The study approaches as the predictors of academic self-efficacy and teacher efficacy: A study in pedagogical formation students

Year 2018, Volume: 4 Issue: 3, 84 - 97, 15.09.2018

Mevlüt Yıldız , Ender Şenel , Süleyman Can

https://doi.org/10.18826/useeabd.424565

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to determine study approaches of students taking pedagogical formation from different departments, examine academic and teacher self-efficacy beliefs, find out the role of these factors in academic achievement and compare students in physical education and sport and students in the different field.

Methods: 515 pedagogical formation students studying in the departments of physical education and sport, history, mathematics, graphic, philosophy, painting, music, business, contemporary Turkish dialects, Turkish philology, food and beverage management, biology, nutrition and dietetics, aquaculture, physics, nursing, English philology, hospitality management and sociology participated in this study. Academic self-efficacy scale, developed by Jerusalem and Schwarzer (1981), adapted to Turkish by Yılmaz, Gürçay and Ekinci (2007), was used to determine academic self-efficacy beliefs. Study Process Questionnaire, developed by Biggs, Kember, and Leung (2001) and adapted to Turkish by Yılmaz and Orhan (2011), was used to determine study approaches. Ohio Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale, developed by Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, adapted to Turkish by Baloğlu and Karadağ (2008), was used to determine teacher self-efficacy beliefs. Collected data was analyzed in SPSS, path analysis in AMOS.

Results: Significant differences were found between genders regarding surface approach (SA) and surface motivation (SM). A significant difference was found between genders regarding academic self-efficacy. A significant difference was found between students according to their general academic averages (GAA) regarding academic self-efficacy (ASE), teacher self-efficacy (TSE) and study approaches (SA). Moreover, positive correlations were found between GAA, deep approach (DA) and TSE while a negative correlation was found between surface approach (SA) and TSE, DA, GAA. Students in physical education and sports department reported higher scores than the others regarding surface approach.

Conclusion: The analysis related to the hypothesized model showed that study approaches had an impact on general academic average that had a role in increasing academic self-efficacy, correspondingly teacher self-efficacy beliefs increased.

