ASP Program Effects on Self-Efficacy and Study …educ.jmu.edu/~sochaab/index_files/Presentations/ASP...Self-Efficacy and Study Skills 2 Abstract The effects of the Academic Success

Self-Efficacy and Study Skills

1

Running head: SELF-EFFICACY AND STUDY SKILLS CHANGES

ASP Program Effects on Self-Efficacy and Study Skills Changes in Students

Adam Zimmer and Alan Socha

Western Carolina University


2

Abstract

The effects of the Academic Success Program (ASP) at a public, southeastern university on self-efficacy and study skills were studied over the course of two years (2007 and 2008). Using the administration of the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory for pre- and post-ASP analysis of study skills and self-efficacy, we analyzed student responses to determine if any intervening effect existed. We found no significant intervening effects of the ASP program on either self-efficacy or study skills. Upon further analysis using multiple regressions, we found that for our purpose, the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory was not a valid measure of the intervening effect of the ASP program. Additionally, we feel that changes to the instrument may enhance its validity, which could help in future studies. Further research hopes to find a better measure for this effect.


3

ASP Program Effects on Self-Efficacy and Study Skills Changes in Students

Self-efficacy is concerned with judgments of how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations (Bandura, 1982). Self-efficacy has been linked to academic successes in studying activities, classroom achievement, and motivation (Warkentin & Griffin, 1994). Self-efficacy can be defined in several areas, two of which are generalized (or global) self-efficacy and academic self-efficacy. Generalized self-efficacy is conceptualized as people’s expectations that they can perform competently across many situations (Tipton & Worthington, 1984). Academic self-efficacy can be defined as one’s confidence in their personal ability to complete academic tasks. Further, motivation about learning plays a key role in mediating the student’s academic achievement and is positively associated with self-efficacy (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002). Theoretically, the higher a student’s self-efficacy the more likely they are to be motivated to perform well in classroom activities. Bandura (1993) stated “a person with the same knowledge and skills may perform poorly, adequately or, extraordinarily depending on fluctuations in self-efficacy thinking” (p. 119). Thus, the study of the relationship between self-efficacy and student academic success has been a major topic of research for several years.

For example, Choi (2005) studied the relationship of measured self-efficacy and self-concept with academic performance of college students. Self-concept, according to Bong and Clark (1999), is defined as a description of one’s attributes and evaluation of those attributes in comparison to others. Choi used three separate instruments to measure this relationship. Global self-efficacy was measured using the Self-Efficacy Scale (SES; Sherer et al., 1982), academic self-efficacy using the College Academic Self-Efficacy Scales (CASES; Owen & Froman, 1988), and self-concept using the Academic Self-Concept Scales (ASCS; Reynolds, 1988). Choi used 230 undergraduate students and measured academic achievement by analyzing their end of term course grades with the three above measures administered before the term began. After completion of the experiment, Choi’s findings indicated that college students who have a higher level of self-precepts (self-efficacy) are more likely to attain higher levels of academic success. Choi suggested that these findings explain the importance of classroom activities aiding the enhancement of the student’s self-concept and self-efficacy, which may in turn elevate academic success in those students.

Similarly, Chemers, Hu, and Garcia (2001) performed a longitudinal study examining the effects of academic self-efficacy as it pertained to first year college students’ academic performance, stress, and health. Self-report questionnaires were used to evaluate the above measures during the student’s first year. Chemers, Hu, and Garcia (2001) found that academic self-efficacy was “significantly and directly related to academic expectations and academic performance” (p. 60). According to this study, students who had higher levels of confidence in their ability to perform academic tasks were more likely to do better in the academic setting than those who had less confidence. Chemers, Hu, and Garcia acknowledged that superior academic ability may be related to both confidence and performance. However, the researchers also found that higher self-efficacy was related to the student’s perception of their capacity to respond to the


4

demands of college life, including social aspects. Results of the study showed that the level of self-efficacy was a powerful predictor of academic performance and expectations during the first year of university study.

