American Journal of Educational Research
ISSN (Print): 2327-6126 ISSN (Online): 2327-6150 Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/education Editor-in-chief: Ratko Pavlović
Open Access
Journal Browser
Go
American Journal of Educational Research. 2013, 1(8), 334-343
DOI: 10.12691/education-1-8-11
Open AccessArticle

The Effects of Self-efficacy Beliefs and Metacognition on Academic Performance: A Mixed Method Study

Catherine M. Aurah1,

1Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kakamega, Kenya

Pub. Date: September 24, 2013

Cite this paper:
Catherine M. Aurah. The Effects of Self-efficacy Beliefs and Metacognition on Academic Performance: A Mixed Method Study. American Journal of Educational Research. 2013; 1(8):334-343. doi: 10.12691/education-1-8-11

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of Self-efficacy Beliefs and Metacognition on Academic Performance among high school students using a mixed method approach. A total of 2,138 form four (12th grade) students participated in the study. The mixed-method study consisted of a quasi-experimental approach and in-depth interviews. Quantitative data were collected from self efficacy questionnaire (SEQ), biology ability test (BAT), genetics problem solving test (GPST) and metacognitive prompting questionnaire (MPQ). Qualitative data were collected using in-depth interviews. Quantitative data were analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics (hierarchical linear regression and factorial ANOVA). Qualitative data were coded, categorized and reported thematically. Regression analysis indicated that self-efficacy was a strong predictor of academic performance. ANOVA analysis displayed statistically significant differences in metacognition in form of metacognitive prompts between groups. Gender effects were also noted with female students outperforming male students on the genetics problem solving test. Subsequent qualitative data suggested that highly efficacious students did better on the tests than less efficacious students. The metacognitive prompting experience provides a rich environment for the development of metacognitive strategies that can promote problem solving skills among high school students.

Keywords:
self-efficacy metacognitive prompting academic performance self regulation

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]  Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D. & Hanesian, K. (1978). Educational Psychology: A cognitive view (2nd Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
 
[2]  Banet, E. & Ayuso, E. (2000). Teaching Genetics at Secondary School: A Strategy for Teaching about the Location of Inheritance Information. Science Education, 84, 313-351.
 
[3]  Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. NJ: Prentice Hall Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman Best & Kahn (2003).
 
[4]  Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy in Changing Societies. UK: Cambridge University Press.
 
[5]  Best, J. W. & Kahn, J. V. (2003). Research in Education. 9th Edition, Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi.
 
[6]  Braten, I., Samuelstuen, M. S., & Stromso, H. I. (2004). Do students’ Self-efficacy Beliefs Moderate the Effects of Performance Goals on Self-Regulatory Strategy Use? Educational Psychology, 24, 231-247.
 
[7]  Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of Science Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Middle School Students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485.
 
[8]  Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing When, Where, and How to Remember: A Problem of Metacognition. In R. Glaser (Eds.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1) (pp.77-165). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 
[9]  Carr, M. (2010). The Importance of Metacognition for Conceptual Change and Strategy Use in Mathematics. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.) Metacognition, Strategy Use, and Instruction (pp. 176-197), NY, NY: Guilford.
 
[10]  Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, R., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
 
[11]  Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 
[12]  Creswell, J. W, Plano-Clark, V. L., Guttmann, M. L., & Hanson, E. E. (2003). Advanced Mixed Methods Research Design. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 
[13]  Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting Middle School Science Students for Reflection: Generic and Directed Prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91-142.
 
[14]  Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819-837.
 
[15]  DeCorte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Op ‘T Eynde, P. (2000). Self-regulation: A Characteristic and a Goal of Mathematics Education. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 687-726). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
 
[16]  DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications, (2nd ed) Newbury Park, CA: Sage
 
[17]  Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its Facets and Levels of Functioning in Relation to Self-regulation and Co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13, 277-287.
 
[18]  Efklides, A. (2009). The role of metacognitive experiences in the learning Process. Psicothema, 21(1), 76-82. Retrieved September 30, 2012, from http://www.psicothema.com/pdf/ 3598.pdf.
 
[19]  Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of Metacognition with Motivation and Affect in Self-Regulated Learning: The MASRL Model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6-25.
 
[20]  Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3rd ed.). California. Sage Publications Inc.
 
[21]  Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive Developmental Inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
 
[22]  Ge, X. (2001). Scaffolding Students' Problem-solving Processes on an Ill-structured Task Using Question Prompts and Peer Interactions. Unpublished Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.
 
[23]  Ge, X., & Land. S. M. (2004). A Conceptual Framework for Scaffolding Ill-structured Problem-solving Processes using Question Prompts and Peer Interactions. Educational Technology and Research and Development, 52(2), 21-38.
 
[24]  Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially Mediated Metacognition: Creating Collaborative Zones of Proximal Development in Small Group Problem Solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 193-223.Hoffman, B., & Spatariu, A. (2008). The Influence of Self-efficacy and Metacognitive Prompting on Math Problem solving Efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 875-893.
 
[25]  Hoffman, B., & Spatariu, A. (2008). The Influence of Self-efficacy and Metacognitive Prompting on Math Problem solving Efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 875-893.
 
[26]  Howell, D. C. (2010). Statistical Methods for Psychology. 7th ed. Cengage Wadsworth Belmont, CA, USA.
 
