ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Descriptive & Survey Study

Authors

Samareh   S. (*)
Kezri Moghadam   N. (1)






(*) Psychology Department, Literature & Human Sciences Faculty, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran
(1) Psychology Department, Literature &Human Sciences Faculty, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran

Correspondence

Address: Psychology Department, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahid Bahonar University, Afzalipour Square, 22 Bahman Boulevard, Kerman, Iran
Phone: +983432530278
Fax: +983443214822
sulmaz_samareh@yahoo.com

Article History

Received:  December  14, 2015
Accepted:  February 15, 2016
ePublished:  March 28, 2016

BRIEF TEXT


… [1-12] There are strong correlations between high levels of self-efficiency and academic progress and the components of academic engagement. Self-efficiency beliefs positively affect the students’ motivations and their progress [13-15]. … [16-25]

The correlations between skillful goals and self-efficiency, the utilization of deep cognitive strategies, self-regulating learning, and efficient coping with the problems have been studied [26]. … [27-30] In addition, the correlation between avoidance goals and surface learning strategies has been studied [31].

The aim of this study was to investigate the mediating role of academic engagement in a correlation with the progress goals and academic self-efficiency.

This is a correlational study.

Female and male students of Medicine, Nursing, Midwifery, and Para-medical Sciences faculties of Bahonar Kerman University of Medical Sciences were studied in the academic year 2015-16.

360 students were selected via cluster random sampling method using Krejcie and Morgan table.

Data was collected using progress goals questionnaire (QGA), academic self-efficiency, and academic engagement questionnaires. QGA assesses four dimensions including skillful goals, skill avoidance goals, function-centered goals, and function-avoidance goals based on Likert’s scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Its reliability has been confirmed [32]. Reliability capabilities of self-efficiency questionnaire in three factors of motivational beliefs, including self-efficiency, internal valuation, and exam anxiety, are 0.89, 0.87, and 0.75, respectively. In addition, the values for two factors of self-regulating learning strategies, including cognitive and metacognitive strategies, are 0.83 and 0.74, respectively [33, 34]. Academic engagement questionnaire assesses three types of engagement including behavioral, motivational, and cognitive engagements by 5-point Likert scale (from completely disagree to completely agree) [10]. At the first stage, a Persian translation of academic engagement questionnaire was provided and then, it was reversely translated. At the latter stages, the questionnaire, having been conducted as pilot, its problems were investigated. Based on Bartlett’s test and Chi-square test, data were significant [35]. Descriptive correlational method and path analysis by SPSS 20 and Amos 22 software, as well as path analysis by SEM, were done to investigate the causal model of progress goals, academic engagement, and self-efficiency [36]. At first, the original model, including all the paths, was tested. At the second stage, all the predictor paths which played no role in the fitness of the model were taken constant. Normalized fitness index (NFI), increasing fitness index (IFI), relative fitness index (RFI), comparative fitness index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were used to assess the model [36, 37].

175 students (48.6%) and 185 students (51.4%) were female and male, respectively. There was no significant correlation between the progress goals of function attitude and function avoidance and academic engagement and academic self-efficiency (p>0.05). And only two components including mastery attitude and mastery avoidance were significantly effective (p<0.05). There were positive and significant correlations between mastery attitude (of progress goal) and motivational engagement (β=0.42), cognitive engagement (β=0.27), and behavioral engagement (β=0.32). That was, persons with higher mastery attitude goal showed higher motivational, cognitive, and behavioral academic engagements. In addition, persons with higher mastery avoidance goals showed higher behavioral academic engagement (β=0.31). The higher the motivational (β=0.79) and cognitive (β=0.51) engagements were, the higher the academic self-efficiency was. That was, the higher the motivational and cognitive engagements were, the higher the self-efficiency was in the persons. None of the progress goals could directly predict the self-efficiency (p>0.05; Table 1). The values of χ2 (=53.35), CFI (=0.97), TLI (=0.91), RFI (=0.9), IFI (=0.97), NFI (=0.96), and RMSEA (=0.04) showed favorable fitness of the model. There were more indirect effects of progress goals on the academic self-efficiency than the direct effects. Motivational and cognitive academic engagements played full intervening roles between mastery attitude goal and academic self-efficiency (Fig. 1).

