ri st

A Study of the InfluenceofIn str uc t i o n a l Objectives onStudent Self-efficacy

by

WadeD. Mouland, B.Sc., B.Ed.

Ath e s i seut-... i.tted to the School of Graduate Studies L'partial fulf ilmentofthe

requir ementsfor the degreeof Ma st er of Educat ion

Facul tyof Education Memo rial University of Newfoundland

December199 4

1+1

~ui'sitionsand Direcliondesacquisilionset BiblLOgfaphicServices Branch des servicesbibliographiques

395W~i!I9lonSl'eel 395,I\II!WellioglOt,

~r~fri'ano ~~~ON:anoJ

The author has granted an irrevocablenon-exclusivelicence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies of his/her thesisby any means and in any form or format,making this thesis available to Interested persons.

The author retains ownership of the copyrightin his/her thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extractsfromitmay be printed or otherwise reproduced without his/her permission.

Canada

L'auteur aeceerde une licence irrevocable et non exclusive psrmettant

a

a

L'auteurconserve laproprlatedu droit d'auteur qui protege sa these.NI la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent etre lmprtmes ou autrement reprodults sans son autorlsation.

i i Abst ract

The main purpose of this study was to determine whetherinstructionwiththe aid of instructional objectives ha d any effect onstude ntself-efficacy.

Secondary aims were investigated as well. These incl udedwhe ther the use of instructional objectives ha d any effect on student achievement,and whether any potential effect of instructionalobjectives on self- efficacy and achievement was mediatedby perceived ab i l i ty.

Todo this a two par t studydealing wi tha uni t of workon coordinate geometry was taught to fourclasses ofhe t e r ogen e o us l y groupedgr ad e nine studen ts. Two classesweretaug htwit h the aidof instruc tiona l ob jectivesand two were ta ug ht witho utsucb assistance.

From theana lysisof variancemixed resultswere obtainedasto whether theuse of ins t r uc tional objectives ha d anyeffect on perce i ve d self-efficacy.

However, the re s ul t s showed tha ttherewasa si gn ifica nt difference in ac hievemen t levels, butno dif f e r e nc e in le vel of perceived self-efficacyor achievement among stude ntsofdif f e r en t ability leve l s .

iii Acknowledgements

The researcher wishesto express si nce retha nks to allthose whohe l pe d in the successful completionof this presentstudy .

He is especiallygratefu l to his supervisor, Dr.

Ti m seifert, for his guidanceand assistance throughou t the stud y.

The researcherwould also liketo give special thanks to Mr . Basil Goodyear andMs. Renee Pearce, two mathematics teachers at Discovery collegiate, Bonavista,who made successfu l completionof this study possible.

TABLEOF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT• • • • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABL ES • CHAPT E R I: THEPROBLEM

Introducti on DafinitionofKeyTerms Rational e . . . . . Purpo s e of the Stud y Hypothe s e s . . . . • Out line of theStudy CHAPTER II: REVIEWOFRELATE DLIT ERATURE

Self-ef fi cac y • . . . • . . Int rod uct.io n • • • . . EffectsonIndividuals Fac torsAffe ctingSelf-effica c y Cha ngingSelf-ef fic a cy Instr uct ional Objective s

Introdu ction . . . . Rati on al e forUsage Effec t iveInst r uction Summary . . . • .

iv

i i iii vi

11

ie

21

2.

2' 27 31 34

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY Sample • • Me a s ur e s • Procedure CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS OF DATA

Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3 Hypot hesis4 Summary • •

35 35

3.

3.

44 44

4.

51 53 54 r:HAP'I'ERV: SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 56 Summary and Discussionof Results . 56 J..imi t a t i on s of theStudy • • • • • • 61 Re c o mmen d a t i on s for Future Research 62 Implications for ClassroomTeaching 63 REFERENCES. • . • • •• • • • • •• • • • • • 64 APPENDI X A: MATHEMATICS ABILITYQUESTIONNAIRE 70 APPE NDIXB: SELF-EFFICACYQUEST IONNAIRES 72 APPENDIXC:PRETESTSAND POSTTESTS • 101 APPENDIXC: INSTRUCTI ONAL OBJECTIVES 132

vi List of Tables

Table1 Group, Treatment and Sex of Students . 36 Table2 MeansandStandard Deviationsof Self-

efficacy Questionnaires (Lesson 1) . . . 46 Table 3 Means and StandardDe v i at i on s of Self-

efficacy Questionnaires (Lesson 2) . . . 47 Table 4 Means andStandard Deviations of Pretest and

Posttest (Lesson1) • • • • • • . • • • • 49 Table5 Means and Standard Deviations of Pretest and

Posttest (Lesson 2) • • • • • • • • • • • 50

Cha p ter 1 The Probl e m

Introduct i o n

The pr e s e nt study is an inve s tiga t i on intostudent mot i vation basedonthepremiseth atmotivationis a cogni tive pr oc e s s. Accor d i ng toDe c ! (1975) a cogn itiveapproac htomoti vati on pl a c e s muc hof the emp hasison thought processes. It is his viewtha t a pe r s o n actsin a particularway afte ran assessmentof eachof the possible behavioral al ternatives.

ThroUt; han inspectionof cognitive the ori es of mot ivatio n, it canbe deducedtha t ourbellefshave a major effectonbehaviour. The wa y s inwhich the s e be lie f s affec t beha vio ur is assessed by sever a l cognitive the o ri e s ofmotivat ion. These inc lude at t ributi o n theory, self-worth the o r y, goal theory , self-efficacythe o ry , and self-determi na tiontheory. For purposeofthi s studyemphas is will beplac e d on self-e f ficacy the o r y , withcontentgoal setti ngas a med iating fac to r.

The researc hco nduc t e d inthi s studyinvestigated st ude nts ' le vel of self-e fficacy. First, st ude nts '

lev e l of sel f -ef ficac ywasasse ssed in relatio n to sho rt termgoals, knownas instruc tio na lobjectives, set by the te a c herat the beginningof each lesson, and re peat e dthr ough out the lesson. The re s earc he r ' s objectivewas tode t e rmine whe the ra st udent ' s sel f- eff i cacywas affe c ted bythe s e instructio na l objectives . second, lin at temptwas mede to determine whethe r the use of ins t ru ctional objer.tives had any effect on st ude ntachieve ment. ThirJ , the researcher triedtodete rmine whethe r perceived abilitymediates the effect of instruc tional obj ectivesonself -eff icacy and achievement .

Definitionof KeyTerms

Forpur pos eofthis study therearetwo terms whic h needclarificati o n. First, sel f -eff icacyrefers to one's judg ements of ho w wel l he or she canperform giventasks in gi ven situations. Second, Lnetruct.Lo eet objectives ref ers tost a tementswhichspecifya parti c ul a rbeha vi ou r or beha vio ursa person ...ill be able to successfu llyexhibi t at the endof a given lessonorperi od of time.

1lili<>Il.W

The eff e ct of goal se t ting-on studfptbehaviou r has been studiedmanytime s (Sc hu n k 1983,1984, 19 8 5;

Sc h unk" Swar tz, 1993;Stock"Cervone, 1990) . These re sea rchers , as....el l as others, havedone extens i ve wor kon goa l se t tingand self-eff icacy. The purpose of th i sstudyisto exte nd their wo rk and to st udy the set t ingof shorttermco ntent goals, instructional obj ec t i v e s, inII.clas sro omsettingand determi ne thei r eff e c t on st ude nt motiva tio n, specificall y8e1£- eff icac y.

Inst r uc tiona lobjectives ha v e been inv e s t i gated withres pe c t to theireffec tivenessfor guidi ngstude nt lea rnin g (Kirk"Gustafson, 19 86;Britton, Glynn ,Muth ,

" Penland. 198 5 ; Towle " Herrill . 19 75 ),and guiding pro g r a mdeve l o pme nt aridevetue t. J on(Ki b l e r, Cegala, Ba r ke r, '" Mile s, 1974; Mag er, 198 4) . Again,theinten t is togobe yo ndthis point and determ inewhetherthe setti ng of instructi on alob j ec t ivesinthe conte xt of a les s onhas any eff e cton st ude nt moti vation.

From the re s e arch,most importantly ,the r esearcher-ho pe s todeterminewhetherornotthe use of ins t r uc t i on a l objective shas any effectonst ud e nt

se lf-ef fic acy. I fi t isdete r min e d thatinstruc tional objectivesdo havea positiveeffe ct in he i gh t en ing stude nts' self -efficacy,th e nitwoul d be ano t her stro ngreaso nto advoca te us ag e by teachersintheir instructio n. Thiswouldbebenefic ia l gi v e ntha t not all educa to rsaresu pportiveof the use of

ins tructionalobjectives. As Taylor (1987) points out, thi s maybe partly due to the inco nc lusive results of stu d iesconducted inth e ar ea . Henc e, favourable resultsof the presentstud ywoul dbe beneficial tothe teache rs, inthat th e use ofinstru c t i on a l objectives cou l dhelp ra isestu d ents' self-confide nce.

