Critical Thinking, Self-Efficacy, and Self-Regulated Learning in University Students

11111

Critical Thinking, Self-Efficacy, and Self-

Regulated Learning in University Students

Cheryl Reining & Sarah ThelenThesis Supervisor: Catherine Arnold, MS, EdD, RD, LDN

22222

Background

Increased interest in how student’s underlying beliefs about knowledge and knowing are a part of the learning process (1)

Critical thinking is a construct of self-regulated learning and is the primary reason for higher education (2)

Self-efficacy is a central influence on and relates positively to academic performance (3)

Self-regulated learners (SRL) have a high awareness of self, which enhances their ability to achieve their academic goals

1. Hofer, 2001 2. Halpern, 1999 3. Bandura, 1989, Multon, Brown, Lent, 1991

3333

Literature Review

44

Outcome Expectancies

• There are two components of expectancies

1.) Expectancies for success:• “Refers to performance expectations, and relates specifically to

performing a task” (4)

2.) Self-efficacy:• Self-efficacy is a self-assessment of one’s ability to master a task

4. Pintrich, 2004

55

Critical Thinking

“The degree to which students report applying previous knowledge to new situations in order to solve problems, reach decisions, or make critical evaluations with respect to standards of excellence” (5)

The researchers found critical thinking to be significantly associated with course grades

5. Lynch, 2006

6666

Self-regulated Learning

SRL is the processes, or constructs, by which individual learners attempt to monitor and control their own learning

SRL is believed to include multiple constructs including background knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive regulation, strategy use, epistemological beliefs and various motivational constructs (6)

Researchers found correlations between SRL, expectancy and critical thinking

6. Sperling et al, 2004

77777

Purpose

To examine potential relationships between critical thinking strategies, expectancy (self-efficacy) and course grade in nutrition courses among undergraduate university students

To examine potential relationships between self-regulated learning, critical thinking, self-efficacy and cumulative GPA among undergraduate university students in education and nutrition courses

8888

Methods

99

Methodology: Data Collection

•An e-mail was sent to Nutrition Department faculty requesting assistance in the administration of the in-class tool

•The e-mail stated this was for a graduate research project, and the IRB proposal had been approved, it stated the general premise of the survey. It also stated it was a voluntary survey, that there was no right or wrong response, and that it would take approximately five minutes. •Surveys were completed in class, time estimated was 5 minutes per student

•Surveys were returned in sealed envelopes

101010

Measurement Tool: MSLQ

Instrumentation:Motivated Strategies for Learning (MSLQ)

questionnaire• Self-report tool designed to assess motivation and

learning strategies for a college course• 13 statements used to gauge critical thinking

and self-efficacy

1111111111

Online Participant Recruitment

Survey AdministrationE-mail invitations to Benedictine University students

enrolled in Spring 2011 semester/quarter3 separate e-mails – between April 28th and May 10th,

2011$100.00 incentive – random drawing Written invitation – included in the In-Class survey

packets

1212121212

Measurement Tool: Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI)

Instrumentation: Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI)

questionnaire • Self-report tool designed to measure adult

metacognitive awareness• 52 statements used to gauge knowledge of

cognition and regulation of cognition

13131313

Online Surveys

Participants completed the online surveys via SurveyMonkey, a web-based survey service

Completed surveys were linked to Benedictine’s website (all information was kept confidential)

Survey responses – entered into Excel doc and exported into IBM SPSS 19

http://www.surveymonkey.com/

14141414

Data Analysis

IBM SPSS 19 Frequency and Descriptive Factor Analysis Cronbach Alpha One Way ANOVA Independent t-test Pearson r

Independent• Age

• Gender

• Academic year

• Ethnicity

• Major

Dependent/Independent• MSLQ

• Critical thinking• Self-efficacy

• MAI

• Course grade

• Cumulative GPA

Variables

1515

Findings: In-Class Survey

15

1616

Participant Profile: Age DistributionIn-Class Survey

1717

Participant Profile: Ethnicity Distribution

66.3%

1818

Participant Profile: Nutrition Major vs. Non-Nutrition Majors

18

86%

1919

Analysis: Principle Component Analysis (PCA)

19

•The PCA was done to examine factors versus variables.