There was no significant correlation between the progress goals of function attitude and function avoidance and academic engagement and academic self-efficiency. Nevertheless, there was a positive correlation between mastery attitude and motivational, cognitive, and behavioral engagements. The results are consistent with some results showing that self-efficiency beliefs positively affect the students’ motivations and their progress [14, 15, 17]. There is a positive and significant correlation between self-efficiency and academic progress [38]. The higher the motivational and cognitive academic engagements were, the higher the academic self-efficiency was in the person. The result is consistent with another study showing that there is a correlation between gender and academic functioning and engagement and there is a higher academic engagement in the females than the males [39]. There is a higher level of academic engagement, and especially emotional engagement, in the females [40], which is consistent with the present results showing that the higher the cognitive and emotional engagements were, the higher the academic self-efficiency was. There is a positive and significant correlation between self-efficiency and academic engagement [41]. There is a higher level of academic engagement in the female students than the males, and students with higher academic engagement achieve favorable academic goals [42]. There was a complete intervening role in cognitive and motivational academic engagements between the mastery attitude goal and the academic self-efficiency. The result is consistent with the results of another study showing a probable attempt in the persons with higher self-efficiency beliefs coping with the problems [3]. There is a positive and significant correlation between self-efficiency and the goal of the learners [43]. The cognitive engagement is one of the dimensions of school engagement and predicts the academic functioning [44]. The academic motivation and the academic self-efficiency feeling predicted the academic functioning.

Other academic engagement tools, such as Pintrich and Degroot academic engagement questionnaire, should be used to study the issue.

Difficulties in distribution and collection of the questionnaires and the subjects’ unfamiliarity with some phrases were the limitations for the present study.

There is a complete intervention for cognitive and motivational academic engagements between mastery attitude goal and academic self-efficiency.

All the participating students are appreciated.

There is no conflict between the present results and the interests of any organization.

All information was referred to as confidential in the questionnaires. The subjects were notified in enlisting the information in the study project.

The study was financially paid by the corresponding author.