Conseque ntl y, ano t he r ed uc a t i on a l tool, whic his alreadyin us e , couldpro veto be of moreva l ue thanit;.

is presentlyconsi de red.

Pu r poseofthe StUdy

As ou t l i nedearlie r , the prima ry purposeofthe studyis todetermi n ewhet herthe teache r 's useof ins t r uctio nal obj ectivesat the beginningof the le s s on en ha nces, ha s no effect, ordi min i she sa student's self-e ff ica c y. Th e secondarypur poseis divided into two pa r t s. The first purpos e is to deter minewhet he r

th e use of instructionalobjectives enhances studen t per form ance. The second pu r poseisto determine if the r e is any con nect ioninpe r c e ive d abi l ityand perceived self-efficacyor perc e i v e d abilityand achi e vement .

~

In seekingans werstoth e qu eat Lona outline dLn thepurpose of the stu dy , the foll owing hypothesesare te sted . Theyarestated inth e null form.

1. The reis no signif i cant diffe re nceinthe level of perc e i ved sel f-efficacrbetween tho s e stu de n ts taug ht wi th andtho s e ta ught withoutthe aid of ins t r uc t i o na l objectives.

2. The r e is no significantdi ff ere n c e inth e le v e l of achievement be t we e n tho s e studentstaughtwith and th o s etaught wi thout theaidof instructional objecti ves,

3.Thereis no significan t diff e r e n c e instu de nts' le vel of per ce i v e d self -ef fi c a c yamongst udentsof di ffere nt abilitylevels.

4.There isno significant difference instudents' level ofeemeveeene allOnqstudentsof different abilitylevels.

Cutlifie ofthe Study

Theremaining par t of the studyisdelineat ed in the following manner. InChapt e rII a review of rela t edliterat ure is exa mine d. Chapter III conc e f ns a de scripti on of the ins t r u ments us ed , theprocedure used tocol lectthe da t a , and the plan for analysisofthe data . Chapter IVcontains there sul ts oftheanal ys i s of th edat a. Finally, ChapterVsUlMlarizes the ccnc juetcnsreached 8S a re sul t of the study, and containsrecommendations for futureres e arc h inthis

Chapter II Review of Related Literatu re

Inthischaptertwo areas of research willbe reviewed. First, studiesof self-efficacywillbe examined , followed by work on instructionalobjectives. After definingthe conceptof self-efficacy,three major aspects of the the o r y will be outli ne d. These are the effects it has on indivi d uals ,thefa c t o r s whichinfluenceself-efficacy,and ways inwhich self- efficacy can be changed. Forthe review of ins t r uc t i o na l objectives, af t e r a definition, emphasis will be onthe rationalefo r us a ge and the contribution of ins t r uc t i o na l objectives toeffective instruction .

Self-efficacy

Int r oduc tio n

Theterm self-efficacywas introduced by Albert Band ura in 1977. At that time he used thete r m self- efficacyto refer tope r s o na l jUdge me nt s of pe r for man ce capabilitiesina given domain of activit ythat may con t a i n novel, unp r e di cta b l e , and possil'lystressful

fe atures (Bandu ra, 1977). Todbli nis hthe compl e x ity of thedefi nitio n, h'"late r stat e d, thatperceiv ed self-efficac y was conce r ne dwith·j udgelllent t» of how wellone ca nexec utecoursesof act ionsre qu i r e dto dea l withpros pg cti ve sit ua tio ns" (Band ur a , 1982.

p.122). Both of the se defi niti on s suggestthat Bandura is of theopinionthatspe c i fi c expect a ti on s of one's abilityto perfornl givenactionsca ninfl u e nc ethe person'sattemptat the task.

Similarto Bandura, Schunk (1984a )defines 8e l£- eff i c ac y as "t he perso na l jUdgeme nts ofho~~well one ca npe r f ormactions inspeci fi csi t ua tions tha t may cont ai n ambi gu o us, unp redic t a ble and st ress ful feat ures· (p.29). To addtothis, Schun k 11984b) al s o states thatsel f -ef ficacyrefers to "personal jUdg eme ntsof one'scap a bilityto or ganizeand implementbeh a vi ou rs inspeci fic situations " (p. 48). Inlinewith this, Norw ich (1 987) sta tes that se l f- efficacy jUdge ments are"pers o nal factors that mediate the intera ct i onbetwe en behaviourandenv iro nmenta l fa ctors " (p.384). consequen t ly, an indiv idualdoe snot actin a certainmanner solelybecauseof the si t ua t i on he or she is in. rnee e ed, i t is an individual's

expected performancelevel which direct s his orher act ions (Kirsch , 1986). Therefore , a sel f-efficacy expectati on is "the convictionthat one can suc c e s s f ul l y executethe beha viourrequired to produce the out co me " (Ba nd ura, 1977,p.19 3 ) . Con sequent ly"

self-efficacy ca n be summarize d as one' s jUdgements of howwe llhe orshe canpe rformgiven tasks.

Bandura (197 7 ) alsooutli nes howself-effic a cy va ria t i o n occursalongthr e edi me ns ions. The s e dimens ionsare magnitude}generality and strength.

Accordingto Maddux and Stanley (1986 ), "magnitude of se l f-eff i c a c y , in a hierarchyof beh a viours, refe r s to the number of behavi oral st e ps a person believes hims elfcapableof performing successfully" (p .25 1 ) . Therefore, how closeto successful completion ofa given task a person perceiveshimself or herselfable to achieve, has an af fe c t on the level of self- effica cy. Consequently, taskdifficultycan influence self-efficacy.

Self-efficacyexpectations als o va r y in generality, whichrefers tothe ext e nt towhichit extendsto simil arsituations or otherdomains. Some experi ence smay instill a ge ne r a l i ze d sense of self-

10 efficacy tha t extends beyonda givendomain, whereas othersfo s t e r sit uati o na l specifi c vi e ws of self- efficacy. He n c esome t h ingthat extendsto other domains orsitu atio ns canha v e a much greatereffect on an individual thanso me thing whichonly affects an individual'ssel f-efficacyinone givenare e.

Fin a lly, self-efficacyexpectations var yin st re ng t h. This re f e r s totheconce pt of thestreng th of a pers on' s expectations. Band ura (1917)ou t lines that weak expec tations are easil)"er asedby inc o nsistent experiences, while stro ng ex pecta tions wJ11persevereforlongerperiodsof timethrough inconsiste nt experiences. Consequent ly. i fa person developsa highse ns e of self-effi c a cy, asa resultof repeated success, sud d e n failuremay have littleeffect onthat individuaL Conversely, if a pers on develops a high sense ofse lf-e f fi c a c yas are su ltofone ortwo successes,a sud de nfailu r e lIay ca use considerable damage to hi s or her levelof self-efficacy .

Alt ho ugh self-efficacyis a rel ativel y new term , giventh a t itwas introducedin1977 , ot her workprior toth i s date de alt withsi mil ar concep ts . Muchof th e earlier work dealtwith what isterme d outco me

11 ex pectancy. Ho we v e r, as Band ura(1 97 7 ) expla ins, the termscan not beint erch a n ge d . De s pitethefa c t th at theyboth re f erto personaljUdge me nt s asto whe t heror no t aperson cansucc essf ul lycompletea giventa s k , thereis cons ide rable di ff ere nc e in thetwo . He defi nesanoutco meexpectancy to be "a pe r s o n' s estimat e tha t agivenbehaviourwi ll le ad toce r t ai n outcomes " (p.193 ). He nc e , unlikebeliefsofse lf- ef ficacy, an individ ua l can bel i e v e thata cer tain cou rseof actionwill producethe desi red resu l ts, but unle s s thatperso n has ser iousdoub ts as to whetherhe or shecnn perform wha t isnec e s s aryI theinf ormat i on do e s not influen c e the beh a v i o u r. Co nve r s e l y, with self-eff icacy the beliefsare tho ughttohave a ma jor impac tonthebehavio ur.

~)DIndi v i dua l s

Self -eff icacy,due to its bro a d rangeof inf l ue nc e,has manydi vers e ef fe ctsonindi vidua l s.

"Peo ple ' s be lief s abo ut the i r ope r a tivecapa bi l i t i es fu nc tion asone setof pr oxim al determi nan tsof how theybe ha ve , the irthou ghtpatt erns, and the emotion al rea c t io ns they experfenc ein taxing sit uations"

12 (Bandura, 198 6 ,p. 3 93 ). Such beliefs can affect an individual inseveral ways.