•There were two factors that were created out of the variables- based on Eigenvalues less than 1.

•The PCA results were an EXACT match to the results by the researchers who created the scale

•The two factors were named:•Self Efficacy (48.47% variance)•Critical Thinking (21.18% variance)

2020

Analysis: Cronbach Alpha Results

20

Item N Cronbach’s Alpha

Interpretation

Self-Efficacy 8 .932 “Excellent”

Critical Thinking

5 .889 “Good”

2121

H01: There is no Difference in Self Efficacy & Critical Thinking between Majors

21

• Self efficacy:•T = -2.487, df = 170, p = .014•Nutrition: mean = 5.9122; Standard deviation = .84973•Other: mean = 6.3646; Standard deviation = .66135•Non-nutrition majors report greater levels of self-efficacy

•Critical thinking: •T = -.187, df = 32.515, p = .853

•There is no significance between majors for either factor

2222

H02: There is no Difference in Self Efficacy & Critical Thinking between Age

22

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

F Sig. t dfSig. (2-tailed)

self_efficacy Equal variances assumed

4.862 .029 .656 142 .513

Equal variances not assumed .575 61.074 .567

•.656 (142) .513 No significance

•Null Hypothesis accepted

2323

H03: There is no Difference in Self Efficacy between Academic Year

23

Nutrition Majors

Other

•.697 (24) .846 No Significance

•1.922 (11) .138 No significance

•Null Hypothesis Accepted

2424

H04a: Self Efficacy does not Differ Across Course Grade in Nutrition Majors

24

•F=3.722 (24) p<.001 significance

ANOVAa

gradeSum of

Squares dfMean

Square F Sig.Between Groups 41.393 24 1.725 3.722 .000

Within Groups 53.292 115 .463Total 94.686 139a. major_NUTR_other = Nutrition

•Null hypothesis accepted

2525

H04b: Self efficacy does not Differ Across Course Grade in Non-Nutrition Majors

25

•1.138 (11) .412 no significance

ANOVAa

grade

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 4.000 11 .364 1.138 .412

Within Groups 3.833 12 .319

Total 7.833 23a. major_NUTR_other = Other


2626

H04: Self efficacy does not Differ Across Course Grade

Nutrition Majors:t=5.663 (138) p<.001 (significant)Grade A & B: N = 119, Mean = 6.0798, Std Dev = .76568Grade C, D, F: N = 21, Mean = 5.0655, Std Dev = .70225

Non-Nutrition Majors:t=.363 (22) p=.720 Grade A & B: N = 23, Mean = 6.3750, Std Dev = .67420Grade C, D, F: N = 1, Mean = 6.1250

26


2727

H05a: There is no Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and Course Grade among Nutrition

Majors

27

Correlationsa

grade self_efficacy

gradePearson Correlation 1 .496**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 140 140

self_efficacyPearson Correlation .496** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 140 148

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).a. major_NUTR_other = Nutrition

•The relationship between self efficacy and nutrition majors was investigated•N = 140, p = .496

•Null hypothesis rejected

2828

H05b: There is no Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and Course Grade Among Other

Majors

28

Correlationsa

grade self_efficacy

gradePearson Correlation 1 .242

Sig. (2-tailed) .255N 24 24

self_efficacyPearson Correlation .242 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .255N 24 24

a. major_NUTR_other = Other

•The relationship between self efficacy and other (non-nutrition majors) was investigated•N = 24, p = .255


2929

H06: Critical Thinking does not Differ Across Course Grade

29

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

F Sig. t dfSig. (2-tailed)

Criticalthinking

Equal variances assumed

.942 .333 2.586 163 .011

Equal variances not assumed

2.400 26.546 .024

2.586 (163) .011; F= .942

•H06: Hypothesis Rejected

3030

H07: There is no Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Course Grade

30

Correlations

grade critical_thinkgrade Pearson

Correlation 1 .119Sig. (2-tailed) .127N 165 165

Criticalthinking

Pearson Correlation .119 1Sig. (2-tailed) .127N 165 173

•The relationship between critical thinking and course grade was investigated. N = 173, p = .127


