1. Chris Evans, University of Winchester Dr Paul Redford, UWE Chris Evans, University of Winchester Dr Paul Redford, UWE Self-Efficacy and Academic Performance: the effect of self-evaluation interventions PLAT June 2006

2. 2 Research Aims and Context Theoretical background Experimental design Initial Hypotheses Three studies and their results Year 1 Statistics Year 1 ‘Psychological Thinking’ Year 2 Statistics Discussion Self-Efficacy and Academic Performance: the effect of self-evaluation interventions

3. Aim: to explore the effect of self- evaluation interventions during a module on Self efficacy for the module Final module marks Context: Study 1- Year 1 Statistics module Study 2 - Year 1 Statistics & ‘Psychological Thinking’ modules Study 3 - Year 2 Statistics module Aim & Context

4. 4 Self-efficacy is a personal judgement of performance capability that is: domain specific context sensitive dependent upon mastery criteria Self-efficacy influences level of effort & persistence Self-efficacy influences self-monitoring actions and self-evaluative standards Higher self-efficacy is linked with improved task performance Zimmerman, 2000 Theoretical Background

5. 5 Self-efficacy for new students Self-efficacy has three sources mastery experiences vicarious experiences verbal 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 experience Which influences future study attitudes and behaviour Bandura, 1997 …might regular self-evaluation of progress help enhance self-efficacy and performance?

6. 6 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. 7 Year 1 (Semester 1, 2003) psychology students 12 lectures on introductory statistics using SPSS - with 10 weekly practice exercises Assessed by computer-based, open-book exam Intervention: Experimental Group complete 10-item self- evaluations of progress in weeks 4,7,10 Control Group answer questions on university adaptation Experimental Design - Study 1

8. 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 mark Effort - Number of completed weekly worksheets Other measures included Approaches to learning (ASSIST) 5-Factor Personality (NEO-PIR) Work Preference Inventory (Amabile et al, 1994) Measures

9. 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 hypotheses

10. 10 Study 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. 11 Study 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=.08 Exam 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. 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 Statistics Participants 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 Context

13. 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<.05 Post-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

14. 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 Findings

15. 15 Combined experimental result The effect of the self-evaluation intervention was also significant Mean exam marks were 61% for control and 71% for the experimental group t(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 Competence Neuroticism Combined R²=.23

16. 16 The results for the Psychological Thinking module showed no effects of the self-evaluation intervention and little relationship between S-E and achievement The 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 scale This is an unconventional module, so may be a poor comparator But the Statistics experimental finding doesn’t generalise to this module **p<.01 Perhaps it will generalise to a 2nd year Statistics module? Psychological Thinking Findings

17. 17 To see if the Statistics findings can also be detected in a similar Year 2 module Year 2 (Semester 1, 2005) psychology students Identical course structure to first year course Reduced set of measures Study 3 - Aims and Context

18. 18 These results also show no effect of the experimental group on achievement Perceived 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 - Findings

19. 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 findings

20. 20 A possible explanation? understanding assessment standards understanding of personal capability development of study behaviour results 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 20

21. 21 References 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.html Finney, 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.