One way inwhich self-efficacycan influence an individual is in his or her choice of activity. Bendure(1977) explains that people tend to avoid ta s ks , which they believe to be beyondthe i r capabilities, but are usua llywillingtoperformtasks which they feel capable of handling. Consequently, self-efficacybeliefs can ha v e a profound effect on an individual. As Bandu ra (1986) adds, any self-efficacy beliefs thatencourage active participationin activities can foster a growthin compete ncies.

Conversely, perceived self-i nadequaciesthat leadto avoidance can hamper developmentof poteneIefIt.Les , and may shield negative self -percept ionsfrom positive cha nge.

Howe ve r , prob lemsalso arise when people judqe themselves to be capab leof given tasks, whenin reali ty theyare not. Th isoverestimation of capability canle a d to needless failureand athwa r t i ng of one'scredibility. Therefore, lit h e self-efficacy jUdgemen tswhicharethe most functional are probably thosethat slight ly exc e e d what one can alreadydo at

13 eny given time- (Bandura, 19 8 6 , p.394). This leads people tounde r t a ke tasks which are attainable, but stil l challengi ng.

Secondly, sel f -efficacycan influence an individ ua l inhis orhe r effort expenditureand persist enceat a giventask. The stronger the percei ve d self-ef ficac y, themore effort andext r a pers i stenc e heorsheshows in attempting ata sk . Ina st u d yco nd uc t edby Ba nd ura and Ce r v o ne (1983), st ud en ts who had self-doubtsof thei r capabi l i ties us ua lly lo were dthe i r stlllnda rdsand consequen tlyexe rted le s s effort thanthosewhowere co n.fid en t ofthe ir ability.

Als oof note, in most instances , the students who had ve ry few self-doubtsexertedex t raeffort, whichle d to increased performance.

Simi larto the notion of increased effort, individ ua lswith highself -e ffic acyare knownto persis t lo nger at give nta s ks. Hi gh l y efficacious individu alspersist longer at a di ff i c ul t taskand also at te mpt mo retasks. Ina meta-analy s e sco nd ucted by Multon, Brown, and Lent (199 1) , it was determ i ned that belie f s ofself -e ffica cy doco nt r ibute toac ad emic persist e nc e. Acco r ding toMulton et a1.,self-ef f i c ac y

14 beliefs were responsible for, on average, twelve percent more persistence at academic tasks.

Similar to the idea of persistence at a given task, persistence over a periodof time is also affectedby an individual'sfeelings of self-efficacy. Lent, Brown, and Larkin (1984) found that students with higher self-efficacy ratings persisted longer in the courses necessary far their intended majorthan those with lower self-efficacy. Consequently, self-efficacy can have a long term effect on an individual, given that success in life is dependent on persistence.

The third way in which individuals can be affected byself-efficacy beliefs, is in their thought processes and emotional reactions. aencure (1989) states that

"self-beliefs of efficacy can enhance or impair performance through their effects on cognitive, affective, or motivational intervening processes"

(p. 729). Hence, a person can be affected in several ways. First, self-efficacy affects an individual's analytic thinking. Bendure. and Wood (1989) report that people with strong beliefs in their problem solving abili ty are highly efficient in their analytic thinking, especially in complex decision making

15 situ a tions. Conversely , thosewho are tr o ub le dwith self- doubtsare erraticintheir ana lyticthinki ng.

This isof lllportanc e given that qua lity ofanalyti c thinking has aneffe c t on performanceaccomplishment s.

Second , "individua ls' perceptionsoftheir ef ficacy influenc ethe types of antic ipato ry scena rios they co ns t r uc t and rei te rate"(Ba n dura , 1989 , p.7 29).

Thosewho havehi ghse l f -eff i c acy visual i z esucc e s s scena r i o s which areus efu l in pro vidingpositive guide s forper f orman c e . These individua ls rehea rsepositive soluti ons toprob lems. Con ve rsely , thosewithlow self-effJ.cacy visua li ze fa il ur e scenari os, whic hwe aken motivat ion . The s e indivi dua ls wou ldfocuson the things that co uld go wrong. Ba ndu raand Adams(1977) out li nethe fact that perc eive d se l f-ef ficacy and cog ni ti ve simu lationaffec t eachot her bidirect io nally . Ahigh perce ption of self-e fficac y nurtur es cog n itive cons truc t i o nsof effectiveacti o ns, whi le cogni tive repeat ing of ef f ica c i ousacti o ns st re ng t he nself - pe rce ptsofeff ica cy.

The thi r d cognitiveprocessaffe cted by se r r- efficacy is cog n i ti ve motivation . Individuals are partiallymotivatedby theirself-beli efs of effi ca cy.

16 Specifically, "people motivate themselves and guide their actions anticipatorily through the exercise of forethought" (Bandura, 1989, p,729). On this basis, people decide on the tasks to attempt, and the effort to exert in accomplishing these eeexe. The higher a person's level of confidence in his or her ability, the more difficult task he or she will attempt, and the more effort and persistence he or she will show at attempting to complete that task successfully.

Factors Affecting Self-efficacy

An individual's self-efficacy is affected in several different ways by several different sources.

According to Schunk (1991), "p e o p l e acquire information to appraise self-efficacy from their performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, forms of persuasion, and physiological indexes" (p.208).

The first, and most powerfUl, influence on self- efficacy expectancies is performance experiences (MaddUX and Stanley, 1986; Schunk, 1984b; Lent, Lopez,

& Bieschke, 19 91 ) . In particular, clear past successes

and failures impact on an individual 'sself-efficacy. In a study conductedbyLopez and Lent (1992), i t was

17 dete rmi ned that past mat hematicsperfo rma ncesimpacted on st ude nts' appraisalof the irmathe maticsabil ities. Failur e expe rien c e s were foundto significantly diminis hhig hschoo l students' con fi d e nce in their present coursework, as wel l as deterthemfr om enrolmentin fut ure mat hematicscou rses. These results arecc n a i.et. ent; wit hthat of Locke,Frederick, Lee, and Bahka (1984), Norwich \1986),and Hackett, Betz, O'Hal loran, and Romac (1990)who determined in their studiesthat thereis a defin!te correlationbetween task performa nce and self-efficacy.

Simi larto the conc lusionsreachedbyot he r s , Band u ra(1986)exp lains that successraises sel f efficacyand repeated fail urete nds tolo werit.

However, he goes on to point out thatin the event of repeated suc c e s s , occasional failure will have li t t l e effec t an a person'SjUdgementofhis or her ability.

The r efo r e , the perceptsof se l f -effi cacywillus ua lly remainstable.

Second, vicarious expe r i en c e s whichincl ud e observatio nal le a r ni ng , imitat ion,and modellingI

affect anindi vidu a l ' s self-ef ficacy . According to Schunk (1986)the r e are six vicariousinfluenc e s on

18 se lf-effic a cy. Theseare attr ibute si milarity, per c e i ved compe tence, number of models, strategies mod ele d , information ontask demands, andoutcomesof mode ls' actions. In thissection,the te rm "mod el" is synonymous wi th the individual being observed.

Similarity toamodel can ha ve an effecton an individual 'sself-efficacy. The mainatt ri b ut es are similarityin age , gender , backg ro und and even co mp etenc e. SchunkandHans on (1985), subs tantia ted

this ide a1n an experiment they conducted .Also , simil a r i t y is directly linkedto the second vicarious experience, percei v edcompetence. Ind i v i dua l s judge their sel f -ef f i cacythro u g hthe above men tio ned comparisonto others.

The third vicarious or obse rvet.Lc najfacto r is the numbe r of models. Bus s ey andBandura (1 9 8 4 ) state tha t obse r ving mult i plemodel s , rathertha n asingle model, isone means of increas ing pe r c e i ve d simila rity. When examini ng multipl eindi vid ual s , sing le successes and failu resare not as mea ningf ul. Rather, it is the gr oupas a whole, onwhic h thepe r s on judgeshis or he r capabi l ities .

19 The fourth vicarious influence is modelling strategies . In a study conducted by Schunk andGunn (198S), itwasdetermined thatwhen a model cutn Lned the importanceofta s k strategies, an individual's perceptionof self -efficacy was hi gh e r than when it was omitted.

Withrespect to thefifth vicarious influe n c e ,i t is beneficial for ind ivi d ual s to convey information regardingta sk demands. This involvesstatements such as "howthe use of a particularstrategyca n help overcome thepr o ble m" , and "t hi s problemisn't too difficult". Byunderstanding the demands placedonan individual, he or she will likely ha ve a more realistic le ve l of self-efficacy.