3131

In-Class Significant Findings

31

• Non-nutrition reported greater levels of self-efficacy than Nutrition majors

• H05a: Significant finding between self efficacy and course grade (individual grades and categories) in nutrition majors

• H06: Significant findings between critical thinking and course grade

32323232

Findings: Online Survey

33333333

Participants Profile: Gender & Age Distribution

Total participants= 8879 females = 90% 9 males = 10%

Females age:63 = 23 and under16 = 24 and over

Males age:9 = 23 and under0 = 24 and over

34343434

Participant Profile: Ethnicity Distribution Online Survey

Total Participants = 8867% White33% Non-white

33%

67%

35353535

Participant Profile: Distribution by Major

40%

60%

Total participants= 8860% Education majors40% Nutrition majors

36363636

MSLQ PCA

MSLQ – consists of two factors:Critical thinkingExpectancy (self-efficacy)

There was an exact match to the scale for undergraduate Nutrition majors and undergraduate Education majors, but there was a significant mismatch between all other majors. Thus, for purposes of this study, which included the

intent to focus on nutrition majors, only the results from Nutrition and Education were retained

37373737

MAI PCA

MAI – consists of two broad categories containing multiple factors:

Knowledge of cognition Regulation of cognition

There was a significant mismatch between ‘all majors’ and MAI PCA results reported by the researchers (Gregory Shraw & Rayne Sperling Dennison), who developed the scale, therefore the factors could not be used in the data analyses

There was a mismatch between Nutrition and Education and all other majors, which suggests different SRL skills are utilized by different majors

3838383838

MAI Scale

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on

Standardized Items N of Items

.976 .977 52

Item Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation Score Interpretation

Stop and reread 89.55 18.630 Good

Use strategies from past 88.75 18.304 Good

Good judge of understanding 87.78 15.863 Good

Consider all options 68.58 29.483 Questionable

Learned as much as could have 67.89 29.188 Questionable

Question material prior 60.24 32.666 Questionable

Scale: MAI

A high value for Cronbach’s Alpha (> .9), indicates an excellent internal consistency

39393939

Cronbach Alpha: Reliability

A high value for Cronbach’s Alpha (> .9), indicates an excellent internal consistency of the items in the scale.

Factor N Alpha Score Score Interpretation

Critical thinking 5 .902 Excellent

Self-efficacy 8 .944 Excellent

MSLQ 13 .933 Excellent

MAI 52 .977 Excellent

40

Null Hypotheses for Self-efficacy

Null H08 - Null H012b

41414141

H08: There is No Difference Between Majors in Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy

N Mean

Education 53 6.2382

Nutrition 35 5.8607

sig. .036

Null H0 is rejected

Majors

http://www.clker.com/clipart-thumb-up.html

t = 2.125 df = 86

42424242

H09a : There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Academic Years for Nutrition Majors

Null H0 is accepted

Self-efficacy

N Mean

Freshman 7 5.6964

Sophomore 3 5.4583

Junior 11 5.5341

Senior 14 6.2857

Total 35 5.8607

sig. .162

Nutrition

f = 1.833df = 3, 31

43434343

H09b : There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Academic Years for Education Majors

Self-efficacy

N Mean

Freshman 6 5.8958

Sophomore 8 5.5938

Junior 17 6.4779

Senior 22 6.3807

Total 53 6.2382

sig. .014

Education

f = 3.919df = 3, 49 Null H0 is rejected

444444

H010a: There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Age Categories for Nutrition Majors

Self-efficacy

N Mean

23 and under 26 5.7115

24 and over 9 6.2917

Total 35 75.860

sig. .106

Nutrition

f = 2.770df = 1, 33 Null H0 is accepted

454545

H010b: There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Age Categories in Education Majors

Self-efficacy

N Mean

23 and under

46 6.1821

24 and over 7 6.6071

Total 53 6.2382

sig. .156

Education


4646

H011a: There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Ethnicity Groups in Nutrition Majors

