree studies and their results
Year 1 StatisticsYear 1 ‘Psychological Thinking’ Year 2 Statistics
Discussion
Self-Efficacy and Academic Performance:the effect of self-evaluation interventionsSelf-Efficacy and Academic Performance:the effect of self-evaluation interventions
• Aim: to explore the effect of self-evaluation interventions during a module on
Self efficacy for the moduleFinal module marks
• Context:Study 1- Year 1 Statistics moduleStudy 2 - Year 1 Statistics & ‘Psychological Thinking’ modulesStudy 3 - Year 2 Statistics module
Aim & ContextAim & Context
4
Self-efficacy is a personal judgement of performance capability that is:
domain specificcontext sensitivedependent upon mastery criteria
Self-efficacy influences level of effort & persistence Self-efficacy influences self-monitoring actions and self-evaluative standardsHigher self-efficacy is linked with improved task performance
• Zimmerman, 2000
Theoretical BackgroundTheoretical Background
5
Self-efficacy for new studentsSelf-efficacy for new students
Self-efficacy has three sourcesmastery experiencesvicarious experiencesverbal persuasion
New students initially lack knowledge of their subjects and of the standards expected
So their self-efficacy is initially derived from similar prior experiences It is then modified through self-evaluation of actual experienceWhich influences future study attitudes and behaviour
Bandura, 1997
…might regular self-evaluation of progress help enhance self-efficacy and performance?
6
Might regular self-evaluation of progress help enhance self-efficacy and performance?
Might regular self-evaluation of progress help enhance self-efficacy and performance?
Schunk & Ertmer (1999)
A self-evaluation intervention, administered to half the class in 3 week computer studies module
Students were given clear goals for the module
Self-efficacy and self-evaluations were measured against the same set of performance tasks - closely matched to the final performance test
The intervention was shown to increase self-efficacy
Actual self-evaluation levels were related to self-efficacy (r=.64, p<0.05)
Performance was not related to the presence of self-evaluation or to self-efficacy
7
Year 1 (Semester 1, 2003) psychology students12 lectures on introductory statistics using SPSS - with 10 weekly practice exercises Assessed by computer-based, open-book examIntervention:
Experimental Group complete 10-item self-evaluations of progress in weeks 4,7,10Control Group answer questions on university adaptation
Experimental Design - Study 1Experimental Design - Study 1
8
Self-efficacy - 2 measures on 7 point scale‘Self-Efficacy (S-E)’ modelled upon Finney & Schraw (2003)‘Perceived Competence’ from Deci & Ryan (2003) Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)
Performance - Final examination markEffort - Number of completed weekly worksheets Other measures included
Approaches to learning (ASSIST)5-Factor Personality (NEO-PIR)Work Preference Inventory (Amabile et al, 1994)
MeasuresMeasures
9
Statistics self-efficacy (S-E) will increase over the module*Post-module S-E will correlate with examination mark*Self-evaluation ratings during the module will be related to post-module S-E**Those completing three self-evaluations will have higher self-efficacy and examination marks
• * Finney & Schraw (2003) ** Schunk & Ertmer (1999)
Study 1 hypothesesStudy 1 hypotheses
10
Study 1 key findingsStudy 1 key findings
•Significant findings supporting hypotheses:Statistics S-E increased significantly over the module (from 2.7 to 4.0)
t(45)=6.62**Post-module S-E correlated to exam mark
r=.26*Mean self-evaluation score correlated to post-module S-E
r=.79**• **p<.01*, p<.05
11
Study 1 key findingsStudy 1 key findings
•Hypotheses that were not supported:S-E was higher (4.2) for the experimental group (3 evaluations) than for the control (3.8) - but not significantly
t(45)=1.47, p=.08Exam marks were higher (66%) for the experimental group (3 self-evaluations) than for the control (55%) - but not significantly
t(45)=1.51, p=.07•But this is a large increase in exam marks - perhaps a larger sample should be tested as sample size offers low power?
12
To increase the sample size by adding a second year’s statistics data To test a second subject to see whether any effects can be generalised beyond Year 1 StatisticsParticipants were Year 1 (Semester 1, 2004) psychology students studying
The same Statistics module‘Psychological Thinking’ - an introduction to psychological written argument; assessed by two short essays and an examination
Study 2 - Aims and ContextStudy 2 - Aims and Context
13
In this sample the effect of the 3 interventions was significantly related to higher exam marks (75% vs 64%)
t(58)=2.40, p<.05Post-module S-E was not significantly affected by experimental group (4.5 vs 4.6)Post-module S-E also was not significantly correlated to exam mark
Study 2 - key findings for 2004 Statistics Module
Study 2 - key findings for 2004 Statistics Module
14
For the combined results (N=107) S-E was correlated to exam mark (r=.25**)Other factors with significant 1-tailed correlations to achievement included:
Perceived Competence (r=.34**)Interest & Enjoyment (r=.30**)Pressure & Tension (r=-.28**)Number of completed worksheets (r=.23**)
• ** p<.05
Combined Statistics FindingsCombined Statistics Findings
15
Combined experimental resultCombined experimental result
The effect of the self-evaluation intervention was also significant
Mean exam marks were 61% for control and 71% for the experimental groupt(105)=2.62, p=.01
In a linear regression including all factors correlated to exam results, the following factors were extracted (p<.05)
Experimental Group Perceived CompetenceNeuroticismCombined R²=.23
16
The results for the Psychological Thinking module showed no effects of the self-evaluation intervention and little relationship between S-E and achievementThe Perceived Competence measure had a similar relationship to exam marks as for Statistics (r=.34**) …this may be a better predictor than the S-E scaleThis is an unconventional module, so may be a poor comparatorBut the Statistics experimental finding doesn’t generalise to this module
•**p<.01
•Perhaps it will generalise to a 2nd year Statistics module?
Psychological Thinking FindingsPsychological Thinking Findings
17
To see if the Statistics findings can also be detected in a similar Year 2 moduleYear 2 (Semester 1, 2005) psychology students
Identical course structure to first year courseReduced set of measures
Study 3 - Aims and ContextStudy 3 - Aims and Context
18
These results also show no effect of the experimental group on achievementPerceived Competence is related to exam marks (r=.35**)The strongest predictor of achievement is the marks gained in the Year 1 exam (r=.55**)The small number (33) of participants is not ideal (power estimated at .25)However this does not provide evidence for generalising the Year 1 findings to this other Statistics module
• **p<.01
Study 3 - FindingsStudy 3 - Findings
19
There is a real and significant effect of the self-evaluation intervention on year 1 Statistics module…
Is this a Year 1 effect?Is is a subject effect?Is this due to the nature of the module?
Possible interpretation of findingsPossible interpretation of findings
20
A possible explanation?A possible explanation?understanding assessment
standards
understanding of personal
capability
development of study
behaviourresults
self-reflection
Accurately calibrated understanding of personal capability needs (a) an understanding of assessment standards & (b) some relevant information about personal capability
Self-evaluation intervention promotes self-reflection in a non self-regulating student
This only influences the development of good study practice where self-reflection is accurate
First-years are more likely to benefit from such an intervention - if their course makes assessment standards clear and gives relevant formative feedback 2
0
21
ReferencesReferences
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory - assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950-67.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. NY, NY: WH Freeman.Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2003). Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. Retrieved December 8, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
• http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/intrins_scl.htmlFinney, S. J., & Schraw, G. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs in college statistics courses. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28 (2), 161-86.Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Self-regulatory processes during computer skill acquisition: Goal and self-evaluative influences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (2), 251-60.Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 82-91.