The sixthvicariousfactorwhich affects an individ ual's self-efficacyis the outcome of models' actions. Schunk (1986) explainsthatwhethera model succeedsor failshasan impo r t ant influenceonthe observer. As aendu ra(1981) outl ine s , this is also dependentonperceivedsimilarityto the model. For examp le, i fthe model is perceived to be of equal or higherabili ty^I and has success wit h the par -eLcu jar task, then the observer'sself-efficacywill be high.

20 The third infl uenceon an individual 's perceived self- efficacyis ver balpersuasion. Schunk (1986) pointsout that verba l persuasionboos ts individuals' con fi d en c e and self-eff icacyenoughfor themto exert suffic ienteffor t to succeed . Unfor t una tely, unre a listic:beliefswhi c h ma ybe form e d throu g h. ver b a l pe r suasion areaninvitatio n for fail ure, and us ua ll y leadto lowere d self-effic a c y .

Madduxand Stan ley (19 8 6) point out, "v e r bal pers ua s i o n isinfluen c e dby fac torssuchas exper t ness, tru s t wort hine s s, and attr ac tivenessof thesource"

(p.20S0). Similar to the ideaof modelling, verbal pe r su a s i o n hasthe most effec t when a personis confident tha t the indiv i d ual who is verbalizingis competent and honest.

Ba nd ur a (1977 ) citesellOtionalarou s alasthe fo urt h influenceona person 'sself-efficacy.

St r e s sful sit ua tio ns elicit va r iousemot i onal arousals whichcanIepeeeon",n ind i vidua l 'sself -c onf i dence. He (1986 ) als o sta tes that "because hi gh aro usal usuallydebilitlllte sperformance, pe opl e are mo r e inclinedtoexp ect succe s s whe n they are no t beset by ave rs ive ar o u s althan if they areten s e end vi s cerally

21 agit ated- (p.401). Giventhatpeople use their physiologicalar o usaltojudge anxiety ,the lack of such negati veemotions can lea dtoan he ighten",dse tr-

effic a c y . Ba ndu r aand Adams (191 7) alsofound th e Sallie tobetr ue .

Chan gj Ijg Sa]f-eff icacy

As idefromthe fa c t o r s outlined abo vewh ichaf f ec t self-e ff icacy, there arewa ysinwhic hself-effica c y can beenha nc ed. Two ed uca tiona l practiceswhic hmay al te r individuals' sel f-e f f i c a c y arese tt ing goa lsand off eri ngrewards . Inth i s sectiontheva ri o us aspects of goal setti ng- wil l be re v i ewe d.

Schu nk (198 4a ) sta t es,-goal se t ti nginvo l v es establishi nga standar dor objectivetoserve enth e aim of one's acti o ns. (p.30 ) . Once the st and a r d is determined, it isthenthe task of the individualto achievethi s. Wit h re spect to goal se tti n gmo st resea r c hhascentredar o un dfo u r pr ope r t i e s. Th e sear e goal speci f icity, di ff i CUlty , pr o x i mi t y , end whe t her thegoalsareself -set or assigned.

Goal specificityref e rsto thepre ci s i on usedin instructing the stude n tsasto whatis expectedof

"

the m. Ge ne r a l goals, suchas"tryyour be st" , ar e vague and ten d tomake it difficultfor the studen t to jUdge wha t is ex pectedof hi lll or her. Specific goal s, however, ar e raorepreciseand enabl ea stude nt to assesswhe ther or not heor she issucce s sfu l at complet ing the req ui redtas k.

Schunk (1990) rep orts that spec if ic goalspromote a hi gh e r self-ef fi c acythan do generalgoal s. Themain reasonfor this isthatprogressis easier forthe stu d e n t to gauge when gi v en speci ficgo a ls.

Conseque ntly, as progre s s is obs e rved, thele ve l of one'sself-effic acytendsto incre a s e. This isof impor ta nce,give n tha t an incre a s einsel f-e f f ica c y can leadto increased perfornan c eandgreaterskill tlcquis i t ion. ThissupportsfindingsbyMa therl y (1986), whoalso found the same tobe true .

Goal proxim i tyref ers tothe le ng t hoftimeduring whic h goalsar e tobe at tained. proximal, or short term goals,canbeac hie ve d ra p idl y,whereas distant goals take a grea t e r le ngth of timeand can spanweeks, monthsor even years .

In a study conductedby Banduraand Schunk (198 1), subgoals ,which are actuallyproximalgoal s , heightened

23 perceived self-efficacy. Also, the r e was no increase in the perceivedself-ef ficacyof students who ha d distantgoals. As Schunk (19838)contends, the main reason for thi s result is that itis mucheasier to gauge progress foran irnmedi6te goal thani t is for more distantgoals.

Stock and Cervone (1990) found similar results in anex pe ri ment theycon d uc t e d. They determined that subgoals raisedperceivedself-efficacyas 500n as they we r eassigned, whereas distantgoals did not. They also found that self-efficacywas heightened af t e r re a c hing each proximal subqoaL. Forthose whowere not assigned aubqcaLs, self -efficacyremainedconstanteven afterre a c h i ng the same point . These findings are con sistent with other research demonstratinga positive influence of proximalgoal atta i nmenton performanc e expectatio ns and self-efficacy(Sc hunk, 1983bi Manderlink & Harackiewicz, 1984).

Goaldi ffic ultyalso affectsindividual s' self- efficacy. Schunk (1983 c ) conducted a study in which studentswere giveninstr uctionon lon g division problems . Theywer-e giveneither difficult but at tainablegoals,or easygoals. The results showed

24 that childr en who re c e i v e d diffic u lt go al s displayed the highestself -efficacy. Giventha t anindividua l hassufficient ability to complete the assignedtask, difficult goalsfosteran inc r e a s e d self-efficacywhLch cont r ibutes tomore produc t ive performance.

Fi nally , the distinctio nbetweenself-setgoals and assignedgoals has an effect onsel f - efficacy.

Schu n k (1985) te s t edth e hy p o t h e s i s thatself-setgoals lead tohi g her self- ef f icacytha ngoals assignedby another ind ividual, suchas a teac her. The results fr omthe studyconfirmedthis, asit was established that self-setgoals ledto highe r self-efficacyand also hi g her performance leve ls.

Instructional Ob je ct i ve s

Introd uct ion

Over the pas t thi r t yye a r s , one ofthe most signi fic a nt inst ructiona l tools hasbe en the instr uctio na l objective. The term instr uctio r.a l objectivevariesfr omperso nto person, but remai ns consiste nt inthatit des cribe s etihe classof per formances tha t maybeus e dtodet e rmi newhether the

25 implied humancapability ha s been learnedII (Gagne&

Briggs, 1979,p.l21). In line with thi sdefinition there have beenmany defi nitions of the term.

AccordingtoMa ge r (198 4), the term objec ti ve refers to "a description of a performance you want learners to be able toexhibit before you considerthem co mpe t e nt " (p.3). Similar ly, Eisner (197 9)defines instructiona l objectivesas st a tements which"sp e cify unambiguously theparticularbe ha vi o u r (skill, ite m of knowledge , and so forth)the student istoacquire afterhavi n g completed one or more learning activities"

(p.14). Otherind ivi d ua l s focuson the specific informationwhich teachers attempttoconveyto students . For example, Mut h , Glynn, Britton, &Graves (1988) define instructionalobjectivesas Itei ther statementsor questionsde signedtopoi nt out the important information toidentify" (p.31 5 ).

The problem of being able to measurethe reSUlting behaviour or outcomehas been a major consideration whe n considering instructio nal objectives. To overcome thi s prcbrea, it is necessary for obje ctivesto be expressedin behavioral terms. As scphen, Eisner,

sulli" , ~m, andTyler (1969) st a te,"a properlyst a t e d

26 behavioral objec t i v e mustdes cribewithout ambiguity the nat ur eof lea rnerbehaviour or productto be eeesured« (p . 37 ) . consequently, someindividuals identify instructional ob j e c t ives by the term behavioralobj ectives. Kibler, Ba r k e r, &Miles (1970) de fi n e behav ioral objective s to be "statem entswhich de scribe wh at st ude n ts will be able todo after a pres cribedunit of inst ruction" (p.l ) . Analogousto this, Tayl or (1 98 7) defines a behaviora l objecti veto be a statement of "whatthe lea rn er sh o u l d be ableto do at the end of the instructi onalsequence " (p.232) . Also, Eisner(197 9) defines a behav ioralobject i ve to be "an intent communicated by a statement describing a prop o s ed change in a learner-a st a te me n t of wh a t the learner is to be like when he has successfully completed a learningexperience"(p.9 4 ). Gi ven the closenature of the termsinstructional and behavioral objectives, for purpose of thisstudy, theterm ins t r uc t i o nal object ivewill be used to refer to all intended learning outcomes that have been stated in behaviora l terms.

