This study examined the relation between self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs and achievement in reading and writing. Most of the 153 subjects were White, middle-class undergraduate students. Efficacy for reading and writing tasks and component skills and outcome expectancies that reading and writing are important for realizing life goals were assessed. Reading achievement was measured by the Degrees of Reading Power test and writing achievement was measured by a holistically scored writing sample. Results from regression analysis indicated that self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs jointly account for significant variance in reading achievement with self-efficacy being the stronger predictor and that self-efficacy, but not outcome expectancy, accounts for significant variance in writing achievement. Canonical correlation analysis identified a single underlying dimension linking beliefs and achievement for reading and writing, with reading beliefs and achievement contributing most strongly to the relation. Results are discussed as they relate to previous research and needed areas of future study. Bandura (1982Bandura ( , 1986 has proposed self-efficacy and outcome expectancy as two mechanisms of cognitive self-evaluation that mediate skilled performance. Self-efficacy is seen as the generative mechanism through which persons integrate and apply their existing cognitive, behavioral, and social skills to the performance of a task. It is expressed as personal confidence in the ability to successfully perform tasks at a given level. Outcome expectancies are beliefs about contingent relations between successful task performance and received outcomes. They mediate task performance by providing a cognitive appraisal of the likely outcomes of successful task performance and the likelihood that successful performance will lead to the attainment of goals. Outcome expectancies are related to the construct of locus of control (Rotter, 1966) and to causal attribution patterns (Weiner, 1979).Reading and writing are skills requiring the integration and application of multiple subskills (Benton, Kraft, Glover, &

This study examined grade-and achievement-level differences in 4th-, 7th-, and lOth-grade students' control-related beliefs and relations between students' beliefs and their reading and writing achievement. MANOVA results indicated grade-and achievement-level differences in self-efficacy, causal attribution, and outcome expectancy beliefs but no interaction between grade and achievement level. Canonical correlations identified a single dimension linking students' beliefs to achievement in both reading and writing. Quadratic relations to achievement were found for outcome expectancy and intelligence attributions. As grade increased, beliefs for reading were more highly related to comprehension skill relative to component skills, whereas beliefs for writing were more highly related to component skills relative to communication skills. At all achievement levels, a similar pattern of beliefs was related to achievement.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This study of 397 undergraduate students examined relations between self-reported control, goal orientation, future time perspective, affect, and strategic self-regulation. Five patterns were found in three canonical dimensions. The high end of bipolar Dimension 1 linked high self-regulated strategy use and study effort to high self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and effort causal attribution; high mastery and performance approach and low work avoidance goal orientations; and positive affect. The low end of Dimension 1 linked low strategy use and effort to low self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and effort causal attribution; high work avoidance goal orientation; and low affect. The high end of bipolar Dimension 2 linked knowledge-building strategies, but not active self-regulation or study effort, to high self-efficacy, outcome expectancy for learning but not grades, and affect causal attribution; high mastery goal orientation; and positive affect. The low end of Dimension 2 linked surface learning, consisting of active self-regulation and study effort but not personal knowledge building, to high effort causal attribution but low self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Unipolar Dimension 3 linked learned helplessness to high outcome expectancy and external causal attribution but low self-efficacy; high work avoidance goal orientation; and high negative affect and anxiety.

Background Technical, nonengineering required courses taken at the onset of an engineering degree provide students a foundation for engineering coursework. Students who perform poorly in these foundational courses, even in those tailored to engineering, typically have limited success in engineering. A profile approach may explain why these courses are obstacles for engineering students. This approach examines the interaction among motivation and self‐regulation constructs. Purpose (Hypothesis) This project sought to determine what motivational and self‐regulated learning profiles engineering students adopt in foundational courses. We hypothesized that engineering students would adopt profiles associated with maladaptive motivational beliefs and self‐regulated learning behaviors. The effects of profile adoption on learning and differences associated with student major, minor, and gender were analyzed. Design/Method Five hundred and thirty‐eight students, 332 of them engineering majors, were surveyed on motivation and self‐regulation variables. Data were analyzed from a learner‐centered profile approach using cluster analysis. Results We obtained a five‐cluster learning profile solution. Approximately 83% of engineering students enrolled in an engineering‐tailored foundational computer science course adopted maladaptive profiles. These students learned less than those who adopted adaptive learning profiles. Profile adoption depended on whether a student was considering a major or minor in computer science or not. Conclusions Findings indicate the motivational and self‐regulated learning profiles that engineering students adopt in foundational courses, why they do so, and what profile adoption means for learning. Our findings can guide instructors in providing motivational beliefs and self‐regulated learning scaffolds in the classroom.

BACKGROUND: Using the Chinese version of the Global School‐based Health Survey (GSHS), this article describes the prevalence of being bullied among a nationally representative sample of Chinese students in grades 6‐10 and explores the relationships between being bullied and selected indicators of psychosocial adjustment. METHODS: A total of 9015 students in middle schools in Beijing, Hangzhou, Wuhan, and Urumqi completed the Chinese version of the GSHS. Researchers analyzed the results from 2 questions about the frequency and form of being bullied and 11 questions about psychosocial adjustment. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used in the analysis. RESULTS: About 25.7% of middle school students reported being bullied on 1 or more of the past 30 days. Rates of being bullied were similar for males and females, but the forms of being bullied were different. Being bullied was significantly lower in Beijing than in the other 3 cities. There were significant psychosocial differences between students who had been bullied and students who had not been bullied. Students who had been involved in a physical fight, often felt lonely, or had considered suicide in the past 30 days were more likely to report being bullied. Students who thought that other students in their school were often kind and helpful, who felt parents often understood their troubles, or who were taught in school how to handle stress were less likely to report being bullied. Conclusions: Being bullied is not uncommon in Chinese middle schools. Chinese schools typically place great emphasis on academic achievement, perhaps at the expense of the social climate of the school. Results indicated schools could implement changes to the school climate to reduce the likelihood of students' being bullied.