chris evans, university of winchester dr paul redford, uwe chris evans, university of winchester dr...
TRANSCRIPT
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.