motivation , self efficacy and approach to studyng

7/28/2019 Motivation , Self Efficacy and Approach to Studyng

1/24

Brit ish Journal of Educational Psychology (2010), 80. 283-305 2 0 / 0 The British Psychological Society

283

British

bpsjournals.co.uk

The interplay between motivation, self-efficacy,and approaches to studyingMerc Prat-Sala'* and Paul Redford^'Depar tment ofPsychology, The University of Winchester. UK^Department ofPsychology, University of the West ofEngland, Bristol, UK

Background . The strategies students adopt in their study are influenced by anunnber of social-cognitive factors and impact upon their academic performance.A ims . The present study examined the interrelat ionships between motivat ionorientation {intrinsic and extrinsic), self-eff icacy (in reading academic texts and essayv^^riting), and approaches to studying (deep, strategic, and surface). Thestudy alsoexamined changes inapproaches to studying over t ime.Samp l e . A tota l of 163 first-year undergraduate students in psychology at a UKuniversity took part in the study.Me thods . Participants completed the Work Preference Inventory mot ivat ionquestionnaire, self-efficacy in reading and vi/riting questionnaires and the short versionof the Revised Approaches to Study Inventory.Results. The results shov^ed that both intrinsic and extrinsic m otivation orienta tionsv/ere correlated with approaches to studying. The results also showed that studentsclassified as high in self-efficacy (reading and writing) were more likely to adopt a deepor strategic approach to studying, while students classified as low in self-efficacy(reading and writ ing) were more likely to adopt a surface approach. More importantly,changes in students' approaches to studying over time were related to their self-efficacybeliefs, where students with low levels of self-efficacy decreased in their deep approachand increased their surface approach across time. Students with high levels of self-efficacy (both reading and writ ing) demonstrated no such change in approachesto studying.Conclusions. Our results demonstrate the important ro le of self-efficacy inunderstanding both motivation and learning approaches in undergraduate students.Furthermore, given that reading academic text and writing essays are essential aspectsof many undergraduate degrees, our results provide some indication that focusingon self-efficacy beliefs amongst students may be beneficial to improving t t ieirapproaches to study. i t


2/24

284 Merc Prat-Sala and Paul Redford \ ,Students use different strategies, skills, and processes in their leaming and studyingsituation s. Th e strategies a stud ent ado pts are influenced by a nu m be r of social-cognitivefactors and impact upon their academic performance. Motivational orientation (Deci,1971 , 1975) and sell-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997, 2(K)1) have been identified astwo individual difference variables that are associated with students approaches tostudying (Entwistie, Tait, & McC une, 200 0; N ew stead, 19 98; Tait, Entw istie, & McCXine,1998), their academic peribrmance (Bouffard, Boileau, & Vezcau, 2001; Lane & Line,2001; Lane, Lane, & Kyprianou, 2004) and their self-regulated learning (Pintrich, 1999)-However, little research has examined how motivation orientation (as a stableindividual-difference trait) and task specific self-efficacy interact with the approaches tostudying students adopt. Moreover, little research has examined these influences overt ime. An examination of changes across time should give an indication of the social-cognitive processes involved in student learning.

Motivation orientationIn the early 1970s, two broad types of motivation orientation were identified: intrinsicand extrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971, 1975). People intrinsically motivated engage in atask for its ow n sake, bec aus e tbe task itself is interesting, appealing and satisfying, withno apparent reward except ibr the enjoyment gained from performing the tasks.In contrast pe op le w ho are extrinsically m otivated enga ge in a task becau se of a sep arateoutc om e or reward they might gain tlirough the task, becau se the recogn ition they gainfrom it, or because it has been prescribed by otlier people (Deci, 1971, 1975). Althoughnot always explicitly stated, these two broad types of motivation were generallyperceived as contrastive ways of engaging in a task, i.e., as opposites in a bipolarcontinuum. If an individual engages in a task to obtain a reward (whether material,e.g., money or marks, or non-material, e.g., verbal praise or positive feedback) then theindividual is chara cterized as engaging in a task for extrin sic reaso ns. On th e oth er hand ,when no apparent separate outcome or reward is involved, the individual ischaracterized as engaging in a task for intrinsic motives. Furthermore, some researcherssuggest that extrinsic rewards underm ine intrinsic motivation and consequ ently th e tw ocon stru cts are prop os ed as antithetical (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1 999 a,b, 20 01 ; but seeCam eron & Pierce, 1994; Eisenberger, Pierce, & Cam eron, 199 9).

However, Ryan and Deci (2000) in their self-determination theory suggest thatas people internalize demands (regulations) and assimilate them to the self (self-regulation), they become more intrinsically motivated. In this sense, intrinsic andextrinsic motivation beliefs are seen less as opposite bipolar constructs but more as acontinuum, or possibly a multi-stage process from extrinsic to more intrinsic motivation.In the field of self-regulated learning, Pintrich (1999) reports evidence on therelationship between self-regulated learning and three motivation goal orientations:mastery goal, extrinsic orientation, and relative ability orientation. He suggests thatstudents can have multiple simultaneous motivational goals that might interact withself-regulation. Tliis proposal does not seem to sit well with the assumption that

motivational beliefs are bipolar, at least with respect to the relationship betweenstudents' motivation goal orientations and their self-regulation.


3/24

Factors affecting appraaches to studying 285and extrinsic motivation can co-occur in both elementary and school age children(Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005) and in adult populations (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, &Tighe, 1994).A further issue related to motivation theory is that themajority of research on thisarea assumes that motivation orientation is context or task dependent. For example,Pintrich (1999) argues that students" motivation and self-regulated learning are contextspecific. Wolter (1998) found that college studen ts used different strategies to regulatetheir motivation dependijig on whether the material they had to learn seemed to themirrelevant, difficult, or horing. However, Amabile et al. (1994) developed the Wt)rkPreference Inventory (WPi) designed to measure intrinsic and extrinsic motivationalorientations as stable personalit)' characteristics or traits. l"heir inventory showed highlevels of test-retest reliability after 6 months and good levels of stability even after52 months. Furthermore, lo gain a clearer understanding of motivation, Amabile et ai.created a morefine-grainedbreakdown of the elements that characterize intrinsic andextrinsic motivation orientation by defining subscales. Tbe intrinsic motivation subscaleincludes challenge and enjoyment, and extrinsic motivation subscale includescompensation (getting high pay or high marks) and outward (e.g., value therecognition of others). One of the aims of the present research was to examine therelationship between motivation orientation, as a stable personality trait, and students"approaches to studying. More importantly, we were interested in examining how thefine-grained motivation subscales were related to students" approaches to studying.From a theoretical point of view, the subscales proposed by Amabile ei ui allow us toobtain a detailed insight Into the relationship between motivation orientation andapproaches to studying.

