Comparing the Academic Self-efficacy of Master’s Degree Students in Five Finnish Universities

Session Information

ERG SES G 12, Studies in Education

Paper Session

Time:
2016-08-23
09:00-10:30
Room:
OB-H2.20
Chair:
Lejf Moos

Contribution

This study examines the academic self-efficacy of students in International Master’s Degree Programmes (IMDPs) in Finland. The main aim is to investigate if students’ academic self-efficacy differs based on students’ field of education.  The main research questions of this paper are:

 (1) How is students’ academic self-efficacy?

 (2) Are there any differences between students’ groups based on their field of education and their self-efficacy?

(3) Do students have different self-efficacy based on their cultural background?

The IMDPs have attracted a growing number of students to Finland; in 2013 there were almost 20,000 international degree students (Centre for International Mobility 2015a). This new intercultural academic environment has not been studied in depth so far and the research gap expands considering the need to explore students’ self-efficacy, emotional and sociocultural adjustment. International students encounter various challenges during their adjustment process in a new academic and non-academic environment. Nilsson (2007) assumed that higher levels of self-efficacy could decrease anxiety and increase patience when international students face academic challenges. The study of Zhang and Goodson (2011) showed that self-efficacy has a positive connection with sociocultural adjustment. Yet, limited studies on self-efficacy in the context of IMDPs in Finland have been published.

Academic self-efficacy is defined as student’s belief in successfully executing academic tasks (Schunk, 1991) and it is based on Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1982). Bandura (1986; 1997) defined self-efficacy as a person’s judgement of being capable of successfully completing a task in a designed environment. A number of studies highlighted the high correlations between self-efficacy and students’ persistence (Multon et al., 1991), self-efficacy and achievement (Gore, 2006; Zajacova et al., 2005) as well as self-efficacy and grades (Chemers et al., 2001; Zajacova et al., 2005). Higher self-efficacy has been related with less anxiety and stress (Barry & Finney, 2009). Additionally, self-regulation and metacognition have been found to highly correlate with self-efficacy (Bartimore-Aufflick et al., 2015).  

The aforementioned results indicate the importance of students’ self-efficacy and have led to the development of this study. The field of education has been chosen as a background variable to divide the students in groups due to the lack of studies investigating students’ self-efficacy and their differences. One more reason of this choice is the variety of the structure, curriculum, content, research and teaching methods between academic disciplines.

Method

An online questionnaire including the College Self-Efficacy Inventory (CSEI) by Solberg, O’Brien, Villarreal, Kennel and Davis (1993) was distributed to students who were enrolled in IMDPs between 2011, 2012 and 2013 in five Finnish universities. The CSEI consists of three subscales; roommate self-efficacy, course self-efficacy, and social self-efficacy. The roommate self-efficacy subscale was excluded for this research; therefore 13 statements of university related tasks were used; 7 statements from the course self-efficacy subscale and six from the social self-efficacy subscale. The 13 items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘not at all confident’ to 7 = ‘extremely confident’. Descriptive analysis, t-test and one-way ANOVA tests were conducted with SPSS statistics 20. High internal consistency was noticed for the overall instrument (α=0.86), course self-efficacy subscale (α=0.79) and social self-efficacy subscale (α=0.82). To answer the second research question the students were divided in groups based on the content of their programme and the field of education; IT, social sciences, humanities, technical sciences, business and natural sciences. To answer the third research question, the five biggest cultural groups of this study; Finnish, Indian, Chinese, Pakistani and Russian students, have been put in focus.

Expected Outcomes

The results indicated that the students’ social and course self-efficacy were high. More specifically, the tasks that students had lower self-efficacy were joining a student organization and managing time. On the other hand, the respondents had higher self-efficacy in understanding course literature. Regarding the second research question and the statistical analysis, six out of thirteen statements were found to be significantly different. The students from the social sciences were found less self-efficacious than the IT students in using different research methods even though IT students were found to have higher self-efficacy in taking good notes during lectures than the students studying in the fields of social sciences and the humanities. IT students had lower self-efficacy in managing time effectively and participating in class discussions compared to the students from the technical sciences. Business and IT students also had lower self-efficacy in talking to university’s staff compared to the students studying in the field of the humanities. Students studying in the field of business were found to have lower self-efficacy in talking to professors than the students studying in the field of the humanities, natural and social sciences. Four out of thirteen statements were found to be statistically and significantly different. Students coming from China were found to have lower self-efficacy in writing essay papers, doing well in exams and understanding course literature compared to their fellow classmates. These statements are related with students’ course self-efficacy. However, Pakistani students seem to have less self-efficacy in talking to university staff compared to the Finnish students. The latter statement is included in the social self-efficacy subscale. Practical implications for university teachers as well as recommendations for increasing students’ self-efficacy are presented.

References

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Barry, C. L., & Finney, S. J. (2009). Can we feel confident in how we measure college confidence?: A psychometric investigation of the college self-efficacy inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 42, 197–222. Bartimote-Aufflick, K., Bridgeman, A., Walker, R., Sharma, M., & Smith, L. (2015). The study, evaluation, and improvement of university student self-efficacy. Studies in Higher Education, (ahead-of-print), 1-25. Centre for International Mobility. (2015a). Ulkomaalaiset tutkinto-opiskelijat eri opintoasteilla vuosina 2005 ja 2012. Retrieved December 15, 2015 from http://www.cimo.fi/instancedata/prime_product_julkaisu/cimo/embeds/cimowwwstructure/32486_Opintoaste_1205.pdf Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 55-64. Gore, P. A. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes: Two incremental validity studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 92–115. Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 30–38. Nilsson, J. E. (2007). International students in supervision: Course self-efficacy, stress, and cultural discussions in supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 26(1-2), 35-47. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational psychologist 26(3-4), 207-231. Zajacova A., Lynch S. M., and Espenshade T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic success in college. Research in Higher Education 46, 677–706. Zhang, J., & Goodson, P. (2011). Predictors of international students’ isychosocial adjustment to life in the United States: A systematic review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35, 39-162.

Author Information

Kalypso Filippou (presenting / submitting)
University of Turku
Department of Education
Turku
University of Turku, Finland
University of Turku, Finland

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.