27 Ratig nal e ForUs ingIn s t. r uc t i o nal Object ives

Popham(197 1) claimsthat"without ques tion the mo s t impo r t a n t instruc tiona l advance dur ing the 19 60 5 wasa widespreadadvocacy and increaseduse of measurab leins tructionalobjectives" (p.ll). Some of themain reaso ns for making suc ha bold statement are out lin ed inthis section.

One reasonfo rus i n ginstr u c t iona l objectives is for purposesof teache raccountabil ity. Current ly, te a c hers are inc reasi ngl y beinghe ld accountable for the pe r f o r man c e of stude ntsinthe classroom. Using ins t ruc tional objectivesis oneway for a teac her to jus ti f yhis or her eval ua t ionof st ude nts. Popham (1987)contendstha t theus e of instruc tio nal ob jec t ives le a ds toamore defensibleevaluation.

Teache rs ar e able to show thatthe y are eva luating the mater i a l in U'.eappropriatemanne r , by eva l uat i ngwhat is outlined in the instruct i o nal objectives . conse quen t l y, st uden tscan receiveamoreprecise evaluat ion.

Second, theus eof inst ru ctio na l objectivesca n allowfor moreeffectivele ar ning on thepart ofthe stude nt. First andfore mos t , st ude ntsknow wha t is to

2.

be le arned. Mut het;et. (1988)point out thatth i s enablesstude ntsto focus the i r atte ntio non certai n ideas. This is in line withanearlier studyconducted by Britton at a1. (1985). At thi s time, the y demonst rated that objectivesincrease theamountof tim e studentsspendon objectiverelevant information.

Thissupports there s ult s from a surveyconductedby Towle andMe r ri ll (19 75), at which timei twas determinedthat gr a du ate stud e n tsusedinst ruc tiona l objectives tohelp disti ng uis h the relevantfromthe irre levantma te rial. As Kibler at al. (1974) po i nt out , thisis importantbecausestude ntsare sparedthe frust r a ti on and time -consuming effort of guessingwhat is expectedofthe m, in give nins truc t ionalsitua tions.

Al s o, it wou ldseem log i ca l that st udents learn more ea s i lyif the yknow wha t the y have to learn, and also kno whowthe y areexpected tode mo nstr a t e their knowledge. Learni ng is alsomade easierbecause st u de ntsareableto use instructional objectivesto gu i de le arn ing . As Knirk and Gust a fson (1986) suggest, objec tivescan alsoserve as exposito ry advance or ganizersfo r un fami liar material. Thismakes i t easie r for st Udyi ng andle a rn ing new materia l. Related

29 to this, students use instructional objectives for self-evaluationpurposes. Students are able tojUdge how well they are doing at the end of a unitof work , or at any time throughout the unit. As Towleand Merr i l l (197 5 ) sug ges t , ge ne r a t i n g questions forse l f- evaluation isoneof the mainpurposes of instructional ob j e c tive s .

Also,effectivele a r ni ngis facilitatedbya feeling ofsecuri t y on the part of thest ud e n t. For exa mp l e , Merrill andTo wl e (1 9 7 6) su g ges t thatst u de nt anxietywillbe lowerif students know what isex p ec t e d of them.

The reasons outlined abovefor enhancingeffective learning may also beof importance in relati onto self- efficacy. In order for a person to determine whe t he r or not heor sheca n successfullycomplete a given task, i t may be beneficialfor that person to know what isexpected. I fit isthe case that instructional obje ct ives,whi ch relate newmaterial to old, are used, the individualwill likely make a mo r eac c u ra t e assessment of his or her ability to complete the gi ven task. This affects self-efficacy in that moreprecise judqemant; ismade.

30 The third re a s on for usi nginstructional objectives is educational planni ng or curr:i.culum planning . Curric u l umplanningmay be positively affectedby theus e of instructionalobjectives.

Curricul urn planners are better able to arrange sequence of coursesoruni t s of instruction, when clearly specified instructionalobjectives are defined (Kibler et al., 1974). Also,theus e of instructional objectivesallows for more effectivepro f e s s i on a l shari ngof ide a s and material. Teachers reced ving assistancefr o m colleagues tend to findi tmore helpful wheninstr uc tio nalobjectivesaccompanyunits of work.

This enablesone individual to tell ano t he r exactly what is being taught.

The li s t of reasons for using instr uctio nal objectives is extensive. Inthe rationaleoutlined above, the purposesor reasons areno t priori zed, mai n l ybecause allofthese are important for accurate ins t ru cti o nand evalua t ion,as well as st uden ts ' sense of assuranceas to whatis expected of them. Closely related totherati ona l e , isthe final sectio nin this re v i e w, whichis effective inst ructionth ro ugh the us e of instr uc tiona l objectives.

31 Effec ti ve Inst r uction

Ma ge r (1 984) states, "ins t r uc t i on iseffect iveto the degreethatit succeeds incha ng ingst udents , in desired direc tio ns , -ndnotin unde s ire ddi r e c t i o nsIt

(p. l). Consequent ly,-·ifany of thes estipulations are not adhe red to,the n instruction is not deemed ef f ectiv e. Giventhatinthete a c hin g profession ineffectiveinstr uctionisnot acceptab le, i tis necessary for instruction to be producti ve. The likelihoodof effect i venessis inc reased through the useofinstr uction a lobj ectives. Thisissu ppo r t e dbi' Duchaste l and Merri ll (19 7 3 ) , whopoint outthat instruc tionalobject ivesare alwaysne ve r detrimental, and they give directio nto thete a c hi ng process.

Frudden andSt.o w (1985)state that the selection of instructional objectivesfor a lesson shouldbe the firstpr e instruct ional planni ngact. Allfurther plann i ng should the n be relat e d totha t decision. Once instruc tional objectivesarein place, thete a c he r ca n thengatheral lSUbsequent necessitiesfor an effective lesson.

In order for objectivestobe usefut, they must maintaince r taincha ra cterist ics. Gronlund, (197 8 )

32 statestha t whendev e l op ing ins tr uc tionalob j ec ti v es it is essentialto "sta te theobjecti ve s sothe y cl e a rl y con ve ythe learn ing ou t c o me s expectedfro lllth e ins t r u c t io n" (p. 3S). In an experiment cond uc tedby Dalis (19 70 ) , it was determinedthatspec ifica lly articulatedobj ect ive s weremore effective, and led to higherstude ntachievementthanva g ue obj ectives. Th i s is of rele van c e to the presen t st udy, given that set tingspecifi c,proximalgoals hasbe en shownto have a positive effe cton st ude nt self-e ff icacy. The cor r ec t wordus ag e is an important aspe ct of writing spe c ific objecti ves. The studentmus t kno w, fromthe ob j ec t i v e , exactly what is expectedof hi mor her.

Al so , forins truc t i o na l obj ectives tobe effec t i v e , the ymust co v er alllev e l s of learn i ng,from knowledgethroughtoevaluation. If the higher leve ls of learning, suc has syn t hes i s andeva lua tion are omitt e d , which is someti mesthe case. indi vid uals are not given thechallengeof higherle vel thin k i ng and learning .

I fthe appropriate instruc t iona l objectives are in place , i t is thennecessarythat the inst ruction itself parallel the inst r uc tiona l objectives. Fruddenand

33 Stow(198 5) supp o r t this idea, in claiming that student activitiesmust be relevantto theinstruct ional objectives. Otherwise,the teaching practice will not be asef fect ive.

FinallyI effective instructi o nmustbe comp l e t e d with valid testing . As Gronlund(l978) points cue, for vali dtest results, whichisone of the major contributorsto student evaluation , "t h e sample of behaviourmust be in harmonywith both the ins t r uc t i o n al objectivesand thesub j e c t matter emphasi zed inthoLnetruct.Lon'' (p.48). Cons equ ently , ifthetest qu estio n s parallel the intended learning outc omes , a true Ind Lc e t.Lon of what the students have learnedwillbe obta ined.

I fall of these pointsare con sideredand followed, successfulinstructionis still not guarante8d. However, with tha prcparuseof in s tr uc t i o na l objectives, effectiveteachingstrategies and fair evaluat ion, i tismuch more likelyto be e.ffectivethan if any of theseare miss i ng.