Studies of the effect of self-efficacy on cognitive processes were conducted by Albert Bandura. In one article, Bandura (1989) stated that self-efficacy can have an impact on performance of cognitive, affective, or motivational processes. Further, self-efficacy can predict the persistence with which one continues on a difficult task or whether the task will be undertaken by that individual at all. Bandura wrote that “people who doubt their capabilities shy away from difficult tasks” (p. 731) while those who have a resilient (high) sense of self-efficacy tend to approach difficult tasks as challenges to be overcome and mastered. Bandura qualifies his point further by stating that “if people are not fully convinced of their personal efficacy they rapidly abandon the skills they have been taught when they fail to get quick results or it requires bothersome effort” (p. 733).

Tait and Entwistle (1996) began developing a measure that would help to describe the way that students view learning and studying. Their rationale for this came as Britain’s higher education system noticed increasing issues with studying difficulties which led to increases in drop-outs rates and failure rates. This measure was a revised version of the Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI) and proved to be a reliable indicator of students who had ineffective study skills and were thus at risk for problems in academic settings. Their research focused on developing future modifications of the ASI so as to be able to identify early those students who may have ineffective views on learning or studying. This work eventually led to the conception of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST, 1997).

The present study evaluates the effects of mid-sized, public, southeastern, university Academic Success Program (Western Carolina University webpage, 2008) on self-efficacy and students’ perceived study skills as they relate to academic self-efficacy. Students in the ASP program were assessed using self-efficacy scales prior to beginning the program and again after completing the program. Data was analyzed from both the 2007 and 2008 ASP program participants. Our experiment focuses on whether or not the ASP program significantly intervened and improved self-efficacy and study skills. It is hypothesized that those who complete the program are more likely to have higher levels of self-efficacy as it pertains to college related material. Furthermore, we will examine whether students’ self-efficacy and study skills at the end of the ASP program have a positive association with first semester academic performance. If this is the case, then the argument can be made that the ASP program improves self-efficacy and study skills, which in turn improve academic performance. Finally, the instrument will be investigated to determine its reliability and validity. The literature suggests that self-efficacy and study skills are both related to academic performance, so establishing this validity is crucial.

Method

Academic Success Program

The ASP program was designed to provide a complete first-year experience for

students to help ease the transition between high school and college level academics.


5

Students only participate in the program during the summer before their freshman year. Students in the program take college level courses, live on campus in residence halls, and participate in social activities to acclimate them to the environment surrounding the university. Participants of the program were recognized by the admissions office as those needing additional academic support as they entered the university system. The program helps to motivate students to set higher goals and is active in raising self-efficacy in students who have been classified as needing the additional support in their transition to the university. Further, the program is available to any incoming freshman and acts as a support system throughout the student’s entire tenure at the university. Participants The 2007 program participants were 89 incoming freshman students (37 females, 52 males, 1 non-specified) to a midsized, public university’s ASP program who volunteered to fill out the pre and post program surveys. The survey was not anonymous and participants were able to obtain the results from the Office of Institutional Research and Planning or their advisors if desired. Results were kept confidential unless the student requested to see them. Students were given the right not to participate without penalty. The 2008 ASP program (N = 56, 23 females, 32 males, 1 non-specified) students participated under the same conditions. Instrument Participants in both the 2007 and 2008 study filled out the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory (see Appendix). The inventory is made up of six subsections signified as separate sections by the letters A through F.

Section A is designated for the participants’ “Personal Information.” Participants were asked to give their last name, first initial, student I.D. number, age, and sex.