TABLES and CHARTS

Show attach file


CITIATION LINKS

[1]Bandura A. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and function-ing. Educ Psychol. 1993;28(2):117-48.
[2]Etemadi O, Saadat S. Role of family health and attachment styles in prediction of students’ academic self-efficacy. Educ Strategy Med Sci. 2015;8(4):195-201. [Persian]
[3]Schunk DH. Modeling and attributional effects on children’s achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. J Educ Psychol. 1981;73(1):93-105.
[4]Fooladvand KH, Farzad V, Shahraray M, Sangari AA. Role of social support, academic stress and academic self-efficacy on mental and physical health. Contemp Psychol. 2010;4(2):81-93. [Persian]
[5]Finn JD.Withdrawing from school. Rev Educ Res. 1989;59(2):117-142.
[6]Shirdel K, Mirzaeian B, Hssanzade R. Relationship between self-regulated learning strategies and achievement motivation of high school students. Curric Plan Knowl Res Educ Sci. 2013;10(9):99-112. [Persian]
[7]Appelton JJ, Chestenson SL, Kim D, Reschly A. Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. J Sch Psychol. 2006;44(4):427-45.
[8]Li Y, Lerner RM. Interrelations of Behavioral, Emotional, a Cognitive School Engagement in High School Students. J Youth Adolesc. 2013;42(1):20-32.
[9]Marks HM. Student engagement in situational activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. Am Educ Res J. 2000;37(1):153-84.
[10]Feredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res. 2004;74(1):59-109.
[11]Jimerson SR, Campos E, Greif J L. Toward and understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. Calif Sch Psychol. 2003;8:7-27.
[12]Taleby S, Mahmoodian H, Rastegar A, Saif MH. Predict academic success with emphasis on variables in e-learning and student involvement. J Learn Technol Learn. 2014;1(2):117-37. [Persian]
[13]Linnenbrink EA, Pintrich PR. The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Read Writ Q. 2003;19(2):119-37.
[14]Pajares F, Miller M. Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. J Educ Psychol. 1994;86(2):193-203.
[15]Zimmerman BJ, Martinez-Pons M. Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. J Educ Psychol. 1990;82(1):51-9.
[16]Narimani M, Khoshnoodnia Chomachaei B, Zahed A, Abolghasemi A. The role of perceived teacher support in predicting academicself-efficacy in students with learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil. 2013;3(1):110-28. [Persian]
[17]Pintrich PR. An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000;25(1):92-104.
[18]Elliot A, McGregor HA, Gable S. Achievement goals, study strategies and exam performance: A mediational analysis. J Educ Psychol. 1999;91(3):549-63.
[19]Dupeyrat C, Marian C. Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement and achievement: A test of Dweck’s model with returning to school adults. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2005;30(1):43-59.
[20]Meece JL, Blumenfeld PC, Hoyle R. Factors influencing students' goal orientation and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. J Educ Psycholo. 1988;80(4):514-23.
[21]Pintrich PR. Multiple goal, multiple pathway: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. J Educ Psychol. 2000;92(3):544-55.
[22]Chemers MM, Hu L, Garcia BF. Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. J Educ Psychol. 2001;93(1):55-64.
[23]Newman R, Goldin L. Children’s reluctance to seek help with schoolwork. J Educ Psychol. 1990;82(1):92-100.
[24]Green BA, Miller RB. Influences on course performance: Goals, perceived ability, and self-regulation. Contemp Educ Psychol. 1996;21(2):181-92.
[25]Kapla A, Flum H. Achievement goal orientations and identity formation styles. Educ Res Rev. 2010;5(1):50-67.
[26]Dweck CS. Motivational processes affecting learning. J Am Psychol. 1986;41(10):1040-8.
[27]Nicholls JG. Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychol Rev. 1984;91(3):328-46.
[28]Zulali B, Ghorbani F. Comparison of academic motivation and school engagement in students with and without dyslexia. J Learn Disabil. 2014;3(4):44-58. [Persian]
[29]Elliot AJ, Church MA. A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance motivation. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1997;72(1):218-32.
[30]Braten I, Stromso HL. Epistemological beliefs and implicit theories as predictors of achievement goal. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2004;29(4):371-88.
[31]Lee JQ, McInerney DM, Liem GAD, Ortiga YP. The relationship between future goals and achievement goal orientations: An intrinsic–extrinsic motivation perspective. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2010;35(4):264-79.
[32]Khormaei F, Khayer M. Examine the relationship between goal orientation and approach to learning students. J Psycholo Univ Tabriz. 2008; 2(7):123-38. [Persian]
[33]Pintrich PR, De Groot EV. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. J Educ Psychol. 1990;82(1):33-40.
[34]Kjbaf MB, Molavi H, Shirazi AR. Study of the relationship between motivational beliefs and self-regulated learnings, and academic performance among high school students. J Adv Cogn Sci. 2003;5(1):27-33. [Persian]
[35]Taleby S, Zarer H, Rastegar A, Hassan Pour A. Feredricks academic engagement scale factor structure (cognitive, behavioral and motivational). J Res Educ Syst. 2012;8(24):1-16. [Persian]
[36]Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd edition. New York: Guilford Press; 2010.
[37]Jose PE. Doing statistical mediation and moderation. New York: Guilford Press; 2013.
[38]Pirkamali MA, Momeni mahmoei H, Pakdaman M. Review of the relationship between self-efficacy of science teachers on motivation, attitude and academic achievement of fifth grade elementary school students. Research in Curriculum Planning, 2013;2(10):123-34. [Persian]
[39]Sirin SR, Rogers-sirin L. Components of school engagement among african american adolescents. Appl Dev Sci. 2005;9(1):5-13.
[40]Furrer C, Skinner E. Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. J Educ Psychol. 2003;95(1):148-62.
[41]Ugwu FO, Onyishi IE, Tyoyima WA. Exploring the relationships between academic burnout, self_efficacy and academic engagement among Nigerian college students. J Afr Educ Res Netw. 2013;13(2):37-46.
[42]Casuso-Holgado MJ, Cuesta-Vargas AI, Moreno-Morales N, Labajos-Manzanares MT, Baon-Lopez FJ, Vega-Cuesta M. The association between academic engagement and achievement in health sciences students. Bio Med Educ. 2013;13:33.
[43]Canpolat M. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between class climates and goal orientations in physical education. World Appl Sci J. 2012;16(1):76-85.
[44]Dogan U. Student engagement, academic self-efficacy, and academic motivation as predictors of academic performance. Anthropol. 2015;20(3):553-61.