Self-efficacy

N Mean

White 23 6.0326

Non-white 12 5.5313

sig. .130

Nutrition

Null H0 is acceptedt = 1.555df = 33

4747

H011b: There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Ethnicity Groups in Education Majors

Self-efficacy

N Mean

White 36 6.3403

Non-white 16 5.9766

sig. (2-tailed) .102

Null H0 is accepted

Education

t = 1.665 df = 50

484848

H012a: There is No Relationship Between Self-efficacy and Cumulative GPA in Nutrition

Majors

Correlations

Nutrition gpa self-efficacy

gpa Pearson Correlation 1 .308

Sig. (2-tailed) .076

N 34 34

self-efficacy Pearson Correlation .308 1


N 34 35

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Null H0 is accepted

494949

H012b: There is No Relationship Between Self-efficacy and Cumulative GPA in Education

Majors

Correlations

Education gpa self-efficacy

gpa Pearson Correlation 1 .449**


N 53 53

self-efficacy Pearson Correlation .449** 1


N 53 53


Null H0 is rejected

50

Results of Self-efficacy Analyses

Hypotheses for Self-efficacy

Null H0 for Self-efficacy & … Sig.

H08 Majors .036

H09a Academic year for NUTR. majors .162

H09b Academic year for Ed. majors .014

H010a Age categories for NUTR. Majors .106

H010b Age categories for Ed. majors .156

H011a Ethnicities for NUTR majors .130

H011b Ethnicities for Ed. majors .102

H012a Cumulative GPA for NUTR. majors .076

H012b Cumulative GPA for Ed. majors .001

51

Null Hypotheses for Critical Thinking

Null H013 - Null H017b

52525252

H013: There is No Difference in Critical Thinking Between Majors

Critical thinking

N Mean

Education 53 5.5283

Nutrition 35 5.1657

sig. .135

Null H0 is accepted

Majors

t = 1.509 df = 86

535353

H014: There is No Difference in Critical

Thinking Across Academic Years

Critical Thinking

N Mean

Freshman 13 5.1077

Sophomore 11 4.7636

Junior 28 5.4929

Senior 36 5.5889

Total 88 5.3841

sig. .124


Academic Year

5454

H015: There is No Difference in Critical Thinking Across Ethnicity Groups

Critical Thinking

N Mean

White 59 5.4169

Other 28 5.32876

sig. .732

Null H0 is acceptedt = .343 df = 85

555555

H016: There is No Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Cumulative GPA

Correlations

gpa critical_thinking



N 87 87

Critical thinking Pearson Correlation .071 1


N 87 88


Null H0 is accepted

565656

H017: There is No Difference in Critical Thinking Across Age Groups

Critical Thinking

N Mean

23 and under 72 5.2639

24 and over 16 5.9250

Total 88 5.3841

sig. .030

Age

Null H0 is rejected f = 4.840df = 1, 86

5757

H017a: There is No Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Cumulative GPA in

Students Aged 23 and Under

Correlations

23 and under gpa critical_thinking



N 72 72

Critical thinking Pearson Correlation .140 1


N 72 72


Null H0 is accepted

5858

H017b: There is No Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Cumulative GPA in

Students Aged 24 and Over

Correlations

24 and over gpa critical_thinking

gpa Pearson Correlation 1 -.278


N 15 15

Critical thinking Pearson Correlation -.278 1


N 15 16


Null H0 is accepted

59

Results for Critical Thinking Analyses

Hypotheses for Critical Thinking

Null H0 for Critical Thinking & … Sig.