Sections B, D, and F are part of an inventory titled the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST; Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh, 1997). The ASSIST was originally designed to identify students at risk though the measure of the type of approach used by students when they study. The inventory consists of measures for a student’s preference for a deep approach, strategic approach, or surface apathetic approach to studying as well as a measure for preference of different types of courses and teaching. The conceptualization of the ASSIST was a continuation of enhancing study strategy measures, and was first mentioned by Tait and Entwistle (1996). Section B was the first section of the ASSIST. Students were asked to evaluate how close six statements about “learning” were to their own personal beliefs on the topic. Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Very Different” (1) to “Very Close” (5). Section D was the second part to the ASSIST (1997). This section evaluated the participants’ agreement or disagreement with statements about studying made by other students. The participants were to respond to the statements based on the ASP program’s course load. A 5-point Likert scale was utilized, with “Disagree” being 1 on the scale and “Agree” being 5. There were 53 total items measured in this section. Section F, the last part of the ASSIST (1997), was designed to measure the ASP student’s preference for a specific type of learning. The


6

eight item section had four items measuring how much the student liked being told exactly what to study while the remaining four items measured the student’s preference for a teaching style where they were told to think for themselves. Each item was measured using a 5-point Likert scale where “Definitely Dislike” was represented by 1 and “Definitely Like” was represented by 5.

Sections C and E contained the College Self-Efficacy Inventory (Solberg, O’Brian, Villareal, Kennel, & Davis, 1993) and the College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES; Owen & Froman, 1988), respectively. The two self-efficacy inventories were developed to measure scholarly persistence in students as a function of their self-efficacy. It was hypothesized that higher self-efficacy was an indicator of persistent intentions (Karpanty, 1998). Section C contained the College Self-Efficacy Inventory (1993). Confidence was measured using a 9-point Likert scale ranging from “Totally Unconfident” (0) to “Totally Confident” (8). Participants were asked to determine how confident they were about being able to successfully complete 19 tasks related to college activities. Twelve of the items in this measure were related to academic tasks while the remaining seven were related to social activities such as “making new friends at college.” Section E was comprised of the CASES (1988). The section, composed of 33 items, measured the participant’s confidence in completing academic related actions such as “Taking well organized notes during a lecture.” The items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 represented “Not at all Confident” and 5 represented “Very Confident.”

Data Analysis Data was analyzed using SPSS 16.0. Mean frequency analyses were conducted to find specific means for each section of the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory. Further, the sections were segregated to measure both the specific self-efficacy inventories (sections C and E) and the ASSIST sections (sections B, D, and F). These means were used to find the general consensus of how the students involved in the ASP program felt in each section overall for both pre-program and post-program administration of the inventory. Repeated-measures ANOVAs were run for pre- and post-ASP administration means to determine if there were significant differences as a function of the ASP program as an intervening variable. This analysis was used to analyze the intervening effect of the ASP program, while controlling for the covariates of age, sex, the student’s high school weighted GPA, and SAT scores, on self-efficacy and study skills using the mean data from the pre- and post-ASP program results.

Reliability of the inventory was determined using Cronbach’s Alpha in SPSS 16.0. Reliability was established for the entire inventory, as well as each individual section, to determine if removal of specific objects or sections would yield a more reliable measure for future uses with the ASP program participants.

Results (2007 Data)

SELF-EFFICACY


7

Mean (M) for the pre-ASP administration of the College Self-efficacy Inventory (1993), section C of the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory, was 5.92. According to the 9-point Likert scale used for this section, the participants felt “Confident” in their abilities to perform all tasks. Further, the academic and social aspects of this section yielded similar results (M = 5.71 and M = 6.29, respectively). Post-ASP program administration of this section yielded a mean of 6.19 illustrating that students again felt “Confident” about their ability to complete the tasks in this section. Means for both the academic and social aspects of this section (C) were again established, yielding means of 6.07 and 6.40, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha was used to establish the reliability of this section. Section C yielded an alpha of .940 within the 19 items, suggesting high reliability within the section for the pre-ASP administration. Similarly, the post-ASP administration yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .935, again suggesting high reliability for this particular section.