Self-efficacy beliefPerceived self-efficacy is the belief people have in their capabilities to perform aspecific task (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Efficacy belief is a key factor in regulating behaviourleading to human com petence (Pintrich, 1999; Pintrich & De (iroot, 1990). Self-efficacybeliefs affect peoples cognititjns, motivations, affective processes, and ultimatelytheir behaviour (Bandura, 1997). In comparison to people with low levels of self-efficacy, people with bigh levels of self^fficacy are more likely to persevere in the faceof difficulties, more likely to demonstrate intrinsic motivation when engaged andpertbrming a task, and less likely to feel d isappo inted in the face of failure. They are lesslikely to feel stressed and more frequently perceive a difficult situation as challengingas opposed to difficult. Moreover, setbacks and failure affcct individuals with lowlevels of self-efficacy more strongly, even in the cases of mild failure. Overall, in thesecircumstances they are slower to recover their sense of self-efficacy (Bandura,1993, 1994, 1997). In effect people with the same level of skill on a specific taskmight perform differently depending on their belief in their own ability (Bandura,1986, 1997).

Perceived self-efficacy can also affect our emotional responses of fear and anxiety(Bandura, 1977, 1983; Bandura & Adams, 1977). Althotigb the initial proposal was maderegarding individuals with severe phobias, it can be extended to any sittiation where theincrease of an individuars fear and anxiety leads to a decrease of the individuals


4/24

286 Merc Prat-Sala and Paul Redford

In educational settings, research has shown that self-efficacy is positively related toacademic performance (Bong, 201; Bouffard et al., 2001; Lane et al., 2004; Ofori &Charlton, 2002; Richardson, 2007), academic motivation (Bong & Clark, 1999), self-regulating learning (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Schunk Sc. Zimmerman, 1997),and reading/writing performance (McCarthy, Meier, & Rinderer, 1985; Meier, McC^arthy,& Schmeck, 1984; Pajares &Johnson, 1994. 1996; Pajares & Valiante, 1997; Shell. Colvin.& Bruning, 1995; Shell, Murphy, & Bruning. 1989) and negatively associated withcheating (Finn & Frone, 2004).Many types of self-efficacy have been studied. For example, Bouffard et al. (2001)examined the relationsliip between students' self-efficacy in French and their academicperformance. Lane and Lane (2001) developed a self-efficacy measure to assess th ecom petences necessary to achieve success in a particular course. Similarly, Pintrich andDe (iroot (1990) hwked at self-efficacy in performing class work, and Finn and Frone(2004) investigated the relationship between academic self-efficacy and cheating.Finally. Richardson (2007) used self-efficacy for learning when examining therelationships between student's demographic background, their motives and attitudes,their approaches to learning and their academic performance.There is also substantial evidence for the relationship between self-efficacy inwriting and writing performance (McCarthy et al., 1985; Meier et al., 1984; Pajares&Johnson, 1994. 1996; Pajares & Valiante, 1999; Shell et al, 1989,1995 ; Zimmerman &Bandura, 1994) and some limited evidence for the re lationship betw een self-efficacyin readitig and writing performance (Shanahan & Lomax. 1986; Shell et al, 1995).For example. Shell ci a/. (1989) examined the relationship between self-efficacy writingand undergraduate student writing perform ance by developing a writing self-efficacyinstrument containing two subscaies: the writing task and the writing skills subscales.The writing task measured participants' confidence in the communicative aspects ofwriting, through being able to clearly and successfully communicate a message in 16different writing tasks (e.g.. 'write a letter to a friend or family member'). The writingskills measured participants' confidence in the structural aspects of writing, throughbeing able to correctly perform eight different writing skills (e.g.. 'correctly spell allwords in a one page passage'). The results showed that tbe writing skills subscaleaccounted for 10% of the variance in writing performance, although the writing taskscale was not predictive of writing scores. Similar results have been ibund for schoolstudents (see Pajares & Johnson. 1996, for 9tb grade high school students; Pajares &Valiante, 1997, for 5th grade students; Pajares & Valiante, 1999, for middle schoolstudents; or Shell et al, 1995. for 4 th, 7th, and 10th grade students).

Writing essays requires not only good writing skills, but is built upon key readijigskills. Sbell et al (1989) developed a self-efficacy reading instrument tbat included twosubscales: the reading task and tbe reading .skill subscales. The reading task measuredundei^raduate students' confidence in being able to perform 18 reading tasks (e.g., toread 'a letter from a friend or family m em be r) . The reading skill measured participants'confidence in being able to perform nine reading skills (e.g.. 'recognise letters').They found that reading self-efficacy was the key predictor of writing performance(accounting for 13% of tbe variance). A strong relationship between reading and writingwas also found by Shanahan and Lomax (1986) with 2nd and 5th grade children, and


5/24

j Factors affeaing approaches to studying 287other aspects not included but are central for essay writing in higher education(e.g.. 'critically evaluate ideas and arguments in an es.say using evidence')-In the current research, we weres t30.000 T71e) Tj075.960 6wt843.e88Tw106.00c evid0.133 T3.eh


6/24

288 Merc Prat-Sala and Paul Redford \

Ramsden (1983) introduced subscales of motivation into their ASI to examine thediiferent types of motivation orientation behind each appro ach to study. Factor analysisof these subscales revealed that the deep approach was associated with intrinsicmotivation, where the student s intention is to learn out of interest, as a form of persona!development (Entwistie, 1988a). The deep approach has also been related to theneed for achievement (i.e., to succeed), whereas the surface approach has beenassociated with both fear of failure and extrinsic motivation, where the .student s effortis foeused on w hat is required for each particular task, and the student's main concern iswith completion of the task or course coupled with fear of failure. The strategicapproach has been associated with both extrinsic motivation, and competitive orachievement m otivation. The intention ofthe studen t is to achieve the best performance(i.e., the liighest marks), to show mastery, and to outperform others (Entw istie, 1988a,b;Entwistle et al., 2000; Tait et al., 1998).

A variety of individual differences associated with students' approaches to studyinghave been identified, such as self-esteem (Abouserie, 199'5), age (Richardson, 1995),gender (Hayes & Richardson, 1995), eoping strategies (Appelhans & Schmeck, 2002;Moneta & Spada, 2009; Moneta, Spada, & Rost, 2007), and personality traits (Duff, Boyie,Dunleavy, & Ferguson, 2004; Zhang, 2003). Furthermore, R ichardson (2007) has show nthat the relationship between students' motivation and attitudes, and their approachesto studying is bidirectional with variations in student's motives and attitudes leading tovariations in their approaches to studying and vice versa.