34 Summary

As can be seenfr o m the synopsis of th e literature coveri ngthese exte nsive top i c s , muchconsideration has beengiven tothe conceptsof self-efficacyand instruct iona l objectives. Despite the fact thatthere maybe a connectionbetweenthe m, littl e researc h ha s beendoneon the twocollectively. Fo r this reason, theresearcher fe el s that at thi s time it is beneficial to do an inves tiga tiontode t ermi n e whether the use of ins t r uc t i ona l object ives ha s anyeffect on student self-efficacy. Also, the outline of the study le nds itself to investigateotherquestions relatingto self- efficacy and instructionalobjectives. The re s e a r c h pz-ev.LcuaLyconducted on these topics now servesasa basisfromwhic h to beginthe prese ntst ud y.

35 ChapterIII

Me tho dology

In this chap te r a descriptio nof the des ig'!1ofthe st udyandthe procedures us e d to carryoutthe study are presented. It includesa descriptio nof the sa mple , instr uments, and pr o c e d ur e.

ThesUbjec ts forth e studywere fou r intact classesof grade ninemathe maticsstuden tsatDis c overy Collegiate Hig h Schoo l , Bonavista. The number of students ineach clas s, that took part in the study, were19, 20, 21, ene20 respectively. The actual class sizeswerelar g er ,but dueto irregu larattend a nce, some stude n ts di d no t par ticipate. The stude n tswere assi g ned to classes bytheprincipa l. This deci s i o n wa smade on the basisof past performance and beh aviour . The ywe r e assigneJwith aneff ort madeto ha ve four classeswithrelative lyequal numbe r s of stude n tswit h re s pectto abi lity and behaviour. Conse qu e nt l y , the st uden tswerehe t erog ene ous lygroll". ~d andclasses numberedone, two , th r e e an dfour. Classes

36 one and two representtheco nt rol group endwe re taught withoutthe use of instr.uctionalobj e ct i ves, similar to the type ou t l i ne d by Gro n lun d (1 978 ). Cl a sses thre e and fourre pr e s entthe expe r i ment al group and were taught withtheai d of ins t ru c tio nal object i ves. Table 1 giv e s abreakdownof the sa mplewit hres pect to method of ins truc t i o n andgende r.

Ta b le 1

Gr oup , Tre a t ment and Sexof Stud en t s

Clas s Gro up

Sex

Ma l e Female Tre atme nt

1 Con trol 1 2 Co nt rol 2

10 No Inst ru c t ional Objectives 12 8 No Instructiona l Objective s 3 Experimental1 9 13 Instructionalobj e ctive s 4 Experimental2 10 10 Instructional Objectives

~

The mea s ur escon s istedof a mathematicsability questionn aire, four se l f -e f f i c acyquestio nn a ires. two

37 prete s t s , andtwopo stte sts. The mathemat ics abil i ty que st i on na i r ewa s ad minis t ered twi c e, onceat the beg i n n ing andag a inattheend of the study (see Ap pe ndix A). Thequestionnai recontained five questionspertai nin g to the stude nts' perc eiv e d mat hematicsability. Each question ha d a 7po i n t rati n gscale, ranging from verypo o r perceptionsto ve r yhi ghperceptions. Consequently,whenscoringthe questionn a ire , thehi g h e r the score themore capablea pe r s o n perceivedhimse lfor herselfto be. No t etha t due tothe wording, que s t i o ns one and twowere scored inv e r s ely.

Thefou r self-efficacyque s t i on na ire s each contained twe nt yit e ms (see Appendix B). Questionnairesoneandtwo pertainedtole s s o n one, whilequestionnaires thr e e and fourpertained to lesson two. All four ques t ioDDlIire!lcon tained itemssimillir toth o se the studen ts wo uld completein the prac tice portion of thele s s o n s. The st uden ts ha d tode cid e how conf i dent theywer e thllt the y couldget the correct answerto eachquest ion. The st udents hadseven re s po nses to choose fr om. The responsesran ge dfrom one wh ichrepresen ted "d e fi nitelyco u l d not getthe

3B answer" to sevenwhich represented"defio!telycou ld get theans we r-u. Al l que stio ns were worded sothat the scoringcouldbe doneby simplyadding the numb er circledfo r each quest ion. There fore, a scoreof seven wasalways the highest. Thehi gh e s t po s s i b l e score on eachofthe questionna i reswas 14 0whil e the lowest po s s i bl e score was 20.

Totestfo r reliabi lityoneach of these question nai res, an in ter na l consistency me a su r e , the Cron b achAlp h a Coefficien t. , was de termined. The res ults showe d veryhi gh reliability for all four self- efficacyque s tionnaires(question naire1,a=.95;

ques t ionnaire2,a =.98; ques tio nnaire3, a ~.98 ; questionnaire4:a = .99). Cronbachalphas th i s high sug g e s t thatstudentsare respondingconsistentlyto the questions. Thisisund e r s tand able , giventhat withina na rr ow domain, self-efficacy is afa i rl y stableconstruc t, meani ng that stude n ts have a fair ly cl ear judg e me n t abou t theircapabilit y to performthe tasks.

The two pretests and twopo s tte sts weredesigne d onth e same lines asthe self-effica c y que st i o nn ai r e s intha t they eachcontai ne d twen ty que st i o ns (see

39 Appen di x C). For eac hof the te sts , the studentswere expected to find as many correc t solutions to the que st i o ns as po s s i ble . Thetests were scored on the ba s i s of eac hques t ion be i ng eitherco r r e c t or incorrec t . The refore , the hi g he st possiblescore on eac htest was twentyandthe lo we s t possiblescore was

To check th e s e testsfo r rel i ability,agai na Cronbach Al pha Coefficient was determi nedfor each one.

The re s ultssho we d high consistency fo r thesetestsas well (p r e te st 1, Q' .. .79;pr e t e s t 2, a- .8 9; posttest I, a " .90;po s tte st2,a =.82 ).

Fourclasseswere used forthe researchstudy. Two classeswere taught with the ai d of instructiona l objectives. 'l'he te a chers inth e s e cl asseswouldbe gin each lessonbynamingthetopic and the n wri ti ng the instruct i onal objectiveson the whiteboa r d. The st udentsweretoldthatthis waswhatthe y werftl expectedto know how todo by the endofthe le s s on. Theywere als o ins tr uc ted towrite these ob j ectivesin thei r noteboo ks. The te ache rswou ld then repeat the s e

40 ins t ructi o n a l ob jectives throughout the les s o n, in order toremindthe stude ntswhat they shou ldbe le a rning.

Theothertwocla s s e s were taugh twithout the aid of instructio na l objectives. These classesweretaught bythete a c her sim plyna mingthe topic and then begi n ning instruc tion . Unli k e theexpe rLmen t.a .lgroup , the stude n tsin the s e classes di dnotknow inadva nce what the ywe r eexpect ed tole ar n th rou g hpartic ipat ion in the le s s o n.

All fo ur groups inthe study spentsix,si x ty minu teclasses on the materi al on which the study was bas ed. The se classesconsistedof instruc tio n, pra ct i c e, cor rec tio nand ex plana tio n,and administ rationof que stio nna i re s and te s t s.

The studyconsistedof twosectionsof wor kon coordina t e geomet ry. Pri o r to beginning le s s o n one, the st uden tswere askedto comp le teamathe ma t i c s abilityque stionn a i r e . Oncethiswas completed, the teac he rs the nbeganles s on one. The co ntrol gr o up were si mply tol dthatthe sect ion de alt wit h "s l ope of a li ne". Th e expe ri menta l gro upwereto ld tha t the sec tionde a l t with esLcpe of a line" and wer-e qkven the

41 inst ruc tio nal ob j e c t i ve sfo r the section (s e e Ap pe n dix D). Af ter the int roduc tionofth e sectionbot hgroups were gi v enSelf-e ff i c a cy Questionnaire1. Th e stude nts wereask e d to determi ne ho wcon fid e nt they were that th e y would beab l e to get the correct answe rto the questio ns aftercomplet ingthe section . It was explain ed tothe mthat the sect ionwouldbe comp lete af te r the yhadre c e ive d instruction, prac t i c e , and correctionan dexpla na t ionof the exa mples.

Afte rco mp letio nofth e questionna i re the students weregiv e n Pretest1. Next, the teache rsof both gro upsproceededwi thclassroominstruction ofthe sect ion. Th e lesson pl an was devel o pedby the researc herandwas identical for both the contro l and expe rime n t a l groups .

Af tercompletio nof the lessonthestudents we r e gi v e n Self-e fficacyQuestion naire2. Thenthete a ch e r s gave the stud e nt sPo s tte st 1. It contained thesame twen t y questionsthatwere onQues tio n naire2. The stude nt sha dto do as many aspo s s ibl e correctl y. This si g nified th e end of th e firs t section .