For pre-ASP administration of the CASES (1988), section E, a mean of 3.68 was found. The participants felt “Confident” for the most part that they could accomplish all the items in the section. All items fell between means of 2.91 (“Unsure”) and 4.59 (Between “Confident” and “Very Confident”) except for item 14 in the scale, “Running for student government office.” This particular item yielded a mean of 2.24, indicating that students were “Less Confident” in their ability to complete that particular task. Post-administration of the CASES (1988) yielded a mean of 3.84, suggesting that students felt “Confident” about their abilities to complete the items in this section after having the ASP experience. Means for all items in this section were between 3.42 (“Unsure”) and 4.39 (“Confident”). Item number 14 yielded 3.71, which was an increase over the pre-administration mean (M = 2.24). It should be noted that four participants did not finish this portion of the survey (N = 85). Section E yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .927 suggesting high between item reliability in this section for the pre-ASP administration. Post-ASP administration of the CASES also yielded high reliability for the section, although Cronbach’s alpha was much lower (alpha = .814). A repeated-measures ANOVA was run to analyze the intervening effect the ASP program had on self-efficacy and study skills. Within this ANOVA, the covariates of age, sex, high school weighted GPA, and SAT scores (Verbal, Math, and Writing) were all controlled for. It should be noted that the means were altered as a result to a lower number of observations when the covariates were included. The standard alpha level of .05 was used.

Table 1.1 Descriptive statistics for the Self-Efficacy sections of the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory. Mean Std. Deviation N Pre-Section C Avg. 5.95 0.81 83 Post-Section C Avg. 6.19 1.03 83 Pre-Section E Avg. 3.71 0.42 78 Post-Section E Avg. 3.96 0.49 78


8

Table 1.2 Repeated-measures ANOVA results for the Self-Efficacy sections of the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory. Value F Hypo DF Error DF Sig. Eta2 Pre-Post College Self-Efficacy Inventory (Section C)

0.999 0.063 1 76 0.802 0.001

Pre-Post CASES (Section E)

0.997 0.220 1 71 0.641 0.003

The repeated-measures ANOVA yielded no-significant changes in the College Self-Efficacy Inventory (Table 1.2). This shows that self-efficacy, as measured by this particular inventory, was not positively nor negatively affected by the ASP program. Further, the effect size (Eta2) of the section was minimal, showing this to not be a remarkably strong measure. Similarly, the means from the pre- and post-ASP program administration of the CASES section yielded no statistically significant changes according to the ANOVA (See Table 1.2). The ANOVA shows that there was no change in academic self-efficacy as measured by the CASES section of our instrument. Similar to the College Self-Efficacy Inventory result, the effect size of the measurement was low (.003). ASSIST Each section of the ASSIST was analyzed to find specific means for the three parts of the inventory. Mean analysis was not performed as function of the entire ASSIST, as each section measured different concepts of academic self-efficacy.

The first part of the ASSIST (section B) yielded a mean of 4.02. This indicates that students felt that the measures were “Quite Close” to how they as a whole felt. Section B of the ASSIST during post-ASP administration yielded a mean of 4.07, suggesting that students felt the six items on the section were also “Quite Close” to how they felt about learning. The discrepancy between the pre- and post-ASP means indicates minimal effect of the ASP program.

Section D had several items that had negative connotations throughout the section. These items were recoded in SPSS prior to running the mean-frequency analysis. After recoding the variables, the mean was 3.25, falling between “Unsure” and “Agree Somewhat” on the Likert scale. The mean of the post-ASP administration was 3.62, suggesting that once again the students were “Unsure” or “Agree(d) Somewhat” with the items in the section.

