Interrelations between self‐efficacy and learning approaches: a developmental approach

Abstract

Two major theoretical frameworks in educational psychology, namely student approaches to learning (SAL) and self‐efficacy have been used extensively to explain and predict students’ learning and academic achievement. There is a substantial body of research studies, for example, that documents the positive interrelations between individuals’ self‐efficacy beliefs and their approaches to learning. In particular, evidence ascertained from structural equation analyses suggests both a positive sense of academic self‐efficacy and deep learning approach combined to influence students’ academic achievement. More recently, albeit limited, research has focused on the study of developmental changes of these two constructs over time. As a contribution to this approach, we used latent growth curve modelling (LGM) to explore the initial states and trajectories of self‐efficacy and the two major learning approaches – surface and deep – over a two‐year period. Furthermore, we regressed both gender and academic experience as possible external correlates that could account for the change in the two theoretical frameworks. Two hundred and fifty‐two (116 females, 136 males) university students were administered Likert‐scale inventories on three occasions. SPSS AMOS showed a few major findings – notably, for example, the negative impact of academic experience on the change in self‐efficacy and the positive impact of academic experience on the initial states of self‐efficacy and surface learning approach.

Keywords:

• learning approaches
• self‐efficacy
• developmental change
• academic experience
• latent growth curve modelling

Acknowledgements

Our thanks are extended to the two reviewers whose suggestions have helped us to articulate and develop our ideas and knowledge more clearly.

Notes

1. We started off with a sample of 324 second‐year university students; however, we reduced our sample to 252 students as a result of missing data arising from student failure, institutional migration, student withdrawal, changes in majors/degree programmes, etc. It is interesting to note (although this does not affect the final analyses) that the students who dropped out of the study had similar GPAs to those who remained. For ethical reasons, we could not pursue these students to seek clarification as to why they decided to withdraw, etc.

2. GPA ranges from 0 (minimum) to 5 (maximum).