H013 Majors .130

H014 Academic year .124

H015 Ethnicity groups .732

H016 Cumulative GPA .516

H017 Age groups .030

H017a Cumulative GPA in 23 years and under .241

H017b Cumulative GPA in 24 years and over .316

60

Null Hypotheses for MAI/SRL

Null H018 - Null H023

616161

H018: There is No Difference in MAI/SRL Between Majors

MAI/SRL

N Mean

Education 53 80.0708

Nutrition 35 79.1797

sig. .795

Null H0 is accepted

Majors

t = .261 df = 86

62626262

H019: There is No Difference in MAI/SRL

Between Academic Years

MAI/SRL

N Mean

Freshman 13 76.0740

Sophomore 11 70.6818

Junior 28 83.1408

Senior 36 81.1287

Total 88 79.7163

sig. .107


6363

H020: There is No Relationship Between MAI/SRL and Ethnicity

MAI/SRL

N Mean

White 59 80.6750

Other 28 77.0165

sig. (2-tailed) .308

Null H0 is accepted t = 1.026 df = 85

6464

H021: There is No Difference Between MAI/SRL and Age Groups

MAI/SRL

N Mean

23 and under 72 77.9111

24 and over 16 87.8401

sig. .020

Null H0 is rejected t = - 2.365df = 86

6565

H022a: There is No Relationship Between MAI/SRL and Cumulative GPA in Students

Aged 23 and Under

Correlations

23 and under gpa MAI

gpa Pearson Correlation 1 -.070


N 72 72

MAI Pearson Correlation -.070 1


N 72 72


Null H0 is accepted

6666

H022b: There is No Relationship Between MAI/SRL and Cumulative GPA in Students

Aged 24 and Over

Correlations

24 and over gpa MAI

gpa Pearson Correlation 1 .651**


N 15 15

MAI Pearson Correlation .651** 1


N 15 16

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Null H0 is rejected

6767676767

H023: There is No Relationship Between MAI/SRL, Critical Thinking & Self-efficacy

MAI/SRL, Critical Thinking & Self-efficacy Null H0 is rejected

Correlations

MAI Critical thinking self-efficacy

MAI/SRL Pearson Correlation 1 .340** .312**

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .003

N 88 88 88

Critical thinking Pearson Correlation .340** 1 .524**

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000

N 88 88 88

self-efficacy Pearson Correlation .312** .524** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .000

N 88 88 88

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

68

Results for MAI/SRL Analyses

Hypotheses for MAI/SRL

Null H0 for MAI/SRL & … Sig.

H018 Majors .795

H019 Academic year .107

H020 Ethnicity groups .308

H021 Age groups .020

H022a Cumulative GPA in 23 yrs and under .558

H022b Cumulative GPA in 24 yrs and over .009

H023 Critical thinking & self-efficacy .003

69696969

Summary

As with Sperling et al (2004), significant correlations between the MAI/SRL component and the MSLQ critical thinking and self-efficacy scales for undergraduate students were found

The greatest significant findings in SRL were found in students:24 and older with greater self-efficacywith a major in Education

7070707070

Strengths

Use of existing questionnaires that are valid, reliable and easily accessible In-Class

• Captive audience • Overall participation response rate = 77% (209 out of a possible

272)Online

• Cash incentive • Intercorrelations between self-efficacy, critical thinking and SRL

consistent with what the researchers found • High Cronbach Alpha scores demonstrate high validity and

reliability to findings• High Cronbach Alpha scores excellent for SRL – demonstrates

high reliability

7171717171

Limitations and Future Research

LimitationsData was collected during one semester/quarter onlyData was only collected from one universityCampus e-mails not always readOnline survey was time-consuming causing:

A few participants to answer all of the questions with the same response

Incomplete data

Future Research – comparisons of:Other nutrition programsGraduates vs. undergraduates

727272

References

1. Hofer, B.K. Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review. 2001;13:353-383.

2. Halpern, D.E. Teaching for critical thinking: helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 1999;80:69-74.

3. Bandura, A. Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist. 1989;44:1179-1184.

Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., Lent, R.W. Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1991; 38:30-38.

4. Pintrich, P.R., A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning in College Students. Educational Psychology Review. 2004;16 (4)

5. Lynch, D.J., Motivation Factors, Learning strategies, and resources management as predictors in course grades. The College Student Journal. 2006;40(2): 423-428

6. Sperling, R.A., Howard, B.C., Staley, R., DuBois, N. Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation. 2004;10:117-139.

73737373

Thank You!

Any Questions?

Documents

Critical Thinking, Self-Efficacy, and Self-Regulated Learning in University Students