The final section of the ASSIST, section F, yielded a mean of 3.93 representing that students “Like(d) Somewhat” both styles of teaching. However, when broken into separate categories, the students in the ASP program showed that they preferred the “being told exactly what to study” style of teaching (M = 4.24) more than the “thinking


9

for oneself” style (M = 3.62) These styles were similar to that of the surface and deep approaches to studying explored by Zhang (2001). A one-tailed paired samples t-test (alpha = .05) was run to determine if there was a significant difference between the two means. The results (t(85) = 6.416, p < .001) showed that the students significantly preferred the “being told exactly what to study” style of teaching more. This represents that the students who participated in this study preferred their teachers to tell them only what was going to be on the exams, rather than to be taught by a more open-ended, abstract method. Section F, during post-ASP administration, yielded a mean of 4.01. This represents that participants were “Unsure” of which teaching style they preferred after the ASP program’s intervening presence. Again, separate mean-frequency analyses were run to determine which particular category of teaching was preferred, “being told what to study” or “thinking for oneself” (M = 4.26 and M = 3.76, respectively). A paired samples t-test (alpha = .05) was run to determine if the difference between preference for each type of learning in the post-ASP administration of the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory was significant. Results were similar to pre-ASP administration in that participants significantly preferred the “being told what to study” over “thinking for oneself” style of teaching (t(84) = 5.710, p < .001), once again representing that the students preferred to be told exactly what to study for their exams rather than have an abstract method of teaching.

For the pre-ASP administration, sections B, D, and F yielded Cronbach’s Alphas of .813, .890, and .723, respectively, showing that all three sections were reliable within items. Reliability could not be improved for any section by deleting items. For post-ASP administration of the overall ASSIST, Cronbach’s alpha was .777. Sections B, D, and F all yielded Cronbach’s alphas of .834, .728, and .627, respectively. Removal of items from section D helped to increase the reliability of the ASSIST. The removal of these two items (items 23 and 51 from Section D) increased Cronbach’s alpha for the section (.876). No items from section F, if removed, would have increased Cronbach’s alpha. This may be due to the small amount of items in this section. The differences in reliability between the two administrations may be due to the participants’ impatience with re-taking the same survey; however, this is only a hypothesized assumption. The 2007 results from the pre- and post-ASP administration of the ASSIST were not significant across all sections when comparison analysis was conducted. According to table 2.2, the significance values of the obtained F scores from each section were not below the alpha level of .05, showing that the ASP program had no significant effect on the means from the ASSIST sections. Additionally, all Eta2 values in the ASSIST were markedly low, showing minimal effect size for the assessment measure. Table 2.1 Descriptive statistics for the sections of the ASSIST in the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory. Mean Std. Deviations N Pre-Section B Avg. 4.04 0.57 83 Post-Section B Avg. 4.10 0.64 83 Pre-Section D Avg. 3.26 0.24 83 Post-Section D Avg. 3.63 0.39 83

Self-Efficacy and Study Skills 10

Pre-Section F Avg. 3.93 0.52 80 Post-Section F Avg. 4.02 0.48 80 Table 2.2 Repeated-measures ANOVA results for the ASSIST sections of the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory.

Value F Hypo DF Error DF Sig. Eta2 Pre-Post B 0.991 0.695 1 76 0.407 0.009 Pre-Post D 0.997 0.259 1 76 0.613 0.003 Pre-Post F 0.980 1.473 1 73 0.229 0.020

Multiple regression analyses were run to determine the validity of individual sections of our instrument. When adjusting for the covariates mentioned above, none of the sections were found as valid predictors of academic success in relationship to the class grades achieved by those who completed the ASP program. The data below shows that when related to measures of classroom performance, the self-efficacy scales were not significant indicators of performance changes. Tables 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 are all multiple regression results per classroom grade achievements. A short description of the classes is listed below: EDRD-150: College Reading and Vocabulary – Designed to increase the receptive and expressive language skills by teaching appropriate strategies for better comprehension. ENGL-101: Composition 1 – Emphasizes writing as a tool for reading, thinking, and communicating. USI-130: University Experience –Emphasizes academic and career planning while discussing the issues involved in transitioning from high school to college. Table 3.1 Multiple Regression related to the EDRD-150 class grades. Model