Keywords

Self-Efficacy, Study Approaches, Teaching, Physical Education

References

• Adilogullari, I., & Şenel, E. (2014). Examination of The Relationship Between General Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Emotional Intelligence Levels and Emotional Self-Efficacy Levels Of Students In School Of Physical Education And Sport. Anthropologist, 18(3), 893-902.
• Azzi, R. G., Casanova, D. C. G., Dantas, M. A., & de Medeiros Maciel, A. C. (2011). 286-Academic Self-Efficacy and Learning and Study Strategies: Brazilian Students Perceptions. ISATT 2011, 659.
• Baloğlu, N., & Karadağ, E. (2008). Teacher Efficacy and Ohio Teacher Efficacy Scale: Adaptation for Turkish Culture, Language Validity and Examination of Factor Structure. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 56(56), 571-606.
• Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company
• Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. Vol.6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1-60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behaviour (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
• Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS Structural Equations Program Manual.Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
• Biggs, J. (1999). What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning, Higher Education Research & Development, 18:1, 57-75
• Biggs, J. B. (1987). The Learning Process Questionnaire (LPQ): Manual. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
• 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.
• Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their change through secondary school and their influence on academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 203–221.
• Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2000). Learning style, academic belief systems, self-report student proficiency and academic achievement in higher education. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 307-322.
• Dart, B. C., Burnett, P. C., Purdie, N., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J., & Smith, D. (2000). Students’ conceptions of learning, the classroom environment, and approaches to learning. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 262–270.
• Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of educational psychology, 91(3), 549.
• Entwistle, N. J., & Waterston, S. (1985). Approaches to studying and levels of processing: A comparison of inventories derived from contrasting theoretical bases. In International Conference on Cognitive Processes in Student Learning, Lancaster University, England. Also, British J. of Educational Psychology.
• Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (2015). Understanding student learning (Routledge Revivals). Routledge.
• Hair, J. F, Jr, Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). SEM: an introduction. Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective (7th ed., pp. 629–686). Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River.
• Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
• Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modelling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 90-98.
• Jerusalem, M. ve Schwarzer, R. (1981). Fragebogen zur Erfassung von "Selbstwirksamkeit. Skalen zur Befindlichkeit und Persoenlichkeit In R. Schwarzer (Hrsg.). (Forschungsbericht No. 5). Berlin: Freie Universitaet, Institut fuer Psychologie.
• Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1986). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares methods. Scientific Software.
• Juklová, K., Doležalová, J., Vrabcová, D., & Nowosad, I. (2015). Learning and Reading Strategies of Future Teachers in International Comparison. Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek
• Kaye, L. K., & Brewer, G. (2013). Teacher and Student-focused Approaches: influence of learning approach and self-efficacy in a psychology postgraduate sample. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 12(1), 12-19.
• Kember, D., Jamieson, Q. W., Pomfret, M., & Wong, E. T. (1995). Learning approaches, study time and academic performance. Higher Education, 29(3), 329-343.
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (4th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
• Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students' perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher education, 27(1), 27-52.
• Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I—Outcome and process. British journal of educational psychology, 46(1), 4-11.
• Pajares, F. (1996). Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578.
• Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and the writing performance of entering high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 163–175.
• Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 426–443.
• Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193–203.
• Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics performances: The need for specificity of assessment. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 42, 190–198.
• Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students’ writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 353–360.
• Pajares, F., Miller, M. D., & Johnson, M. J. (1999). Gender differences in writing self-beliefs of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 50–61.
• Phan, H. P. (2007). An examination of reflective thinking, learning approaches, and self‐efficacy beliefs at the University of the South Pacific: A path analysis approach. Educational Psychology, 27(6), 789-806.
• Phan, H. P. (2011). Interrelations between self‐efficacy and learning approach: a developmental approach. Educational Psychology, 31(2), 225-246.
• Ramsden, P. (1988). Context and strategy. In Schmeck, R. R. (Ed.) Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 159-184). Springer, Boston, MA.
• Richardson, J. T. E. (2008). Approaches to studying among deaf students in higher education. In M. Marschark, & P. C. Hauser (Eds.), Deaf cognition: Foundations and outcomes (pp. 387−410). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Approaches to studying, conceptions of learning and learning styles in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 288–293
• Salamonson, Y., Weaver, R., Chang, S., Koch, J., Bhathal, R., Khoo, C., & Wilson, I. (2013). Learning approaches as predictors of academic performance in first-year health and science students. Nurse Education Today, 33(7), 729-733.
• Schunk, D. H., Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A. Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation. San Diego: Academic Press.
• Senel, E., Adilogullari, İ., & Ulucan, H. (2014). Examination of Emotional Intelligence Level, Teacher's Self-Efficacy Beliefs and General Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Teachers. Journal of Physical Education & Sports Science/Beden Egitimi Ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2).
• Senel, E., Yeniyol, C., Köle, Ö., Adilogullari, İ. (2014). Examination of the Relation Between School of Physical Education and Sport Students' Approach to Learning and Studying and Test Anxiety. Niğde University Journal of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, 8(1), 140-148.
• Smith, N., & Miller, R. J. (2005). Learning approaches: Examination type, discipline of study, and gender. Educational Psychology, 25, 43–53.
• Steiger, J.H, & Lind, J. C. (1980, May). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
• Taylor, R. (1990). Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: A basic review. JDMS, 1, 35 - 39.
• Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001) Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive concept. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805
• Tuchman, E., & Isaacs, J. (2011). The influence of formal and informal formative pre-service experiences on teacher self-efficacy. Educational Psychology, 31, 413-433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.560656
• Yılmaz, M. B., & Orhan, F. (2011). The Validity and Reliability Study of the Turkish Version of the Study Process Questionnaire. Education and Science, 36(159), 69-83.
• Yılmaz, M., Gürçay, Y., & Ekici, G. (2007). Adaptation of the academic self-efficacy scale to Turkish. H. U. Journal of Education, 33, 253-259. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91. DOI: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1016.