There is some evidence for the relationship between academic self-efficacy (Liem,Lau, & Nie, 2008) or general self-efficac7 (Moneta et al., 2007) and approaches tostudying. However, as far as we arc aw^are, there is no ev idence to show a relationshipbetw een self-effieacy in reading and self-efficacy in writing and approaches to studying.Given that reading and writing are two core tasks in many undergraduate degrees, itseems relevant to examine how stud ents' self-efficacy in reading and w riting relatesto their approaches to studying, hence the second aim of the present research is toexamine tiiis relationship.

Factors influencing students' approaches to studyingIn addition to the evidence that individual differences .such as age and gender affectapproaches to studying (Hayes & Richardson, 1995; Richardson, 1995), contextua lfactors such as assessment have also been shown to influence approaches to studyingboth directly and indirectly (Newstead, 1998; Newstead & Findlay, 1997; Thtnias &Baiji, 1984, see also Entwistie & Entwistle, 1991; Ramsden, 1997 for similar proposals).Thomas and Bain (1984) asked undergraduates to complete a learning activitiesquestionnaire after they had com pleted four different types of assessment (tw o multiplechoice exams, a written assignment, and a short answer exam), which were carried ou tat different times. They found that participan ts tended to use a more surface approachand less deep approach for the m ultiple choice exams but a more d eep and less surfaceapproach for the open-ended assessment. Tliese results show a direct effect betweenthe type of assessment and the approaches to studying used by students. Similar resultswere found by ScouUer ( 1998) when she asked participan ts to identify their app roaches


7/24

Factors affecting approaches to studying 28 9skills and abilities but the essay assignment as assessing higher levels of intellectual skillsand abilities. Scouller suggests that students' perception ofthe skills and abilities neededfor assessment might moderate their approaches to studying.

A similar conclusion that assessment affects students' approaches to studying wasput forward by Newstead and Findlay (1997), who demonstrated that students'approaches to studying changed over the course of one setnester, Overall, there was anincrease in the adoption ofthe surface approach. The deep approach decreased but notsignificantly. The authors attributed these results to the fact that the assessment was atthe end of the semester and hence students focused on this instead of their learning.Thesefindings ndicate that students' approaches to studying do not need to be directlyaffected by the type of assessment (as in Scouiler, 1998 or Thomas & Bain, 1984), butthat assessment in genera! seems to affect how students approach their studies.However, it is also possible that .self-efficacy may inlluence these changes. Thefinalaimof the research was to examine whetherfirst-yearpsychology students" approaches tostudying change over time and w hether the ir perceived self-efficacy in reading andwriting is related to changes in their approaches to studying. From a theoretical pointof view, we can assume that students might use their peribrmance on differenttypes of assessments (among other factors) to monitor and reassess their levels ofself-efficacy in reading and writing (see, e.g., Bandura, 1997 for principal sourcesof self-efficacy beliefs).

Aims ofthe studyThe study presented below had th ree main aims. First, we were interested in examiningthe relationship between motivation orientation as a stable personality trait andstuden ts' approacbes to studying. As mentioned above intrinsic motivation is ittentifiedas one of the individual characteristics behind the deep approach to studying as thedeep approach is linked to interest in ideas and the course content (Entwistie &Ramsden, 1983; Tait etal., 1998). Tlierefore, we expected a link between the intrinsicmotivation suhscales enjoyment' and challenge' and the deep approach to studying.Furthermore, we expected that com pensation , a subscale of extrinsic motivation,would also be related to the deep approach as this approach has been related to theneed for achievement (Entwistie, 1988a).

The surtace approach is associated with fear of failure, lack of purpose or lack ofconfidence, and with a heavy reliance on the prescribed syllabus (e.g., Entwistie &Ramsden, 1983; Tait et al., 1998). Thus, it was expected that the surtace approachwould be negatively related to the extrinsic subscale of "compensation' as the studentmight perceive 'compensation' (i.e., marks) as a threat due to their fear of failure; andnegatively related to the intrinsic subscale of challenge' as students might dislikechallenging situations which might be perceived as situations likely to increase theirlikelihood of failure. Finally, it is possible tha the re is a relationship between the surtaceapproach and the extrinsic subscale of 'outw ards' to reflect the student overreliance onthe syllabus (i.e., on what has been prescribed by other people).

The strategic approach is associated with extrinsic and competitive motivation(Entwistle, 1988a,b). Thus, it was expected that the strategic approach would becorrelated with the extrinsic motivation subscale of 'compensation' as students


8/24

290 Merc Prat-Sala an d Paul RedfordThe second aim of the present research was to examine the relationship betweenself-efficacy (reading and writing) and students ' approaches to studying. As far aswe areaware, the re is no evidence to show a link between self-efficacy and stu den ts'approaches to studying. However, there is some evidence that shows a link between

self-esteem and approaches to studying. For example, using the AS inundet^raduate suidents" approaches to studying, Abouserie (1995) showed that lowself-esteem is related to superficial approaches to studying and hence associated withthis processing approach. In contrast, self-esteem was positively correlated w ith a deepprocessing approach.Therefore, given that perceived self-efficacy is one of the factors behind intrinsicmotivation (cf. Ryan & Deci, 2000) and that self-esteem is positively correlated with adeep processing approach (Abouserie. 1995), it was predicted that the deep andstrategic approaches to studying would be positively correlated to both perceived self-efficacy in reading and perceived self-efficac-y in writing. In contrast, and based onBandura's (1983) proposal on the links between perceived self-efficacy and fear andanxiety, and the negative correlation between self-esteem and superficial approaches tolearning (Abouserie, 1995), it was predicted that bo th perceived self-efficacy in readingand perceived self-efficacy in writing would be negatively correlated to the surfaceapproach to studying.Tbe finalaim of tbe study was to examine wh ether students' approaches to studyingchange over time. In particular, we were interested in examining whe the r self-efficacy isrelated to possible changes in students" approaches to studying over time.

MethodParticipantsA sample of 163first-yearundergraduate students from an UK university took part inthe study. Students were undertaking single or combined honours programmes inpsychology. Tlie mean age of the sample was 21.4 years (SD = 5.92; range = 18-47years).' There were 140 females and 23 males. All participants were tested twice,once at the beginning of the first semester, 2 weeks after they had entered university(Time 1) and again in February, 4 months later when they had started the secondsemester (Time 2).~MeasuresRevised Approaches to Studying InventoryTlie sbort version o fthe Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI) is an 18-iteminventor)^ aiming to identify students" approaches to studying. The questionnairehas three subscales with six items each: deep approach (seeking meaning, relating ideas.