2 R R2 Adjusted

R2 S.E.E R2

Change F

Change df1 df2 Sig. F

Change 0.555 0.308 0.179 0.636 0.007 1.51 4 54 0.213

Table 3.2 Multiple Regression related to the ENGL-101 class grades. Model

2 R R2 Adjusted

R2 S.E.E R2

Change F


Change 0.495 0.245 0.138 0.75 0.028 0.66 4 71 0.623


Table 3.3 Multiple Regression related to the USI-130 class grades. Model

2 R R2 Adjusted

R2 S.E.E R2

Change F


Change 0.284 0.08 -0.047 0.598 0.006 0.122 4 72 0.974

Results (2008 Data)

SELF-EFFICACY

The 2008 pre-ASP program administration of section C, the College Self-Efficacy Inventory (1993), yielded a mean of 5.85, representing that the students felt between “Somewhat Confident” and “Confident” about their abilities to complete the tasks mentioned in this section. The section was separated into academic and social categories in same manner as the 2007 data. The means for these two categories were 5.75 and 6.02 for the academic and social categories, respectively. Results from the 2008 post-ASP program administration of the College Self-Efficacy Inventory yielded a mean of 6.01. This mean suggested that the student’s participating felt “Confident” in their overall abilities to complete the tasks within the measure. The means for the academic and social categories of the post-ASP administration were 6.24 and 6.48, respectively. Again, this suggests that students feel “Confident” in their abilities to complete both academic and social tasks. A pre-ASP reliability analysis revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of .957, showing that this section was very reliable. The Cronbach’s alpha for the post-ASP administration was .808, which still represents that the College Self-Efficacy Inventory was reliable; however, it was not as reliable a measure as the pre-ASP administration was shown to be. Analysis of the CASES data showed that the students felt “Unsure” about how confident they were at completing the tasks measured in this section (M = 3.73). All means on the items in this section fell between 2.82 and 4.47 except for item number 14, which yielded a lower confidence compared to the other items in the section. The mean from the CASES portion of the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory during post-ASP administration was 4.09, suggesting that the students felt “Confident” about their ability to do the behaviors listed in this section. The range of means between items varied from 3.73 to 4.42. Pre-ASP reliability analysis showed that the section was very reliable in measuring academic self-efficacy (Cronbach’s alpha = .918). Post-ASP administration reliability analysis of the CASES also proved to be a reliable measure of academic self-efficacy, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha of .926. A repeated-measures ANOVA was run using SPSS 16.0 to compare results from pre- and post-ASP participation. Within this ANOVA, the covariates of age, sex, high school weighted GPA, and SAT scores (Verbal, Math, and Writing) were all controlled. It should be noted that the means from each section changed as an overlapping effect from a change in the amount of subject information (Table 4.1).


When accounting for the covariates of age, sex, high school weighted GPA, and SAT scores, the difference in means between the pre- and post-ASP administrations of the College Self-Efficacy Inventory was not statistically significant (See Table 4.2). This shows that while accounting for the covariates, the intervening effect of the ASP program was not enough to significantly increase self-efficacy as measured by this section. Similarly, the repeated-measures ANOVA yielded non-significant changes in self-efficacy as measured by the CASES (See Table 3.2; section E). With this result, academic self-efficacy was not significantly affected by the intervening ASP program. Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics for the Self-Efficacy sections of the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory. Mean Std. Deviations N Pre-Section C Avg. 5.93 1.15 50 Post-Section C Avg. 6.35 0.63 50 Pre-Section E Avg. 3.72 0.49 49 Post-Section E Avg. 4.25 0.66 49

Table 4.2 Repeated-measures ANOVA results for the Self-Efficacy sections of the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory. Value F Hypo DF Error DF Sig. Eta2 Pre-Post College Self-Efficacy Inventory (Section C)

0.976 1.058 1 43 0.309 0.024

Pre-Post CASES (Section E)

0.989 0.470 1 42 0.497 .011

ASSIST Mean frequency analysis of the first section of the ASSIST yielded a mean of 4.13. This mean represents that the items in the section were “Quite Close” to how the participants thought about the term “learning.” Of the small number of items within this section, all items fell between 4.04 and 4.24 representing a high level of agreement between the students. The mean for the six items in section B of post-ASP administration of the ASSIST was 4.25, suggesting that the students again felt that the items in the section were “Quite Close” to how they thought about the term “learning.”