Af ter le s s ononewa s completed, the followin g class theteache rs moved dire ctl ytoles s ontwo , the

42 fina l section fo r th e st udy. As wi t h le s son one, the cont r o l groupwere simply to l dthe topic being covered in thele s s o n, whichwas "de t e rmi ning the len g th of line segments ". Agai n,the experimenta lgroupwere toldthisand also gi ve nth e ins tructiona l objectives fo r the section (s e e Appendix D). Afterthe introd uctionof the sectionbothgro upswere given Sel f -e f fic acyQuestionnaire3. As wit hSelf-efficacy Questio nnaire1,the studentswere asked todetermi ne how confi de n t they were th ey would be abl e to get th e correc t answer to thequestio ns after completi ngthe lesson .

Afterco mpl etio n ofthi s questio n naire , the studen tswe r e administeredPre tes t 2. Af tercomplet ion of the pretest, thete a ch e r s of both gr o ups proceeded withclass room instruc t i o n of the section. Again, tile le s s on plan wa s devel opedby the researcherand was identical for both th e con trol and experi mentalgroups.

Whenthe le s s o n wascompletedthestudentswere given themathema t i cs abi l ityquestion naireagain. The n, the st ude nts we r e asked to completeSelf-ef fica cy Questionnai re 4 and to complete thest udy, the stude nts weregive n Posttest2.

43 Wit h respect to ati me fr a me for the study, it was compIe t.ecl insix60 minut e clas s e s. One additional poin t whichneedsto be addressed, isth e lengthof time allocatedforthe administrationof each ofth e s e ins trumen ts. GiventhEitthegr ou p s were

heteroge neouslygroupe d , therewas a wide variety of ability ineach class. For thi s reaso n, no specific timeli mi t was set. Theteachers were instructedec givethe studentsthe amount of time ne c e s s a r y to complete all partsof the ques tion nairesandte s t s.

The remainingtwo chapterscentre aroundthe results of the studyandwhat reco mme nd a t i o ns can be draw n fromthesere s ults .

44 Ch ap te r IV

Ana lysis of Data

The mai n purpos e of thisst udywas to determi ne whethe r the use of inst ruc t ionalobjectivesin classroom instruc t I on had any effecton stude nt self- efficacy. Ot he r seconda ry ai mswere investi ga ted as well. Th es e include d whe th e r the use of instructional objec tive s had anyeff ec t onstUde n t performance, whetherthe r e was any relationbetweenpe r ce i ve d abilityandpe r c e i ve d self-e ffica cy,and whet he r there was any relat ionbetween pe r c e i ve d abilityand levelof achievement. Th i s chap ter give s a detai ledanalysisof the data collectedduringtheresearchand the re s ul t s ofte sting thehypot he s e s .

Hypo the sis 1

Hyp o t he s is: rnexe isnosignificantdiffere ncein studen ts ' lev el of self -efficacybetwee n thos e ta ught with the aid of ins tr uc t i ona l objectives and thos e taugh t wit ho ut.

45 The hypothesis was tested usingaset of between group comparisons. More specifically, a twoway repeated measures ANOVA with group membership as a between groups faceor and time of test as a repeated measure was used. It is necessary to note that the interaction effects are of most interest, so these are the statistics reported in this study. Also, to assist in showing that the groups were evenly matched, a between groups comparisonwa s pe r-for-med on the self- efficacy scores for the first questionnaire in both Lesson 1 and Lesson 2. It was determined from these resul ts that there was no significant difference,at the time of pretest, in the self-efficacybetween groups .in Lesson 1 (F=1.9 7 , P>.OS) or Lesson 2 (F:::3.74,

P>.OS).

In the ANOVA for Lesson 1, the scores on Self- efficacy Questionnaire1,administered before instruction, were comparedwith those on self-efficacy Questionnaire 2, administered after instruction. Table 2gives the means and standard deviations of these questionnaires for boththe controlandexperimental groups.

46 Ta bl e 2

Means an dStandardpeviations of self-efficacy Questionnaires (Lesson1)

Questi onnaire! ouest.I o nnet re

,

Group Mean St a ndard Mean Standard pe y i a t ion Deviation

Control 81.33 21.40 94.71 29.8 0

Experimental 88.78 25.76 10 7.37 24.25

An analysisof the interactioneffects shewedno statisticallysignificant difference inth e variati on of scores(F-O.7 4 , P>.OS ). Hence, thescoreson the que s t i o n n a i r e didnotch a n ge differently between the two groups. Consequent ly,on the basisof these re s ul t s the hypot hesiswould no t be ce jeceed. However, ther e were somede s c r i p t ive differe nces,whichwere not statist icallydetectabl e. The experimenta l gr oup di d show slightly hi ghergains in self-ef ficacythan did the cont ro l group. In l inewit hthis, Lesson 2 of the study showed statistica l resultsdifferent fromthos e inLe sso nL The scores of self-efficacyQuestionnaire

47

3 were compared to those of self-efficacyQuest i onnaire 4. Table3gives the means and st a ndard deviations of the results of these questionna i resforboth the controland experimental groups.

Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations of Self-eff i cacy Questionnaires {Lesso n 2\

Questionna ire3 Questi onnaire4 Group Mean Standard Mean St a nd a r d

Deviatio n De v i at Ion

Control 86 .05 27.52 89.79 25.09

Experime ntal 97.9 3 26.34 114.17 22.15

An analysisof the interaction eff e c t from this part of thestudy yieldeda statist icallysignificant variationinthescoresof the que st i onn a ires (F=a. 16, P< .OS). Therefore the scoreson theque st io n n a i r e s did cha nge differently betweengroups. Hence from this partof the study,thehy po t he sis would be rejected ccneequent ry, from the combined results of the two

48 partsofth e study, the hypothesis can be par tially accept e d. Thereisno t enoughconclusiveevi d e nce to eithe r full y accept or reject the hypothesis. There maybe se veralre a s o n s forthe s eva ri e d results. A detai l e dexpla nation of the possible reasons for such re sults isgiven11'1th e nex t chapte r.

Hypothesi s 2

Hypothesi s : There isno sign if i c an t difference in the le vel of achieve men t betwe e n th o s e stu den ts tau g ht with th e aidof in structio nal objectives andtho s e ta u g ht withou t.

This hypothe s i s was tested as well using a se t of betweengroup compariso ns . Again,<!IItwo way re pe ate d measur es ANOVAwithgroupmembershipas a between groups factor and ti me ofte st as are pe a t e d measu re was used. Again, to assist in showing tha t the groups wereeven l y match ed , a betwee ngr oupscomparison was performed on thepr ete stscores forbothLe s s o n1 and Lesso n2. It wasdeterminedfrom the s ere sults that ther e was no si gnifi can t difference intheachievement

49 betweengroupsinLesson 1(F=1. 18, P>.O S )or Les s on 2 (F=0.32 , P>.05) pri ortothe beginningof the lesson.

In the ANOVA on Lesson 1, the scores on Pretest I, admin i s t e r ed before instruction , werecompared wit h those on Posttes t 1, adminis t e redafte r instructi o n.

Ta b l e 4gives the means and stand a r d de viations of thesetestsforboth the controland expe rimental groups.

Tabl e 4

Means and St a n d a r d Deviat io nsof Pret e stand Postt es t

Pretest 1 Pos t t est 1 Group Mean St a n d a r d Mean St a n d a r d

Deviati on Deviat ion

Cont r ol 1.54 1.48 10.39 4.90

Experime nta l 1.87 1.31 13.43 5.82

An analysis of the intera ction eff e c t showed a si gn i fi c a nt difference in the resultsof thetests for both gr oups (F=4 .6 4 ,P<.OS ). Thismeansthat the

so scor es fro m thetwogro ups di d ch angediffere ntlyfroll the pr e tes t tothe pastte st . On the basis of the s e re s ultsthe hypot hesiscan be re j e cted. Similarly , the re sults fro.the secondpar t of thestudy, showed cons ist en t resul ts. The scoresof Pretest 2were compa r e d totho se ofPo sttest 2. Ta bl e 5gi ve s the meansandstanda rd de viati onsof there sult s ofthese tests for both thecontro l andexperiment a lgroups.

Ta ble 5

Me ans and Stl>ndardpeviationsofPr e t e s t And Post t e st.

prg tes t 2 Posttest 2

Gr o up Hea n Sta nd a rd Mean Standard peyiatio n nevtat Ion

Co ntrol 7.07 5. 2 6 13.95 4.0 6

Ex periment al 6.43 S.11 17.2 9 Z.70

Ananalysisof theinte ra ct ion effectonthispa rt of thest udyyielded asig nifica nt diff erenceinthe va r ia tionof scores betweenthe twogro ups (F"'8. 16 ,

51 P<.05 ). Again,the scores from the two groups did change diffe rentlyfromthe pretestto the posttest.

Onthe basisof.these resul ts, the hypothesiswould againbere j e cte d. Hence , fromthe combinedresults, the hypothesiscanbe rejected. Give n that a statisticallydetectableinteractioneffect was obtainedforboth parts of the st udyI th is sug g ests th atthe useofinstructional object ivesmay leadto enhanced achievement . possible reasons for theresul t s will be exp loredfurther inth e fina l chapter.

