Investigating the predictive relations between self-efficacy and achievement goals on procedural and conceptual science learning

Abstract

AbstractSelf-efficacy and achievement goals represent two extensively researched motivational factors in education and have been related to numerous academic outcomes. However, little is known about how they relate to different types of problem-solving. Furthermore, while prior work has found these motivational factors are related, less work has examined them over time, during learning, and controlling for prior knowledge. The current study investigated the relations between these motivational constructs and procedural and conceptual problem-solving in middle school science. Sixth-grade science students’ self-efficacy and achievement goals were surveyed along with procedural and conceptual problem-solving before and after instruction. Results revealed students’ self-efficacy was positively correlated with both procedural and conceptual posttest performance. However, controlling for prior knowledge, self-efficacy only predicted conceptual performance. No relations were found between achievement goals and procedural or conceptual problem-solving. Additionally, results found that changes in mastery-approach goals were positively related to changes in self-efficacy beliefs.Keywords: Achievement goalsconceptualproblem solvingproceduralself-efficacy AcknowledgmentsPortions of these results were presented at the 2017 American Association of Physics Teachers Summer Meeting and the Physics Education Research Conference, the 58th Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, the 2018 NARST 91st International Annual Conference, and the 6th International Workshop on Advanced Learning Sciences. We thank Emily Wenz, Breanna Wallbaum, Morgan Endlein, and Quentin King-Shepard for their assistance in coding data.Ethical approvalThe described research was conducted in accordance with ethical standards, following a protocol approved by our Institutional Review Board.Notes1 Given reliability for pre-survey performance-approach and -avoidance was fairly low, a CFA for pre-survey achievement goal items was performed. Goodness-of-fit scores were in acceptable ranges. Supplementary Appendix A includes these analyses.2 To ensure students weren’t guessing on multiple choice items, the probability of guessing was calculated. Eight multiple choice items had 35 possible choices. A student guessing would be estimated to receive score of .23 (8/35). One-sample t-tests were conducted to test whether students’ means were significantly higher than .23. For both pre (M = .52) and posttest (M = .60), students’ means were significantly higher than .23 (p’s < .001), suggesting students were not merely guessing.3 Since changes in self-efficacy and achievement goals are mathematically constrained by their pre-level (i.e., higher levels of pre-self-efficacy mean higher gains are not possible), we included each motivational pre-level as covariates. ΔMAP remains the only significant variable. Supplementary Appendix C includes these analyses.Additional informationFundingThis research was supported by grant DUE-1534829 from the National Science Foundation and grant No. 22020483 from the James S. McDonnell Foundation. No endorsement should be inferred.