Section D analysis on the ASSIST showed that the participants felt “Unsure” about how the overall comments on studying applied to them (M = 3.47). This mean took into account the recoding of the negative items within the section. Post-ASP administration of whole section analysis for the items in section D yielded a mean of


3.57. This represents an “Unsure” feeling from the participants on their relative agreement or disagreement with the items in the section. Section F yielded a mean of 3.99. This section was separated into the “being told what to study” and “thinking for oneself” styles of teaching. Separate mean frequency analysis were run, yielding a mean of 4.29 for “being told what to study,” representing that the students “Liked Somewhat” this style of teaching. “Thinking for oneself” showed a mean of 3.69, representing an “Unsure” feeling. A one-tailed pair-samples t-test (alpha = .05) was used to determine that there was significantly more preference for “being told what to study” style of teaching (t(53) = 5.786, p < .001) than for the “Thinking for oneself” style. That is the students preferred to be taught only what was going to be on the exam, instead of a self-learning, abstract style of teaching. Similar results were found for the post-ASP administration of section F. Prior to separating the items in section F into the categories of “being told what to study” and “thinking for oneself,” the full section mean was 4.21. This suggests that the participants “Liked Somewhat” the full section items as a whole. After separated into the specific categories, the means were 4.35 and 4.00 for “being told what to study” and “thinking for oneself,” respectively. A paired-samples t-test was run (alpha = .05), yielding a significant difference between the two subsections (t(54) = 3.452, p < .05) in that the participants preferred the “being told what to study” over the “thinking for oneself” style of teaching. This represents that on the whole, the students prefer the teacher to tell them exactly what to study for each class as opposed to having more abstract teaching styles.

Pre-ASP reliability analysis was run for the ASSIST. Each individual section proved to be reliable as separate entity, as sections B, D, and F yielded reliability coefficients of .895, .933, and .776 respectively. The post-ASP sections yielded alphas of .896, .934, and .750 for sections B, D, and F respectively. The lower reliability coefficients for sections B and F during both pre- and post-ASP analysis may be related to the smaller amount of questions in each section, which again are 6 and 8, for sections B and F, respectively. The means from the sections of the ASSIST for both pre- and post-ASP administrations of the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory were compared using repeated-measures ANOVAs. The analysis was run controlling for the same covariates as the 2007 analysis. As shown in table 5.1, the means from each section changed as a function of missing values from adding the covariates to the analysis. Table 5.2 shows that there were no significant changes across the pre- and post-ASP administration in any section. The means, therefore, were not significantly changed positively or negatively by the intervening factor of the ASP program. Table 5.1 Descriptive statistics for the sections of the ASSIST in the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory. Mean Std. Deviations N Pre-Section B Avg. 4.11 0.76 51 Post-Section B Avg. 4.26 0.77 51 Pre-Section D Avg. 3.72 0.49 49 Post-Section D Avg. 4.25 0.66 49


Pre-Section F Avg. 4.04 0.54 49 Post-Section F Avg. 4.23 0.53 49 Table 5.2 Repeated-measures ANOVA results for the ASSIST sections of the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory.