The sample in both Times I and 2 included some mature students (over 21 years old), hence the slightty increased mean agefrom [he traditionai 18-year-old entry for HE in the UK. This is also reflected in t/ie SD.There were 62 portidponts that took pan in the study during Time I but not during Time 2 and 44 participants that took


9/24

Factors affeaing approaches to studying 291use of evidence, and interest in ideas), surface approach (lack of punise, lack ofunderstanding, syllabus-boundness, and fear of failure), and strategic approach(organized studying, time management, achieving motivation, and monitoringeffectiveness). Participants responded to items along a seven-point Likert-type .scalefn)m 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). We modified the originalfive-pointscaleto make it consistent with tbe scales of the otber questionnaires used in tbis study.Subscales scores were formed by obtaining the mean score from tbe responses on theitems in each subscale (Entwistle et al, 2000; Tait et al, 1998).

Work Preference InveritoryThis is a 3()-item inventor)' which aims to identify participants' motivation towardswhat they do in their studies. This instrument has two main scales each containingtwo subscales: intrinsic motivation, which includes 'enjoyment' and 'challenge' andextrinsic motivation, which includes 'outward' and 'compensation' subscales.Participants responded to items along a seven-point Likert-tj'pe scale from 1 (nevertrue of me) to 7 (very true of me), with the scoring reversed when the item wasnegative. Subscales scores were formed by obtaining tbe mean from the responses ontlie items for each subscale (Amabile et al, 1994).

Self-efficacy in readir^g and sef-efficacy in writingThese tw o instrum ents aim to identify students ' perceived self-efficac-y belief in readingacadem ic texts in higher education (self-efficacy in reading) and students ' perceivedseif-efficacy belief in essay writing in higher education (.seif-efficacy in writing).Each instrument consists of 12 items. The self-efficacy in reading scale conta ins itemsthat make reference to participant's perceived self-efficacy in com prehending thecontent of their reading, such as how well can you identify all the key points whenreading ajournai article or academic book?, or after you bave read a text, how w ellcan you answer questions on it? The self-efficacy in writing scale contains itemsthat make reference to their .self-


10/24

292 Alerce Prat-Sala and Paul RedfordBecause of the repeated measures nature of the design of this study, we askedparticipatits to include their ID student number in each set of questionnairesfor identifying purposes. However, participants were assured of the confidentialityof their answers and that their anonymity would always be preserved.

Results and discussionTable 1 shows theRevised Approaches to Studing Inventory (RASI), Work PreferenceInventory, self-efficac^y in reading, and self-efficacy in writing alpha coefficients scoresfor each subscale for the present sample for each testing time. As ean be seen in Table 1overall all the subscales present acceptable alpha coefficients, with only four scoresslightly below .7,Ta b l e I. Values of coefficient alpha for individual subscales

Motivation

Approaches to studying

Seif-efficacy

SubscalesIntrinsicExtrinsicEnjoymentChallengeOutwardsCompensationDeepStrategicSurfaceWr i t i n gReading

Number of items151587to56661212

Alpha Time I.723.707.695.697.720.649.815.791.725.898.897

Alpha Time 2.817.705.766.740.765.656.795.789.745.918.881

Motivation orientations and their relationship with approaches to studyingThe first aim of the study was to examine the relationship between the motivationorientations proposed by Amabile et al. (1994) and the approacbes to studyingproposed by Entwistle et al (2()()()). The results of Pearson r correlations (Table 2) showthat the deep approach is positively eorrelated with the two subscales of intrinsicmotivation 'enjoyment' and 'challenge' at both Times 1 and 2. Additionally, at Time 2the deep approach is negatively correlated to the extrinsic subscale of 'outwards.More notably, at Time 2 the deep approach is additionally positively correlated to theextrinsic subscale of 'compensation'. Tbis is in agreement with tbe proposal thatthe deep approach is linked to the need fbr achievement and the proposal that studentsmight not only be interested in the subject they are reading at university but theymight also be interested in obtaining a good degree: hence marks become relevant,especially once they have spent some time at university.

As predicted, the strategic approach is correlated with the two subscales ofintrinsic motivation 'enjoyment' and challenge'. Additionally, as predieted. the strategicapproach is positively correlated with the extrinsic subscale of compensation".These resuits match tbe proposal tbat the strategic approach is associated with Interest


11/24

Fortors affecting approaches to studying 293Table 2. Correlation coefficients between subscales of motivation and approaches to studying

Tinrie 1DeepStrategicSurfaceTime 2DeepStrategicSurface

Enjoyment

.452***.185*

.020

.496**=*2 73 * * *

.049

Challenge

.488* * *.362***- . 4 0 1 * * *

.525***

.402***- .380** *

Outward

- . 0 3 7.001.306***

- . 2 1 6 * *- . 0 2 9

.232**

Compensation

.141.370***- . 1 2 8

.284** *- .223**

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***f> < .001.

'compensation' at Time 2. From these results, it is possible to suggest tbat studentsadopting the surface approach are likely to prefer non-challenging situations (non-threatening) and might perceive 'comp ensation' (e.g., marks) as threatening liue to theirfear of failure. Note that similar to the deep approach, compensation only becomesrelated to the surface approach for Time 2, when students have spent some time inhigher education, w hen they may have a clearer understanding of their study ap proachand motivations.Multiple regression analyses were then performed to determine the predictivevalue of motivation orientation subscales on students' approaches to studying. Tor allthe analyses, we used the stepwise methods with the four motivation subscales asthe p redictor variables and each o fthe approac hes to studying as the depen dent variables.The first set of analyses focused on the data from Time 1. When the deep approachwas used as the outcome variable, a significant model emerged (F(2, 160) 39.10,p < .00 1 ). The model explained 32% of the variance with challenge contributing 23.3%Table 3 . Regression analyses of approaches to studying at each testing timeCr i te r ionTime 1DeepStrategicSurface

Time 2Deep

Strategic

Predictor

ChallengeEnjoymentCompensationChallengeChallengeOu twa rdCompensationChallengeEnjoymentCompensationOu twa rdCompensation

