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.