Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 11 March 2014
Received in revised form 14 January 2015
Accepted 15 March 2015
Keywords:
Self-perceived overall competence
Approach to learning
Academic motivation
Academic performance
a b s t r a c t
This study integrated self-perceived overall competence and approaches to learning in predicting academic
motivation and performance of university students. The sample comprised 462 undergraduate students in
Hong Kong, who were invited to complete a set of measurements. Results of the pathway analyses conrmed
our hypothesized model. In particular, deep and surface approaches to learning directly and indirectly inuenced
grade point average (GPA), whereas the effect of self-perceived overall competence on GPA was fully mediated
by academic motivation. The ndings of this study advance the literature on higher education by revealing the
importance of self-perceived overall competence on academic success.
2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.03.004
1041-6080/ 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
200
Cognitive Factors
Academic
Motivation
Academic
Performance
Personal
Characteristics
Fig. 1. The proposed conceptual model for understanding the relationships among cognitive factors, personal characteristics, academic motivation, and academic performance.
to learning and academic motivation. This is because both goal orientation and academic motivation are regarded as intercorrelated motivational constructs (Colquitt & Simmering, 1998), and thus they have
been used interchangeably in the literature (Kizilgunes, Tekkaya, &
Sungur, 2009). Kizilgunes et al. (2009) demonstrated that deep approach to learning was positively correlated with mastery-goal orientation but negatively associated with performance-goal orientation.
Therefore, it is expected that approach to learning affects one's academic motivation, such that employing deep approach to learning is associated with increased motivation whereas surface approach to learning is
linked to lower motivation.
Furthermore, Cred and Kuncel (2008) proposed that the relationship between study habits or attitudes (as a form of approach to
learning) and academic performance would be mediated by academic
motivation. It is anticipated that students who prefer deep approach
tend to possess an intrinsic motivation to learn (e.g., out of personal
interest or on purpose of self-actualization), and thus are more willing
to invest immense efforts in relating concepts together to systematically
acquire knowledge and obtain better academic outcome. The use of
surface approach is related to a utilitarian motive and an inclination to
rote learning, which may lead to poorer academic performance in comparison with those who adopt deep approach to learning and possess
greater motivation to learn. Accordingly, we hypothesize that:
H3a. Deep approach is positively associated to academic performance.
H3b. Surface approach is negatively correlated to academic performance.
H4. Academic motivation mediates the relationship between approach
to learning (deep and surface approaches) and academic performance.
201
2. Method
2.1. Participants
A sample of 496 undergraduate students at a local university participated in this study. Thirty-four students did not report their GPAs, thus
they were excluded from further analysis. The nal sample size is 462,
with 32.8% of which are male. Their study majors were social science
subjects. The age range is between 18 and 29, with a mean of age of
20.75 (SD = 1.74).
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Self-perceived overall competence
The competence subscale of the Positive Youth Development Inventory (PYDI; Arnold, Nott, & Meinhold, 2012) was adopted to measure
self-perceived overall competence of university students. PYDI was developed to assess personality characteristics of adolescents and young
people (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Lerner et al., 2005). The competence
subscale of the PYDI consists of 14 items. It measures one's view of
his/her actions in social, academic, cognitive, and vocational areas. Sample items include I can handle problems that come up in my life and I
am aware of other people's needs in social situations. Participants
responded to each item on a 4-point Likert scale, with 1 = Strongly
Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree. Higher scores indicate higher degrees
of perceived competence. The Cronbach's alpha of this scale was .80.
202
2.3. Procedure
The ethical approval for this study was obtained from the afliated
university. Participants were recruited and completed the questionnaires during classes, such that most questionnaires were immediately
returned to the researchers. Participation in this questionnaire was
voluntary. Participants were assured that the data collected would
be kept condential and would only be utilized for the research
purpose.
3. Results
First, the means and correlations of the main constructs in the proposed model are presented in Table 1. Consistent with the prediction
in H1, a signicantly positive correlation between self-perceived overall
competence and GPA was found (r = .14). GPA was signicantly associated with deep (r = .30) and surface approaches (r = .28), which
support H3a and H3b. The expected positive correlation between selfperceived overall competence and deep approach (r = .38) and negative correlation between surface approach and self-perceived overall
competence (r = .31) were also observed, which conrm H5. Furthermore, in accordance with the predictions for the two approaches
to learning, deep approach was found to correlate signicantly with
surface approach (r = .20). Moreover, academic motivation was
associated with GPA (r = .32), the two approaches to learning (deep
approach: r = .42; surface approach: r = .48), and competence
(r = .44). These associations provided the statistical foundation to test
the proposed mediating model.