Ad j . R ^

.233.320

.132

.224

.156

.216

.230

.272

.353

.372

.389.238

0.3760.3210.3230.314

- 0.3400.294

- 0 . 1 4 5

0.2620.3610.190

- 0 . 1 5 60.410

t

5.434.644.624.48

- 4 . 8 04.08

- 2 . 0 13.385,172.88

- 2 . 3 55.99

P

.0001.0001

.0001

.0001

.0001

.0001

.046

.001

.0001

.004

.020.0001


12/24

294 Merc Prat-Sala and Paul Redfard

and enjoyment contributing 8.7% (see Table 3)- A further significant model emergedwhen the strategic approach was used as the outcome variable (F(2, 160) = 24.33,p < .001). The model explained 22.4% ofthe variance with compensation contributing13.2% and challenge contributing 9.2%. A fina l significant model emerged whenthe surface approach was used as the outcome variable ('(3,159) = 17.15, p < .001).The model explained 23% ofthe variance, with challenge contributing 15.6%, outwardscontributing 6% and compensation contributing a further 1.4% (see Table 3). Note thatthe relationships between the surface approach and both challenge and compensationwere negative.The second set of analyses focused on the data from Time 2. Again a significantmodel appeared when the deep approach was used as the outcome variable(/'( 4, 15 8)^ 26.79. /> < .001). The model explained 38.9% of the variance withchallenge contributing 27.2%, enjoyment contributing 8.1%, com pensation contribut-ing 1.9%, and outward contributing 1.7%. Note though, that the relationship betweenthe deep approach and outwards was negative. For the strategic approach, a furthersignificant model emerged (F(2, 160) = 36.80, p < .001). The model explained 30.7%ofthe variance with compensation contributing 23.8% and challenge contributing 6.9%.A fina l significant model emerged with the surface approach (.f(2, 160) = 20.56,p < ,001). The model explained 19.4% of the variance , with challenge con tributing13.9% and enjoyment contributing a ftirther 5.5%. The correlation between surfaceapproach and challenge was negative (see Table 3)-

Interim discussionThe analyses reported above show two main results. First, we found that studentsadopting certain approaches to studying can be both intrinsically and extrinsicallymotivated, suggesting that motivation o rientation is orthogonal. We found that the deepapproach was related to the tw o intrinsic subscales "enjoyment' and challenge' but alsoto the extrinsic subscale of 'com pensation'. This was true during Time 2 after studentshad spent some time in higher education and after they had already completed theassessment for their first semester. At all times, the strategic approach was related tothe extrinsic subscale of "compensation' and to the intrinsic subscales of 'challenge' and'enjoyment'. Finally, at all times the surface approach was negatively related to theintrinsic subscale of challenge' but positively related to the ex trinsic subscale ofoutward'. Additionally, the surface approach was negatively related to the extrinsicsubscale of 'compensation" but at Time 2 only.

These results revealed that challenge' was the strongest predictor of the dee papproach, accounting for 23.3% of the variance at Time 1 and 27.2% at Time 2.The second strongest predictor was "enjoyment', accounting for 8.7% of the varianceat Time 1 and 8.1% at Time 2.For the surface approach, 'challenge' was also the strongest p redictor accounting for15.6% ofthe variance at Time 1 and 13.9%iat Time 2. However, he re the relationship w asnegative. This means that unlike students adopting the deep approach, the studentswho are more likely to adopt the surface approach are less likely to seek or enjoy


13/24

Factors affeaing approaches to studying 295Self-efficacy in reading and writing and their effects on approaches to studyingThe present research also aimed to examine tbe relationship between self-efficacy inreading and self-efficacy in writing in higher education, and approaches to studying.When participants were tested during Time 1, they had been at university for only2 weeks. Consequently, they had no experience at writing essays at higher educationlevel and very little experience of reading academic books and articles. Therefore,students would have been unclear about the specific behaviours needed to besuccessful in these tasks. Hence, it is fair to assume that the scores obtained duringTime 1 would have been based on students' past experience and expectations aboutuniversity and not their real experience in higher education (HE). To judge students"self-efficacies in reading and writing in HE, weneeded to wait until students had spentsome time at university and hence had acquired some experience in w riting essays andreading academic texts in HE. These scores were obtained during Time 2.The next step consisted of examining the relationsbip between the three approachesto studying and the se!f-efficac7 in writing and self-efficacy in reading scales. The resultsof Pearson r correlations (Table 4) show that both the deep and the strategic approachpositively correlated with both self-^ficac7 in reading and self-efficac7 in writing. Thismeans that students adopting these approaches also have high levels of belief in theirabilities to write essays and gain knowledge by reading academic journals or btjoks. lncontrast, the surface approacb correlated negatively with both seif-efficac7 in readingand self-eficacy in writing. Hence, tbe students adopting this approach have low self-efficacy beliefs in their abilities in reading and writing in higher education.Table 4.

DeepStrategicSurface

Correlations coefficients between self-eff icacySelf-efficacy in wri t ing

.330***

.352** *- . 4 8 1 * * * :

and approaches to studying at Time 2Self-efficacy in reading

. 457** *

.433** *- . 4 5 8 * * *

***p < .001.

Possible changes of approaches to studying over 4 monthsFor ()ur next analyses and to explore tlie effects of self-efficacy on students" approachesto studying, we categorized students into either high self-efficacy or low self-efficacybased on the median obtained from their self-efficacy scales at Time 2 (Table 5). As canbe seen in Table S, tbe mean scores for the deep and the strategic approaches are higherfor the participants classified as high self-efficacy in writing than for those classified aslow self-efficacy in writing. This is true at all testing times (all p's < .05). In co ntrast, atall testing times, the mean scores for tbe surface approach are higher for the participantsclassified as low self-efficacy inwriting than for those classified as high self-efficacy inwriting. The pattern is identical for self fficacy in reading (all/7's < .005). These resultsimply that self


14/24

296 Merc Prat-Sala and Paui Redford

Table 5. Mean scores for studen ts classified as high and low self-efficacy across approaches to study ingand cime

Deep Strategic Su rhceTime I Time 2 Time I Time 2 Time I Time 2

Setf-efficacy in readingLow (N = 81 ) 4.48 (0.91 )' 4.19 (0.80) 4.55 (0.89) 4.23 (0.89) 3.94 (0.88) 4.19 (0.96)High (N = 82) 4.88 (0.75) 4.92 (0.81 ) 5.02 (0.87) 4.91 (0.94) 3.50 ( 1.00) 3.44 (0.91 )Self-efficacy in writingL o w (N = 86) '' 4 .55(0.86) 4 .28(0.83) 4 .49(0.93) 4 .25(0.89) 3 .93(0.99) 4 .21(0.97)High (N = 77) 4.83(0 .82) 4.87(0.84) 5.11(0.77) 4.93(0 .94) 3.50(0.88) 3.37(0.85)^ SD in parenthesis.' Due to the participants scores a 50/50 split was no t possible. These figures represe nt a 52.8%/47.2% split.

