Undergraduates’ Achievement Goal Orientations, Academic Self-Efficacy and Hope as the Predictors of Their Learning Approaches

Year 2019, , 99 - 106, 15.01.2019

Makbule Kali Soyer , Berke Kirikkanat

https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.1.99

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to figure out whether university students’ learning approaches were shaped via their achievement goal orientations, academic self-efficacy and hope or not. The other objective was to examine if these psychological constructs varied in accordance with the demographic variables including gender, age and class level. 332 undergraduates from two different universities who were in the year of junior and senior participated in the study. The Achievement Goal Orientations Scale, the Academic Self-Efficacy Scale, the Dispositional Hope Scale and the Demographic Form were utilized to reveal the predictive power of these constructs on their learning attitudes measured by the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire. Multiple linear regression analysis indicated that learning goal orientation was a pivotal predictor of both deep and surface approach to learning. Academic self-efficacy and hope were the crucial precursors of deep approach while performance-avoidance goal inclination was a considerable predictor of surface approach. Independent samples t-test analysis displayed that the female undergraduates were superior to the male ones in terms of the learning goal tendency. And the students (20 to 22 aged) demonstrated higher scores on the same variable than the other ones (23 to 25 aged). On the basis of class level, there were no significant differences in the scores of achievement goal orientations, academic self-efficacy, hope and learning approaches. The results pointed out the fact that such concepts pertinent to an undergraduate’s academic performance could be viewed as distinctive features engendering different learning attitudes toward scholastic training.

Keywords

Achievement goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, hope, undergraduates, learning approaches

References

• Akin, A., & Cetin, B. (2007). Basari Yonelimleri Olcegi: Gecerlik ve guvenirlik calismasi [Achievement Orientation Scale: Validity and reliability study]. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 7(26), 1-12.
• Al-Harthy, I., Was, C., & Isaacson, R. (2010). Goals, efficacy and metacognitive self-regulation: a path analysis. International Journal of Education, 2(1), 1-20.
• Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.
• Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(1), 21–37.
• Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
• Bandura, A. & Wood, R. E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 805-814.
• Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitivedevelopment and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
• Bashant, J. L. (2016). Instilling hope in students. Journal for leadership and instruction, 15(1), 17-20.
• Biggs, J. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8(4),381-394.
• Biggs, J., Kember, D. & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133-149.
• Biggs, J. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 73–102). Mahway, NJ:Erlbaum.
• Cano, F., Martin, A.J., Ginns, P., & Berben, A.B.G. (2018). Students’ self-worth protection and approaches to learning in higher education: predictors and consequences. Higher Education, 76:163–181. doi: 10.1007/s10734-017-0215-0
• Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., & Potter, W. H. (2004). Gender differences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong college physic course for life science majors. School Science and Mathematics, 104(6), 288-301.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L,. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed.). NY: Taylor & Francis.
• Diseth, A. (2011). Self-efficacy, goal orientations and learning strategies as mediators between preceding and subsequent academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(2), 191–195.
• Entwistle, N., Hanley, M. & Hounsell, D. (1979). Identifying distinctive approaches to studying. Higher Education, 8(4), 365-380.
• Entwistle, N., & Smith, C. (2002). Personal understanding and target understanding: Mapping influences on the outcomes of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(3), 321-342.
• Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 325–345. doi:10.1007/s10648-004-0003-0
• Everaert, P., Opdecam, E., & Maussen, S. (2017). The relationship between motivation, learning approaches, academic performance and time spent. Accounting Education, 26(1), 78–107. doi: 10.1080/09639284.2016.1274911
• Hall, M., Ramsay, A., & Raven, J. (2004). Changing the learning environment to promote deep learning approaches in first-year accounting students. Accounting Education, 13(4), 489–505.
• Kember, D. (2000). Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation and study practices of Asian students. Higher Education, 40(1), 99–121.
• Kreber, C. (2003). The relationship between students’ course perception and their approaches to studying in undergraduate science courses: A Canadian experience. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(1), 57–75.
• Kong, C. K. & Hau, K. T. (1996). Students’ achievement goals and approaches to learning: The relationship between emphasis on self-improvement and understanding. Research in Education, 55(1), 74-85.
• Levine, T., & Cureton, J.S. (1998) When Hope And Fear Collide: A Portrait Of Today’s College Student. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
• Lodico, M., Spaulding, D. & Voegtle, K. (2010). Methods in Educational Research: From Theory to Practice. (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Marton, F. & Säljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning, outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4-11.
• McLaughlin, J., & Durrant, P. (2017). Student learning approaches in the UAE: the case for the achieving domain. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(1), 158-170. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1176998
• Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M., Urdan, T., Anderman, L., Anderman, E., & Roeser, R. (1998). The development and validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(2), 113-131.
• Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 30−38.
• Nietfeld, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2003). An examination of student teacher beliefs: Interrelationships between hope, self-efficacy, goal-orientations, and beliefs about learning. Current Issues in Education, 6, 1-36.
• Pastor, D. A., Barron, K. E., Miller, B. J., & Davis, S.L. (2007). A latent profile analysis of college students’ achievement goal orientation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(1), 8–47.
• Phan, H.P. (2009). Exploring students’ reflective thinking practice, deep processing strategies, effort, and achievement goal orientations. Educational Psychology, 29(3), 297-313. doi: 10.1080/01443410902877988
• Phan, H. P. (2011). Interrelations between self-efficacy and learning approaches: a developmental approach. Educational Psychology, 31 (2), 225–246
• Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd ed.). USA: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Roebken, H. (2007). The influence of goal orientation of student satisfaction, academic engagement and achievement. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 5(3), 679-704.
• Smith, N. S., & Miller, R. J. (2005). Learning approaches: Examination type, discipline of study and gender. Educational Psychology, 25(1), 43-53.
• Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T. et. al. (1991). The wills and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 570-585.
• Snyder, C. R., Rand, K. L., & Sigmon, D. R. (2002). Hope theory: A member of the positive family. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 257-276). NY: Oxford University Press.
• Splan, R. K., Brooks, R. M., Porr, S., & Broyles, T. W. (2011). Resiliency and achievement goal orientation among agricultural students. NACTA Journal, 55(4), 31-38.
• Tarhan, S., & Bacanli, H. (2015). Surekli Umut Olcegi’nin Turkce’ye uyarlanmasi: Gecerlik ve guvenirlik calismasi [Adaptation of Dispositional Hope Scale into Turkish: Validity and reliability Study]. The Journal of Happiness and Wellbeing, 3(1), 1-14.
• Yilmaz, M., Gurcay, D. ve Ekici, G. (2007). Akademik Oz-yeterlik Olceginin Turkce’ye uyarlanmasi [Adaptation of Academic Self-Efficacy Scale into Turkish]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education), 33, 253-259.
• Yilmaz, M. B., & Orhan, F. (2011). The Validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the Study Process Questionnaire. Education and Science, 36(159), 70-83.