[27]  Kauffman, D. F. (2004). Self-regulated Learning in Web-based Environments: Instructional Tools Designed to Facilitate Cognitive Strategy Use, Metacognitive Processing and Motivational Beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 139-161.
 
[28]  Kazdin, A. E. (1999). Overview of research design issues in clinical psychology. In P. C.Kendall, J. N. Butcher, & G. N. Holmbeck (Eds.) Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 3-30). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
 
[29]  King, A. (1994). Guiding Knowledge Construction in the Classroom: Effects of Teaching Children How to Question and How to Explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 338-368.
 
[30]  Kramarski, B., & Gutman, M. (2006). How Can Self-Regulated Learning Be Supported In Mathematical E-Learning Environments? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 24-33
 
[31]  Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Arami, M. (2002). The Effects of Metacognitive Training on Solving Mathematical Authentic Tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 225-250.
 
[32]  Kramarski, B., & Zeichner, O. (2001). Using Technology to Enhance Mathematical Reasoning: Effects of Feedback and Self-Regulation Learning. Educational Media International, 38(2/3), 77-82.
 
[33]  Kupermintz, H. (2002). Affective and conative factors as aptitude resources in high school science achievement. Educational Assessment, 8, 123-137.
 
[34]  Lau, S., & Roeser, R.W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students’ situational engagement and achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 8, 139-162.
 
[35]  Mayer, R.E. (2001). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. In H.J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in Learning and Instruction, pp.87-101. 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
 
[36]  McCombs, B. L., & Marzano, R. J. (1990). Putting the Self in Self-regulated Learning: The self as Agent in Integrating will and skill. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 51-69.
 
[37]  Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
 
[38]  Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 
[39]  Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2002). A Framework for Analyzing Data in Mixed Methods Research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook Of Mixed Methods In Social and Behavioral Research (Pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 
[40]  Pajares, F. (2005). Gender Differences in Mathematics Self-Efficacy Beliefs. In A. Gallagher & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Mind Gap: Gender Differences in Mathematics (Pp. 294-315). Boston: Cambridge University Press.
 
[41]  Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
 
[42]  Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1988). Teaching and practicing thinking skills to promote comprehension in the context of group problem solving. Remedial and Special Education (RASE), 9(1), 53-59.
 
[43]  Pendley, B. D., Bretz, R. L. & Novak, J. D. (1994). Concept map as a tool to assess learning in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 9-15.
 
[44]  Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The Role of Motivation in Promoting and Sustaining Self-Regulated Learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459-470.
 
[45]  Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated Learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (Pp. 451-501). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
 
[46]  Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning Components of Classroom Academic Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
 
[47]  Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
 
[48]  Schunk, D. H. (1991). Goal Setting and Self-Evaluation: A Social Cognitive Perspective on Self-Regulation, In M. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 7, Pp. 85-113). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
 
[49]  Schunk, D.H. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Regulated Learning. In Zimmerman, B.J., & Schunk, D.H. (Eds.). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectivist Theories-An Educational Perspective. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. (Pp 125-151). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 
[50]  Schunk, D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-Regulation and Academic Learning: Self-Efficacy Enhancing Interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (Pp. 631-649). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
 
[51]  Schunk, D.H. & Zimmerman, B.J. (2007). Influencing Children’s Self-Efficacy and Self-Regulation of Reading and Writing through Modeling. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 7-25.
 
[52]  Sins, P. H. M., Van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2007). Motivation and Performance Within a Collaborative Computer-Based Modeling Task: Relations between Students’ Achievement Goal Orientation, Self-Efficacy, Cognitive Processing, and Achievement. Contemporary Education Psychology 33, 58-77.
 
[53]  Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded Theory methodology: An overview, In N. K. Denzin, and Y.S. Lincoln, (Eds): Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, London, 1-18.
 
[54]  Strauss A. & Corbin J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures For Developing Grounded Theory (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park, Sage.
 
[55]  Tabachnik, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th Edition). Pearson Education, Inc. Boston.
 
[56]  Tanner, H., & Jones, S. (2003). Self-efficacy in mathematics and students’ use of Self- Regulated learning strategies during assessment events. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Doherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings at the 27th Conference of the Int. Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol.4, pp. 275-282). Honolulu, USA: PME
 
[57]  Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
 
[58]  Teong, K. (2003). The Effect of Metacognitive Training On Mathematical Word-Problem Solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 46-45.Thalheimer, W., & Cook, S. (2004, August). How to calculate effect sizes from published research articles: A simplified methodology. Retrieved November 31, 2002 from http://work-learning.com/effect_sizes.htm.
 
[59]  Thomas, G.P., Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2007). Development of An Instrument Designed to Investigate Elements of Science Students’ Metacognition, Self-Efficacy and Learning Processes: The SEMLI-S. International Journal of Science Education.
 
[60]  Veenman, M.V.J., Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and Learning: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3-14.
 
[61]  Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 
[62]  Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative Processes of Comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345-376.
 
[63]  Zeldin, A.L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 215-246.
 
[64]  Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective. In P. R. P. Boekaerts & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (Pp. 13-41). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
 
[65]  Zimmerman, B. (2008). Investigating Self-Regulation and Motivation: Historical Background, Methodological Developments, and Future Prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166-183.
 
[66]  Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., & Coppola, B. (2003). Skill and Will: The Role of Motivation and Cognition in the Learning of College Chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1081-1094.