analyses, one each for self-efficacy in reading and writing. The key finding is the higherorder interaction between time and self-efficac7 on approaches to studying. This resultwas significant tor both seif-efficacy in reading (W ilks' A = .939, /' (3 , t5S) - 3-419,J - .019, partial TI^ = .061) and self-efficacy in w ritin g (W ilks' A - .917,F(5,158) = 4.753./ ^ -003, partial TI" - .083).The univariate within subject effects demonstrated that tor tbe reading seif-efficacygroups the interaction between self-efficacy and time was significant for the deepapproach (F( I, l60) = 8.638, p = .004, partial -ri = .051 ) and nearing significance forthe surface approach (f (l , l60) = 3.6 49 ,p= .058, partial TI" = .022) but not significantfor the strategic approach (F (l , 160) = 2.366, p=.l26, partial Tn^^.015). Tbeseresults were replicated for the writing self-efficacy groups where there was a statisticallysignificant interaction between self-efcacy and time for the deep approach(/'(1,160) - 8.622, p = .OO4, partial 71^^.051) and for the surface approach(F(\, 160) = 7.552. p = .007, partial T )- ^ .045) but not significant for the strategicapproach (F(l, 160) - .457, p = .50, partial TI^ = .003).Tbese results demonstrate that whereas the approaches to studying adopted by thebigb seif-efficacy group did not change between Times 1 and 2 (Figures Ib and 2b), theapproaches to studying adopted by tbe low self-efficac7 group became less deep(/J s < .001 for reading and writing self-efficacy) and more surface (/; = .038 tor readingself-efficacy,^ = .006 for writing self-efficacy; Figures la and 2a). These results imply thatstudents w ith low er levels of self


15/24

Factors affecting approaches to studying 29 7(a) 4.6

4.54.44.34.2

4.14.03.93.8

3.73.6

it ^

- Deep Strategic- * - Surface

Time 1 Time 2Time

(b) 5.4 -5 . 2 -5 . 0 -4 .8 -4.64.4ct 4.24.0-3.8 -3 . 6 -3 . 4 .3 . 2 -3.0

- - Deep S t r a t e g i c

Time 1 Time 2Time

Figure I . (a) Changes in learning approaches betw een Times I and 2 by students classified as low self-efficacy in reading, (b) Changes in learning approaches be twee n T imes I and 2 by students classified ashigh self-efficacy in read ing.

that for both tasks, participants classified as having high seif-efficacy dem onstratedsignificantly bigher mean scores for deep and strategic approach and lower mean scoresfor the surfaee approach than the participan ts classified in the low self-efficacies category.This means that participants classified in the high self-efficacy (reading or w riting) w eremore likely to adopt tbe deep or the strategic approach while the participants classilied in


16/24

2 9 8 Merc Prat-Sala and Paul Redford(a) 4.6-,

4.54.4-4.3-4.2-

cd) 4. 1 -

4.0-3.9-3.83.73.6

(b) 5.4-,5.2-5.04.8-4 .6-4 .4-

g 4.2-4.0-3.8-3.6-3.4-3.2-3.0

-Deep St ra teg ic

* Su r f ac e

Time 1 Time 2Time

* - D e e p'-Strategic*- Surface

A

Time 1 Time Time 2Figure 2. (a) Changes in learning approaches be twee n Times I and 2 by students classified as lowself-efficacy in writi ng , (b) Changes in learning approaches b etwe en Time s I and 2 by students classifiedas high self-efficacy in writing.and increased their surface approach between Times 1 and 2. For students classified asliigh self-efftcacy their approaches to studying did not change. This implies thatself-efficacy may moderate th e approaches to study that s tudents adopt across time .


17/24

Faaors affecting approaches to studying 299Specifically, changes in students' learning approaches were dependent on theirself-efficacy beliefs. The results also support the notion proposed by Amabile et al.(1994; see also Harter, 1981) that motivation orientation can work onhogonally(one can be high or low on both). Furthermore, these findings extend previousresearch on undergraduate students (Lepper et al, 2005), as deep, strategic andsurface approaches to studying were related to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivationsubscales.

Moneta and Spada (2(X)9) examined the relationship between the Amabile et al.(1994) motivation inventt)ry and Entwistle and colleagues approaches to studying.Their results show that intrinsic motivation was positively correlated to both the deepand the strategic approach and negatively correlated to the surface approach, and thatextrinsic motivation was positively correlated with the surface approach. However.unexpectedly, they alsi) tbund a positive correlation between extrinsic motivation andboth the deep and the strategic approach. Nonetheless, Moneta and Spada did notexamine how the more fine-grained intrinsic and extrinsic subscales co rrelate w ithapproaches to studying.

As predicted, our results show that the deep and the strategic approach weresignificantly positively correlated with the intrinsic subscales of enjoyment andchallenge at both times. Moreover, only the intrinsic subscale of challenge wasnegatively correlated to the surface approach both times. These results confirm andrefine Moneta and Spada's (2009) results and demonstrate the need to understandmotivation at a more detailed level than broad intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation.Contrary to our p redictions, at Time 1 the deep approach w as not correlated to anyof the subscales of extrinsic motivation. However, as predicted, at Time 2 the deepappri)ach was positively correlated to the extrinsic subscale of compensatit)n andnegatively correlated to the extrinsic subscale outwards. This dem onstrates the changesin motivation that students adopting the deep approach may go through during theirjourney through higher education in the UK. As assessments become more important(and as they spend more time at university) students adopting the deep approach arealso motivated by compensation, as well as by intrinsic factors. Furthermore, only theextrinsic subscale of compensation was positiveiy correlated to the strategic approachat both times. This demonstrates a specific focus on achievement for students adoptingthe strategic approach. This may help explain the finding that strategic approaches tostudy are related to academic pertbrmance. Finally, the extrinsic subscale of outwardwas positively correlated with the surface approach at both times. This might reflectstudent's inclination to heavily rely on the prescribed syllabus or on what others haveprescribed (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Tait et ai, 1998). Therefore, being motivatedby what others want (outward focus) results in a poorer study approach.

The results of the regression analyses revealed that challenge and enjoyment werethe strongest predictors of the deep approach at all times. In contrast, compensationwas the strongest predietor of the strategic approach at all times, with challenge thesecond strongest predictor. Fntwistle et al. (2000) propose that students adoptingthe strategic approach have the determination to do well'. Hence at first glance,these results could be interpreted as students who adopt a strategic approach havean over-reliance on compensation and hence focus mainly on obtaining good marks.However, the strategic approach is also linked to achieving motivatit)n and students


18/24

3 0 0 A l e r c e Pra t -Sa a and Pau l Red fo rd \their progress and to get feedback on their skills, abilities, and performance. Lepperet al. (2005) suggest that grades can provide children with an indication of theircompetence and mastery on a particular task, and bence children's interest in gradescan also be interpreted as an intrinsic interest on what they are doing. The same canbe applied to undergraduate students who take the strategic approach. In this sense,for these students marks are related to both their intrinsic and their extrinsicmotivation.