Hypothesis3

Hyp o th e sis: Thereis no difference signifi c ant difference in st udents ' level ofpe r c e ive d self- efficacyamongstudentsof differ entabUtty groups.

In orderto testthis hypothesis , it was nec essary to dete rminewhet he ror no t students' le ve l of perceived abilityremained rel ati ve lyconsis te ntove r theco ur s e of the study. Todo this,abetwe en groups ANOVAwa sco nd uc t e donMat hAb il i t y Questionna ira 1, ad mi nis te redat thebeg inni ng of the st udyand Math

52 AbilityQuestionnaire 2,admini s t e r ed at the end ofthe study. Ag~infor purposesof this studythe inter actioneffectsis ofmostimport a nce . The re sul t s yieldedno si g n i fi c ant diffe renceinthe twogroups (F""O.27, P>.O S). Therefore i tcanbeconc luded that stude nts ' levelof perceivedability didremain cons i s tentthro ug ho ut the study. Oncethiswas estab lished, th e fullsample wa s dividedinto three grou ps accordingtope r c e i ved abi l ity . Thesecan be label ledhigh, mediumand low perceivedabili ty.

To test thehypothesis, a thr ee-waycepeated measuresANOVAwithgroupmembershipand abilityas between gr ou ps fac torsand time asa rep e ate dmeasu re was used, forbot h partsA and Bof the st ud y, to determinewhethe r the variationinstude nt sel f - ef fir:acy, over time , was consi stent among groups. The resul tsfrom bothparee ofthest udy werecon sistent . The resultsof Part A yielded no si gn if i c a nt di f f e r e nce (F-O.83, P> . 05) in the va r i ance ofstude nt self- eff icacyamong gro ups over tim e among differentlevels of ability . Consistent with thi s , the resul tsof Part Bshowe d no significa nt differe nceas well (F"'O.32, P>.OS ) . On the basisof these re sul t s , the hypot hes is

53 canbe accepted. Tharefore, itcan be concludedthat there is nosignificantdifference in students' level of perceivedself-etficacyamong studentsof different ability levels.

Hypothes i5 4

Hy p o t h e s i s : There is no significant differenc ein students ' le ve lof achievementamong studentsof differentabilitylevels .

To test this hypothesis, thesa me groupings were us e d as withHypothesis3. Again, athre e - wa y repeated measuresANOVA withgroup membership and ability as between groups factors and time as a repeated measure

was used, for bothpartsof the study, to determine if therewas any differencein the perceived ability of students and the achievement. Aswith the resultsfrom question3, there s u l t s forboth partsof thest ud y were consistentforthisquesti onas well. For this part of thest ud y the interaction effect s arereported as well. In Part A, it was determined that there was no signifi cal"i.tdifference in the level of perceived ability and level of performance(F=O. 70I P>.05 ) among

54 differentlevels ofabil i t y . consistent wi t hthi s , the resul ts from Pa rt B did no t showany significant diffe re nceei t he r (F=O.30, P> . OS ). Onthe basis of these results, the hy pothe s i s can beac c ep t e d.

There fo re, itca nbe conc l ud e d that there isno significant differencein students' le vel of achievement amo ng stude ntsofdi ff e r e nt ability levels.

ID!mmllY

Fromthe informatio n ga t h e r e d inthestudy and anal y s i s of this dat a , th e fol lowingconclusionswere reached. First, fromthe resu ltsit wan not possible to draw a defini teconc lusionas to whethertherewas anydi ff e r e n c e inpe r c eiv e d self -e fficacyfor students taugh t wi t h or wit ho utthe use of inst ruc t iona l object ives ,but the re weredefinitetrendsin favour of the use ofinstr uc tion al objectives. The fact that the r e was a sig nificant differenceshown in the second less on maybe an indicatio n tha t it takes a certain amount of timef" r sucha di ffere nce to become visible.

Second, it was possible to draw a conclusion asto whe t herthe re wasany significant differencein level of achieveme nt forthos e st udents taug ht ....it h01;

55 wi thoutthe aid of instruc t ionalobjectives. It wa s dete r mi n e dfrom bot hpar tsof th e studytha tstud e n ts ta ugh t wi th the aid of inst r u c t ional objec tiveshad hi g her achi ev e me nt levelsth a n thos e taugh t wi t hou t such assista nce.

Third , the evidenc esu g g ests thatthere wasno si g ni fi cant differen c e inthe students ' le vel of pe r c e i ve dself-effi c a c y among studentsof diffe rent ability lev el s.

Fourth, there was stro n g evid e nc e to support the hy pothesisthatthe r e was no si gn i ficantdi f fere nce in stude nts' levelof achieveme nt among studentsof diffe re nt abi lity levels.

Inthefinal chapterof th i s studysoee possib le reas o ns fo rtheabo vere sults areoutlined.

56 Chap t erV

Summa ry , gecomaendendons andImp l i c at i o ns

This cha pte r includesasummaryof the study,a discussionof th e"results, limita tIo ns ofth e study, andre c o mme n d atio ns forfur ther research , based on the info rma tio nobtai ned from the study.

Summa ry andPisc ussionof Results

Fro mth e stud y, oneque s tionbei nginvestigated was notco mpl ~ t elyansw ered. First andforemost , the main hypo the si s ofthe st udyWas not clear l ysuppo r ted , butthere su l t s weremixed. The re su lts from Lesson1 indicated that the rewas no statisticallysignificant differ encein the level of se lf-efficacybetweenthe grou pbeingtau g h t wit h theai d of instruc tional ob jectivesand thos e taugh t without. Never t heless, there wasa de s c r ipti ve diff erence, with the experim e nta lgrou p showi nga sli g ht l yhighe r gainin lev el of sel f-ef f i c a cy . Howe ve r, the resu l tsfrom Lesson2 indi cat ed thattherewas a sig nificant difference betweenthetwogroups . Ther e ma y be a pO!3siblerea s on forobtain ing suc h re su lts.

57 A possible reason for a discrepancy inthe results is the time factor. It ispo s s i bl e for self-efficacy beliefsto changeovertime t especiallywhen goals are being re a c he d . Inthe secondpar t of thisstudy, st ude n tswho were ins t ru c t e d wit hth e aid of ins t r uc t i o nal object ivesshowed higher levelsof sel£- efficacy. The r e f o r e , it is likely, the resul tsof the first part of the studyinfluencedthe i r thi n k i ng. Success on the firstpart, by those in the experimenta l group, mayha ve ledto higher self-efficacy la t e r in the study. Consequently, because studentsreached some ofthe goals assignedby the teac herin the first part of the study, it led to increasedself-efficacyin the second part. conversely, the controlgroup did not show any significantchangein self-efficacy. This may be dueto the fact th at they did not know what the y wer eexpected to learn, andthereforedidnotrealize the y wereprogre s s ing toward an end. Therefo re, successonthe firstpa rtofthe study didno t haveany impac t on thei r le ve l of self-efficacy inthe second part of the stud y .

This issuppo rti ve of re s e a r c h find ings that sugges t that goal sett ingenhances self- effi c a cy .

5.

Sch un k (1 9 8 1, 1985), and Elliot tand Dweck (1988) found thatobserving go al progressconveys a feeling of skill developmen t and cons eq uently a he i g ht e ned setf- effica cy.

The second hy pothe s i s was clearlysuppor ted,with consistent resultsfrom Lesson1and Lesson 2. The re su lts fromLe s s o n1indicatedthattherewas a significant differenceinthe level of achievement between the gro up beingta ug ht with the aidof instructionalobjectivesand th o s e taught wi t ho ut. Cons i s t en t withthis, the results fr o m Lesson2 also indica ted that therewas a significantdifference betwee n thebIDgro ups. The st ude ntstaugh t with the ai d of instructiona l objectivesagainshowed a highe r level of ac hi e ve ment .

Hen c e , fromthe above resu l ts, a possiblepetter n maybe dev e l oping. Af te r LessonI there was a differe n..:e in ac hievement butno t self-efficacy . I t maybethe case thatachieveme nt isne c e s s a r y for in cre ased self - e fficacy. Instruc tional objectivesmay le ad to high er achi eveme nt ,whichinturn might le a dto hi g he r self-effi c acy. Therefo re, i t standsto reason tha t af t e r Lesson 2 a not iceabledi f ferencein self-