Path analysis was performed by using AMOS to investigate the
hypothesized relationships among self-perceived overall competence,
approach to learning, academic motivation, and GPA (Arbuckle,
2006b). AMOS offers several model t indices to evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed model, including Chi-square (2) with its
degree of freedom (df), root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), normed t index (NFI), and comparative t index (CFI).
These t indices directly measure the t of the hypothesized model
with the observed data and of the estimated model relative to alternative baseline models, including a null model with no correlations
between the variables (Arbuckle, 2006a).
The proposed pathways evaluated the effects of self-perceived
overall competence and two approaches to learning on academic
performance through academic motivation. First, we found that
self-perceived overall competence has no signicant direct effect
on GPA (see Table 2). Thus, the direct pathway from self-perceived
overall competence to GPA was removed from the model. The nal
model, which is shown in Fig. 2, demonstrates a good model t (2
(1) = 2.61, p N .01, NFI = .994, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .996). As presented in Fig. 2, academic motivation fully mediated the direct effect of
self-perceived overall competence on GPA, therefore H2 is supported. Moreover, both deep and surface approaches to learning have
direct and indirect effects on GPA in the expected directions. Thus,
H4 is also supported.
Table 1
Means of and correlations among self-perceived overall competence, approach to learning,
academic motivation, and academic performance.
1
1. Self-perceived overall
competence
2. Deep approach
3. Surface approach
4. Academic motivation
5. Grade point average
p b .01.
5 Mean (SD)
.38
.31
.44
.14
2.97 (.33)
.20
.42
.48
.30
.28 .32
3.24 (.52)
2.63 (.64)
5.93 (1.03)
3.29 (.37)
Table 2
The direct and indirect effects of perceived competence and approach to learning on grade
point average (GPA).
Standardized Beta (SE)
Deep
approach
Surface
approach
Self-perceived Academic
motivation
overall
competence
Direct effects
Academic motivation .26 (.04) .36 (.04) .23 (.05)
GPA
.22 (.04) .18 (.05) .08 (.05)
Indirect effects
GPA
.05 (.02) .06 (.02) .04 (.02)
.17 (.05)
p b .01.
p b .001.
4. Discussion
This study examined the interrelationships among self-perceived
overall competence, approach to learning, academic motivation, and
academic performance. It demonstrated the signicant effect of overall
competence on academic motivation and performance. The results of
path analyses also supported our hypothesized model, which integrates
the inuences of cognitive factors and personal characteristics on academic performance through the mediation of academic motivation.
203
Deep
Approach
.38***
-.20***
Self-perceived
Overall
Competence
-.31***
.20***
.26***
Academic
Motivation
.23***
-.36***
.15**
GPA
-.17**
Surface
Approach
Fig. 2. Pathways of self-perceived overall competence, deep and surface approaches to learning, academic motivation, and GPA. Note. p b .01; p b .001.
5. Conclusions
This study explores the interrelationships among self-perceived
overall competence, approach to learning, academic motivation, and
academic performance. Results strongly supported the proposed pathways, which indicated that both overall competence and approach to
learning play critical roles, either through direct or indirect pathways,
in predicting the GPA of university students. Specically, overall competence was proven to exert its inuence on GPA fully through academic
motivation, whereas approach to learning directly and indirectly affects
GPA. The ndings of this study advance our knowledge by unveiling
the importance of self-perceived overall competence on academic
achievement. They also provide insights to educators to improve approaches to learning and enhance the study motivation for university
students.
204
Acknowledgment
This study was supported by research fund from the Department of
Applied Social Sciences at City University of Hong Kong.
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006a). Amos (version 7.0) [computer program]. Chicago: SPSS.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006b). Amos 7.0 user's guide. Chicago: SPSS.
Arnold, M. E., Nott, B. D., & Meinhold, J. L. (2012). The Positive Youth Development Inventory
(PYDI). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University 4-H Youth Development Program.
Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning
environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or
discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5, 243260.
Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1989). Student adaptation to college questionnaire: Manual. Western
Psychological Services.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efcacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28, 117148.
Barnet, R. (1990). The idea of higher education. Philadelphia, USA: The Society for Research
into Higher Education.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Research monograph.
Radford House, Frederick St., Hawthorn 3122, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133149.
Blickle, G. (1996). Personality traits, learning strategies, and performances. European
Journal of Personality, 10, 337352.
Brookover, W. B., Thomas, S., & Paterson, A. (1964). Self-concept of ability and school
achievement. Sociology of Education, 37, 271278.
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning
style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 10571068.
Castells, M. (1994). The university system: Engine of development in the new world economy.
Higher Education: Revitalizing, 1440.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in
Personality, 37, 319338.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2008). Personality, intelligence and approaches to
learning as predictors of academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences,
44, 15961603.