The results of tbe regression analysis revealed tbat challenge was the strongestpredictor of tbe surface approach at all times. It seems that the students who tend toadopt the surface approach are more likely to dislike challenging situations. This mightbe in part due to their high levels of fear of failure or due to their lack of understandingof the material being studied (Entwistle et al., 2000).The results ofthe study also show a positive correlation between the de ep approachto studying and both self-efficacy in reading and w riting and a negative correlation

between the surface approach and both self-efficacies. These results are similar to theones found by Abouserie (1995) for self-esteem, extending them to self-efficacy inreading and writing. Additionally, our results show a positive correlation between thestrategic approach and both self-efficacies. These results demonstrate tbat not only doesmotivation influence their study approacb, but tbat students' belief in their abilities arerelated to the approaches they take to their studies.The results of the study also show that students classified as high in self-efficacy inreading or high in self-efficacy in writing were m ore likely to adopt the deep or tbestrategic approach while the students classified as low in self-efficacy in reading or lowin self-efficacy in writing w ere more likely to adopt the surface approacb of stud> ing.This may have a doub le impact on students with low self-efficacy w ho may adoptinadequate approaches to deal with their low levels of belief in tbeir abilities, resultingin poorer performance, thereby reinforcing their beliefs.More notably, self-efficacy belief in reading and w riting seems to be related towhether students change their approaches to studying across a 4-month period.Newstead and Findlay (1997) provided evidence that over the course of a semesterstudents tended to change tbeir approach to studying. They attribute this to an increasein perceived assessment dem ands. The results of their study suggested that by the end ofthe semester, there w as an increase in the adoption of tbe surface app roach, though the

adoption of the deep approach did not change. In Newstead and Findlay's results thismay have been driven in part by the fact that tbeir data were collected during anassessment period. Our results demonstrated a more complex pictu re than this generalshift in learning approaches across time.Newstead and Findiay"s (1997) results seems to tell us only part of the story, as ourresults also show that the changes in approaches to studying over time are related tostudents ' self-efficacy beliefs. Tlie results show tbat the approaches to studying did notchange between Times 1 and 2 for tbe s tudents categorized as high in self-efficacy(both reading and writing). However, the approaches to studying changed betweenTimes 1 and 2 for the students categorized as low in self-efficacy (reading and writing).

For tbese students, the scores for the deep and the strategic appri)ach were significantlylower at Time 2 than at Time 1 while the scores for the surface approach were


19/24

I Fac tors a ff e c ti ng approac he s t o studying 301consequently may have further negative effects on their grades and reinforce theirself-efficacy beliefs. Therefore, these results are im portant for unders tanding a cycleof underperformance in students tbat may eventually infiuence overall perfi)rmance orretention witbin tlic university system, and may even have a broader inihience on astudent's confidence in other areas; obviously these propositions will require furtherempirical examination.Needless to say, these results may only apply to first year psychology students intheir initial stages of their degrees and hence a longitudinal study including studentsfrom a variety of disciplines, wbere students are followed throughout a longer periodof time would provide a more extensive examination of the interplay betweenstudents" approaches to studying and self-efficacy in reading and w riting.Nevertbeless, our results provide clear evidence of the role o self efficac\ in readingand writing on students' appniaches to studying at least during their initial stages atuniversity.

Although these results provide some clear indications of the relationships betweenmotivation, approaches to studying, and self-efficacy there are also some conceptualissues surrounding the distinctiveness of these constructs. There is some conceptualoverlap between tbe m otivation subscales proposed b>' Amabile e t a l ( I 99 ) as definingstable motivational traits, and tiie motivational state as part of ones approach to study.For example, 'compensation' is not only a general motivation orientation, but is afeature of tbe strategic approacb. Tlierefore, tbe reiatiotisbips between tbese variablesmay also be influenced b>' some conceptual (and item) overlap, and not just arelationship between distinct constructs. Further theoretical and conceptual workclarifying the distinctions between these constnicts is needed to fully understand tbeinterplay between state and trait motivation and between general motivationorientation and specific approaches to studying. Despite this limitation, these resultsclearly sbow an effect of self-efficacy in reading and self-efficacy in writing on s tud en ts'approaches to studying.Overall, these results have implications on students' bebaviour and self-regulation.From a motivation point of view, subjective judgments of efficacy determine how mucheffort a person makes and how much this person persists given an adverse situation, li aperson's seif-efficacy is low, then it is more likely that person would put in less effort orwould give up in difficult or challenging situations than if tbe person's .self-efficacy ishigli ( e.g., Bandura, 1986, 1989). Additionally, self-


20/24

302 Merc Prat-Sala and Paul Redford

References ^Abouserie, R. (1995). Self-esteem and achievement motivation as determinants of students'approaches to studying. Studies in Higher Education, 20, 19-26,Amabile, T. M., Hill, D. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). Thtr Work Preference Inventory:

Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations./oMm/ of Personality and SocialPsychology, 66. 950-967.Appelhans, B. M., & Schmeck, R. R. (2002). Learning styles and approach versus avoidant copingduring academic exam preparation. College Students Journal, 36, 157-160.Bandura. A. (1977). Seif-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioral change. PsychologicalReview, 84, 191-215.Bandura, A. (1983). Self-efficacy determinants of anticipated fears and calam ities. Journal ofPersonalitjf atid .Social Psychology. 45, 464-469.Bandura, A. (i986). Social ounda tions of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. London:Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agenc)' in social cognitive thct)ry. Am etican Psychologist, 44,1175-1184.Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.Bandura. A. (1993). Perceived self-efficaey in cognitive developm ent and functioning.Educational Psychologist, 28. 117-148.Bandtira. A. (1994). Selt-efficaty. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behaviour(Vol. 4, p p. 71-81 ). New York: Academic Press.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control New York: W.H. Freeman.Biindura, A. (2()01). Gu ide for construction setf-ej)icacy scales. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Bandura, A., & Adams, N. (1977). Analysis of seif-efficacy theory of behavioral change. CognitiveWerapy Research, 1, 297-304.Bong, M. (2001). Role of self-efficacy and task-value in predicting college students ' co urseperformance and future enrolment intentions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26,553-570.Bong, M., & Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self