Value F Hypo DF Error DF Sig. Eta2 Pre-Post B 0.998 0.106 1 44 0.746 0.002 Pre-Post D 0.989 0.470 1 42 0.497 0.011 Pre-Post F 0.933 2.998 1 42 0.091 0.067 Multiple regression analysis was run to determine if the ASSIST was a valid predictor of study skills changes after the completion of the ASP program. Similar to the 2007 results, we did not find the 2008 results from the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory to be a valid measure for our usage. Below are tables describing the statistical properties of the multiple regressions for the specific classes that were used to measure the intervening effect. It should be noted that no significance was found with any of the three classes. A description of each course follows: EDRD-150: See 2007 Multiple regressions. ENGL-190: Freshman Seminar in Literature – Emphasizes human experience and values through literature. COUN-140: Study Techniques for College – Measures ones ability to adapt study techniques, motivation for learning, and use of library and reading improvement laboratories. The results are shown in tables below 6.1 through 6.3 below. Table 6.1 Multiple Regression related to the EDRD-150 class grades. Model

2 R R2 Adjusted

R2 S.E.E R2

Change F


Change 0.610 0.372 -0.255 0.687 0.320 1.275 4 10 0.343

Table 6.2 Multiple Regression related to the ENGL-190 class grades. Model

2 R R2 Adjusted

R2 S.E.E R2

Change F


Change 0.482 0.232 -0.133 0.635 0.116 0.793 4 21 0.543


Table 6.3 Multiple Regression related to the COUN140 class grades. Model

2 R R2 Adjusted

R2 S.E.E R2

Change F


Change 0.489 0.239 -0.123 0.597 0.079 0.545 4 21 0.704

Discussion The ASP program is designed to establish a higher rate of self-efficacy, as well as to institute within the students a more college-level standard of both learning and studying. Ultimately, it has been surmised that increased self-efficacy (both normal and academic) will contribute to higher performance in academia. However, in researching the results from pre- and post-ASP administration of the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory over the course of two years (2007 and 2008), we were unable to determine any true intervening effect of the ASP program. Repeated measures ANOVAs show no significant changes and low effect size when comparing pre- and post-ASP administration of the instrument, however, this finding may not be fully accurate. Inaccuracy of this finding was due to our investigation of the validity of the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory. Using multiple regression analysis, we found that for our purposes the Student Study Skills and Self-Efficacy Inventory was not a valid measure of the intervening effect of the ASP program, even though the reliability measures show each section of the inventory to be highly reliable. The length of our instrument may have contributed to this finding. Our research findings should convey that a new questionnaire to determine the effect of the ASP program should be established. The importance of the ASP program should be clear. However, if a definite, measurable effect of its strengths and weaknesses cannot be accurately measured, the efficiency of such a program may come into question. Hopefully, this research will help to convey the need to adjust both the questionnaire measurement for more valid analysis of the intervening effect of the ASP program, as well as to potentially show deficiencies in the ASP program, so that it will become more effective in the future.


References Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,

37 (2), 122-147. Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy.

Developmental Psychology, 25 (5), 729-735. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational Psychologist, 28 (2), 117-148. Bong, M. & Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in

academic motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 34, 139-153. Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year

college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (1), 55-64.

Choi, N. (2005). Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college students’

academic performance. Psychology in the Schools, 42 (2), 197-205.


Karpanty, R. E. (1998). Role of communication apprehension, college self-efficacy, peer integration and faculty integration on college persistence. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic

success. School Psychology Review, 31 (3), 313-327. Owen, S. V. & Froman, R. D. (1988, April, 6 -8). Development of a college academic

self-efficacy scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.

Tait, H. & Entwistle, N. (1996). Identifying students at risk through ineffective study

strategies. Higher Education, 31, 97-116. Tipton, R. M. & Worthington Jr., E. L. (1984). The measurement of generalized self-

efficacy: A study of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48 (5), 545-548.

Warkentin, R. W., & Griffin, B. (1994, April, 4-8). The relationship between college

students’ study activities, content knowledge structure, academic self-efficacy and classroom achievement. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Western Carolina University webpage (2008). Academic Success Program.

http://www.wcu.edu/5879.asp Zhang, L. F. (2001). Approaches and thinking styles in teaching. The Journal of

Psychology, 135, 547-561.


Appendix





Documents

ASP Program Effects on Self-Efficacy and Study …educ.jmu.edu/~sochaab/index_files/Presentations/ASP...Self-Efficacy and Study Skills 2 Abstract The effects of the Academic Success