Clark, M. H., & Schroth, C. A. (2010). Examining relationships between academic motivation and personality among college students. Learning and Individual Differences, 20,
1924.
Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 654.
Cred, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar
supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3,
425453.
Cutrona, C. E., Cole, V., Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Russell, D. W. (1994). Perceived
parental social support and academic achievement: An attachment theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 369378.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behaviour. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1990). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 38. (pp. 237288).
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Diseth, . (2003). Personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic
achievement. European Journal of Personality, 17, 143155.
Diseth, ., & Martinsen, . (2003). Approaches to learning, cognitive style, and motives as
predictors of academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23, 195207.
Duff, A., Boyle, E., Dunleavy, K., & Ferguson, J. (2004). The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36, 19071920.
Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth
development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Elliot, A. J., & Dweck, C. S. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of competence and motivation. Guilford
Press.
Fazey, D. M., & Fazey, J. A. (2001). The potential for autonomy in learning: Perceptions of
competence, motivation and locus of control in rst-year undergraduate students.
Studies in Higher Education, 26, 345361.
Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (1995). Academic motivation and school
performance: Toward a structural model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20,
257274.
Gortner, L. A., & Zulauf, C. R. (2000). Factors associated with academic time use and academic performance of college students: A recursive approach. Journal of College
Student Development, 41, 544556.
Harter, S., Whitesell, N. R., & Kowalski, P. (1992). Individual differences in the effects
of educational transitions on young adolescent's perceptions of competence and
motivational orientation. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 777807.
Kizilgunes, B., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2009). Modelling the relations among students'
epistemological beliefs, motivation, learning approach, and achievement. The
Journal of Educational Research, 102, 243256.
Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., & Schmeck, R. R. (2009). Role of the Big Five personality traits
in predicting college students' academic motivation and achievement. Learning and
Individual Differences, 19, 4752.
Lane, J., & Lane, A. (2001). Self-efcacy and academic performance. Social Behavior and
Personality: An International Journal, 29, 687693.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1986). Self-efcacy in the prediction of academic
performance and perceived career options. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33,
265269.
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., et al. (2005).
Positive youth development, participation in community youth development
programs, and community contributions of fth grade adolescents: Findings from
the rst wave of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 25, 1771.
Macan, T. H., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Phillips, A. P. (1990). College students' time
management: Correlations with academic performance and stress. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 760768.
Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2006). Social support as a buffer in the relationship
between socioeconomic status and academic performance. School Psychology
Quarterly, 21, 375395.
Marton, F., & Salj, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning I: outcome and
process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 411.
Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big Five
correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93,
116130.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efcacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66(4), 543578.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efcacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,
193203.
Papinczak, T., Young, L., Groves, M., & Haynes, M. (2008). Effects of a metacognitive intervention on students' approaches to learning and self-efcacy in a rst year medical
course. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13, 213232.
Phan, H. P. (2007). An examination of reective thinking, learning approaches, and self
efcacy beliefs at the University of the South Pacic: A path analysis approach.
Educational Psychology, 27, 789806.
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the ve-factor model of personality and academic
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322338.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 130, 261288.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2005). Competence perceptions and academic functioning. In
A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 85104).
Guilford Publications.
Snelgrove, S., & Slater, J. (2003). Approaches to learning: Psychometric testing of a study
process questionnaire. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43, 496505.
Sobral, D. T. (1997). Improving learning skills: A self-help group approach. Higher
Education, 33, 3950.
Stupnisky, R. H., Renaud, R. D., Daniels, L. M., Haynes, T. L., & Perry, R. P. (2008). The interrelation of rst-year college students' critical thinking disposition, perceived academic
control, and academic achievement. Research in Higher Education, 49, 513530.
Tanaka, M., Mizuno, K., Fukuda, S., Tajima, S., & Watanabe, Y. (2009). Personality traits associated with intrinsic academic motivation in medical students. Medical Education,
43, 384387.
Tomas, C., & Adrian, F. (2003). Personality traits and academic examination performance.
European Journal of Personality, 17, 237250.
Turner, E. A., Chandler, M., & Heffer, R. W. (2009). The inuence of parenting styles,
achievement motivation, and self-efcacy on academic performance in college
students. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 337346.
Vallerand, R. J., & Reid, G. (1984). On the causal effects of perceived competence on intrinsic motivation: A test of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6,
94102.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in
self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation.
Educational Psychologist, 41, 1931.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991a). Social competence at school: Relation between social responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61, 124.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991b). Relations between social competence and academic achievement
in early adolescence. Child Development, 62, 10661078.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efcacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 8291.