21/24

, Factors affecting a pproaches to studying 303Entwistle, N. (1988a). Motivation and learning strategies. Educational and Child Psychology, 5,Entwistlc, N. (1988b). Motivational factors in students' approaches tu learning. In R. R. Schmeck(Ed.), Learning strategies and earning styles (pp. 21-51). London: Plenum Press.Entwistlc, N., & Entwistlc, A. (1991). Contrasting form of understanding for degree examinations:

The student experience and its implications. Higher Education. 22. 205-227.Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approach to studyinventory acnjss contni.sting groups and context. European Journal of the Psychology ofEducation, 15, 33-48.Finn, K. V, & Frone, M. R. (2004). Academic performance and cheating: Moderating n)Ie of schoolidentification and ^c\(6-669.Moneta, Ci. B., Spada, M. M., & Rost, F M. (2(K)7)- Approaches to studying when preparing for finalcxmsasa functionofcopin^strate^es. Personality and Individual Diffetvnces, 43,191-202.New stead, S. (1998). Individual differences in student motivation. In S. Brown, S. Armstrong, &C;. Thompson (Fds.), Motivating students (pp. 189-199)- London: Kogan Page-Newstead, S., & Findlay, K. (1997). Some problems with using examination performance as ameasure of teaching ahilitj'. Psychology Teaching Reriew. 6. 23-30.

Ofuri, R., & Charlton, J. P. (2(M)2). A path nuxiel of factors influencing the academic performanceof nursing students, yo/r; // of Advanced Nursing. 38. 507-515.Pajares, F, & John son, M. (1994). Cxinfidence and competenc e in w riting: The role uf self-efficacy,


22/24

304 Merc Prat-Sata an d Paul Redford iPajares, F, & Valante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on e lemen tary s tudents' writing.Journal of Rduaitional Research. W, 353-360.Pajares. F. & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing self-belief ofmiddle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology', 24, 390-405.Pintrich, P R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated leaming.

International Juiirna! of Ethical ioncil Research. J/, 459-470.Pintrich, P R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-rcgulatcd learning components ofclassroom academic performance./iy//n/ of Educational Psychology. 82, 33-40.Ramsden. H ( 1997). The context of learning in academic departm ents. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, &N. Entwistle (Eds.), The e.xperience of leaming: Implications for teaching and studying inhigher education C2nd ed., pp. 39-58). Kdinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.Richardson, J, T. E. (1995), Mature students in higher-education: II. An investigation of approachesto studying and academic performance. Studies in H igher Educa tion. 20, 5-17.Richardson, j . T E. (2007). Motives, attitudes and approach es to studying in distance education.Higher Education, 54, 385-416.Ryan, R. M., & Deci. E. I.. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrin.sicmotivation, social development, and well-being. Ameiican Psychologist. 55, 68-78.Schunk. D. H.. & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulator>' com petence.Educational Psychologist. 32, 195-208.ScouUer, K. (1998). The influence of assessment m ethod on students' leaming approaches: Multiplechoice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35. 453-472.Shanahan. T., & I.omax, R. G. (1986). An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of thereading-writing Tv\tionship. Journal of Edncatiotial Psychology, 78, 116-123.Shell, D. F, Colvin, C , & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attrib ution, and outcom e expectantlymechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-leveldifferences, yow'// ofEtHcational Psycholog^', 8'', 386-398.Shell, D. F, Murphy. C. C., & Bmning, R. H. (1989). Sclf-efficacj- and outeome expectancy mech-anisms in reading and writing achievement. yoMnwi/ of Educational Psychology, 81, 91-100.Tait, H.. Entwi.stle. N., & McCune. V. (1998). ASSIST: A rcconccptualisation ofthe Approaches toStudying [nventijry. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: lnim>ring students aslearners (pp. 262-271). Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, The Oxford Centre for Staff andlearning Development.Tilomas, P R., & Bain, J.D. (1984). Contextual dependence of leaming app roaches: The effects ofassessments. Human Learning. ,, 227-240.Wolter, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated leaming and college students' regulation of motivation.Journal of E.ducinional Psychology. 90. 224-235.Zhang, L. (2003). Does the big five predict learning approaches? Personality {nul IndividualDijferences. 34, 1431-1446.Zimmerman. B. J.. & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing courseattainment. American E ducational R esearch Journal, J/, 845-862.Received 10 July 2008; revised version received 25 August 2009


23/24

Fac tors a f f ec t ing approaches to s tudy ing 305AppendixS e lf -e f f i c a c y b e li e f in r e a d i n g a c a d e m ic texts(1) How well can you identify all the key points when reading a journal article or

academic book?(2) How well can you understand a journal article or academic book if you put a lot ofeffort in?(3) Whilst reading an article, how well can you identify oth er relevant referenceswbich you consider may be of further interest to read?(4) After you have read a text, how w ell can you answer questions on it?(5) How well can you understand the meaning of each sentence w hen you read?(6) How well can you recall the most important points (e.g., developm ent of anargumen t) w hen you have finished reading a journal article or book chapter?(7) Before you critically evaluate a statem ent, how well have you understood itsmeaning?(8) How well can you search effectively for relevant background reading when w ritingan essay?(9) Wiien reading, how well can you make notes in your own words?(10) If you cannot understand an academic text, how well can you understand it if yt)ugo to a lecture about it?(11) How well can you use a variety of different methods to enable your understandingof a book chapter or journal article? (e.g.. highlighting, underlining, etc.).(12) How well can you select the most appropriate reading from a numb er of relevantarticles and books?

S e lf -e f f i c a c y b e li e f in e s s a y w r i t i n g(1) How well can you express your arguments clearly in essays?(2) How well can you link the paragraphs to make your essay coherent and make thetext flow?(3) If you put in a lot of effort, how well can you w rite an essay you are proud of?(4) How well can you provide relevant evidence to support your argument?(5) Before you finish your essay, how well can you make the conclusion relate to theintroduction and the essay question?(6) How well can you write an effective introduction w hich informs the reader of yourintentions for the essay?(7) How well can you dem onstra te substantial subject knowledge in your essay?(8) How well can you think about w hat is required of you before you write an essay?(9) How well can you put ideas together in such a way that they are clear to the reader?(10) How well can you critically evaluate ideas and arguments in an essay usingevidence, but without using personal opinion.s?(11) How well can you plan and write essays because you know what th e tutor expe ctsof you?(12) How well can you adopt a variety of different methods to enhance your essay


24/24

Copyright of British Journal of Educational Psychology is the property of British Psychological Society and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

motivation , self efficacy and approach to studyng

Documents