The Impact of Academic and Teaching Self-Efficacy on Student Engagement and Academic

61 Pages·2017·0.61 MB·English

UUttaahh SSttaattee UUnniivveerrssiittyy
DDiiggiittaallCCoommmmoonnss@@UUSSUU
All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies
5-2015
TThhee IImmppaacctt ooff AAccaaddeemmiicc aanndd TTeeaacchhiinngg SSeellff--EEffifficcaaccyy oonn SSttuuddeenntt
EEnnggaaggeemmeenntt aanndd AAccaaddeemmiicc OOuuttccoommeess
Lesther A. Papa
Utah State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd
Part of the Psychology Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Papa, Lesther A., "The Impact of Academic and Teaching Self-Efficacy on Student Engagement and
Academic Outcomes" (2015). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 4361.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/4361
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by
the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has
been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and
Dissertations by an authorized administrator of
DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
THE IMPACT OF TEACHING AND ACADEMIC SELF-EFFICACY ON STUDENT

ENGAGEMENT AND ACADEMIC OUTCOMES

by

Lesther A. Papa

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree

of

EDUCATIONAL SPECIALIST

in

Psychology

Approved:

Melanie M. Domenech Rodríguez, Ph.D. Scott C. Bates, Ph.D.
Major Professor Committee Member

Kerry E. Jordan, Ph.D. Mark R. McLellan, Ph.D.
Committee Member Vice President for Research and
Dean of the School of Graduate Studies

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
Logan, Utah

2015
ii

Copyright © Lesther A. Papa 2015
All Rights Reserved
iii

ABSTRACT

The Impact of Academic and Teaching Self-Efficacy on Student Engagement

and Academic Outcomes

by

Lesther A. Papa, Educational Specialist

Utah State University, 2015

Major Professor: Melanie M. Domenech Rodríguez, Ph.D.
Department: Psychology

The present study examined the relationship between student academic self-
efficacy, students’ perceptions of their instructor’s teaching self-efficacy (PIE), and
student engagement and academic outcome (i.e., grades). Evidence shows academic self-
efficacy (ASE) changes over time and may be predictive of students’ academic outcome.
Research shows a correlation between students’ ASE, student engagement, and academic
outcome. The directionality of the relationship between the three variables is less clear.
Also unknown is what role the teaching self-efficacy (TSE) plays in student engagement.
Research has shown that instructors have an effect on student engagement but no
research has specifically linked TSE to student engagement. Three questions were
explored: (1) Do changes in ASE predict student engagement and course grade in a
different sample? (2) Does student engagement mediate or moderate the relationship
between ASE and course grade? and (3) Does PIE affect the relationship between
iv

students’ ASE and student engagement? Results showed that changes in ASE positively
predict both student engagement and course grade. Student engagement partially
mediated that relationship between ASE and course grade but performance engagement
fully mediates this relationship. However, PIE did not affect the relationship between
ASE and student engagement. In fact, ASE did not significantly correlate with PIE. These
findings are discussed for implications in the classroom.
(60 pages)
v

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

The Impact of Academic and Teaching Self-Efficacy on Student Engagement

and Academic Outcomes

by

Lesther A. Papa, Educational Specialist

Utah State University, 2015

As college classrooms increase in size, the challenge of keeping students engaged
in the course becomes a greater challenge. Instructors are burdened with the task of
managing larger classrooms while maintaining high levels of student participation.
Research has shown that students tend to hide and are less likely to participate in larger
classrooms. Research has also shown that student participation is affected by fear of
judgment from their peers and the instructor. However it is unclear whether this fear is
tied to students’ perceived ability or self-efficacy. In addition, it may be that students’
perception of the instructor may affect their class participation. The present study
attempted to disentangle how these factors work together to influence student
engagement in the classroom.
The present study was conducted over the fall 2013 semester. Two hundred forty-
four students were recruited from three introductory psychology courses. At the
beginning of the semester, students were asked to report their perception of their
academic ability (academic self-efficacy; ASE) and demographic information. During the
vi

last week of instruction, students were asked to self-report their ASE, level of course
engagement, and perceptions of the instructors teaching self-efficacy (PIE). After grades
were posted, the final grades for each student were collected.
Three predictions were explored: (a) changes in ASE would predict students’
course grade, (b) the relationship between student ASE and student grades would be
mediated or moderated by student engagement, and (c) PIE would moderate the
relationship between students’ ASE and student engagement. Two of the predictions were
supported. Changes in ASE did predict students’ course grades such that increases in
ASE predicted increases in grades as well. Student engagement partially explained the
relationship between ASE and grades. Closer examination showed that performance
(wanting good grades in the course) accounted for the relationship between ASE and
course grades. The final prediction could not be evaluated because PIE was not related to
ASE. However results show that PIE does significantly impact student engagement in the
course.
This adds to previous literature and shows that perceptions of an instructor’s
teaching self-efficacy can influence how students engage in the course. These results also
align with previous research that has shown that students with higher sense of ASE and
course engagement have better academic outcomes.
vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to offer my thanks to those who helped me on my personal and
professional journey towards completing my thesis. Thank you to Drs. Scott Bates and
Kerry Jordan for their thoughtful insight and critical feedback. Your input helped refine
the quality of the present work and develop me as a researcher. I would also like to thank
the instructors, teaching assistants, and students who participated in the study. Without
your assistance and responses this study would not have been possible. I am grateful to
my research assistants, Derek Douglass, Micah Orton, and Jared Bice, for their respective
contributions to each phase of the research process. Thank you for all your hard work and
joining alongside me on this venture. Here is a shout out to all my cohort peeps who have
provided me with loving support, laughs, a sense of family, and for witnessing the
proposal of this project. Finally, I would like to give my deepest, heartfelt thanks to my
advisor and mentor, Dr. Melanie Domenech Rodríguez. Thank you for all your loving
encouragement, guidance, and wisdom. I am truly blessed to have a mentor who can help
me grow as a researcher, clinician, teacher, and most of all, as a person. You have been
there through the highs and lows of my grad school journey so far and I am glad that I
can take comfort in knowing you will be there until the end of it.
I would like to make special acknowledgments to my family. Para sa aking mga
magulang, maraming salamat po sa inyong pag-mamahal, suporta, at tiwala sa akin. Para
sa aking kapatid, sana ay sundin din ninyo inyong mga hangarin sa buhay na katuald ko.
viii

At ang pang huli sa aking lola Rosing, salamat po sa pag-aalaga mo sa akin. Gusto ko
pong ipaalam sa inyo na mahal na mahal kayong lahat.
Lesther A. Papa
ix

CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... iii

PUBLIC ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................. vii

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

II. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 4

Social Cognitive Theory .............................................................................. 4
Self-Efficacy ................................................................................................ 6
Student Engagement .................................................................................... 10
Student Perceptions of Instructor TSE as a Moderator ................................ 12
Student Engagement as Moderator or Mediator .......................................... 13
Study Overview ........................................................................................... 14

III. METHOD .................................................................................................... 17

Design .......................................................................................................... 17
Participants ................................................................................................... 17
Materials ...................................................................................................... 18
Procedures .................................................................................................... 20
Data Analysis Plan ....................................................................................... 21

IV. RESULTS .................................................................................................... 23

Preliminary Results ...................................................................................... 23
Research Question 1 .................................................................................... 26
Research Question 2 .................................................................................... 27
Research Question 3 .................................................................................... 32