1

“Self-Regulated Learning Efficacy: Doing the Learning Strategy and Identifying

Learning Strategy of First Year Education Students at Salay Community College”

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE

Introduction

The practice of teaching and learning is currently one of the most crucial aspects of

education, and advancements in this area show how the educational system is progressing.

Therefore, it's crucial to understand what elements help learners who are engaged in their

studies and support their academic pursuits (C Richard Snyder et al., 2002).

Similar to what has been demonstrated in recent years, cognitive and motivational

factors are crucial in determining a person's success or failure in a variety of spheres of life,

including education. It is crucial to remember that various factors interact, and that

sometimes when one variable rises or falls, the impact of another variable also changes. A

key determinant of whether learners employ self-regulatory strategies rests in the beliefs they

hold about their capabilities to do so (see Zimmerman & Cleary, 2006). Because of this,

simply learning self-regulation techniques does not guarantee their effective application;

students also need to have faith in their own abilities. An key predictor of students' successful

use of self-regulatory skills and methods across academic domains is one's conviction in

one's capacity for self-regulated learning, also known as self-efficacy for self-regulated

learning. Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning among students at all academic levels is

also related to motivation and success in a variety of academic fields (see Bandura, 1997;

Pajares, 2007).
 2
The question of whether self-assessment affects students' learning has been

investigated in a variety of research. For instance, Topping (2003) came to the conclusion

that there is evidence that self-assessment can lead to increases in the effectiveness and

quality of learning in a narrative review of research on the subject. In a more recent paper,

Brown and Harris (2013) evaluate 23 studies, including numerous operationalizations of self-

assessment, and reach a similar conclusion.

However, there are contradictory results about self-efficacy in the research on self-

assessment. For instance, it was discovered that utilizing a rubric to evaluate drafts and

creating a list of criteria from a model essay increased students' self-efficacy in a study by

Andrade, Wang, Du, and Akawi (2009). The self-efficacy of all students, including those in

the control group, rose overall, though. Although not considerably larger, the increase was

seen in the therapy group. Another distinction between the sexes was that, particularly early

on, females' average self-efficacy for writing tended to be higher than that of boys.

Self-efficacy theory states that while creating scales to measure efficacy beliefs,

assessments must be customized to the various facets of children's lives. Bandura mphasized

the significance of identifying particular behavioral features that may be controlled by

individuals and that sustain performances within a specific domain in his conceptualization

of the development of instruments for the evaluation of self-efficacy beliefs.

Individuals who have lower levels of self-efficacy frequently overestimate the

difficulty of their assignments, which leads to illness, depression, and a constrained

perspective on problem solving. These beliefs are influenced by preference and choice, level
 3
of effort, anxiety experienced, perseverance with difficulties, and the belief that losing should

bear an informative role for the recovery feedback (Pajares, 2002).

SRL is described as "self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned

and cyclically tailored to the fulfillment of personal goals" in one of the definitions that is

most frequently used (Zimmerman, 2000 p. 14). Due to its extensive inclusion of numerous

learning-related factors, including goal orientation, task-specific techniques, and other

factors, the SRL has emerged as one of the most popular educational theories to explain

students' accomplishment.
 4

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY. The mechanism of learning and the building of

individual knowledge is through observation, according to SLT (Bandura 1977). SLT

proposes a complex mental model of observed behaviors and the subsequent production of

fresh behavior, however this is does not necessarily imply direct imitation of others’

behavior. The relevance of a mental or picture of the lesson as the instructor enter a

classroom has been discovered to be a key factor in teacher development (Lortie, 2002).

(Rowlands, Thwaites, & Jared, 2011)

Schematic Presentation

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Identifying the Learning

Doing the Learning Strategy
Strategy

Figure 1 shows the relationship of the variables of the study.

 5

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of the study is to determine the Self-Regulated learning Efficacy and

Academic Performance of 1st year Education Students at Salay Community College, Salay

Misamis Oriental.

Specifically, this research seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the students in terms of their course?

2. What is the level of Self-regulated learning efficacy in doing the learning strategy?

3. What is the level of identifying learning strategy of 1st years education students?

4. Is there a significant relationship between Self-Regulated Learning Efficacy in doing

the learning strategy and identifying the Learning Efficacy of first year education

students?

Hypotheses

Ho1: There is no significant relationship between Self-Regulated Learning Efficacy in

doing the learning strategy and identifying the Learning Efficacy of first year education

students.
 6

Significance of the Study

The study could be beneficial to the following:

Administration. It is essential to offering a comprehensive education that takes the full child

into account. It functions as a big umbrella that covers many different processes, including

organizing, planning, directing, coordinating, managing, and evaluating performance.

Teachers. The teachers can gain significance in this study. For working Their way up while

enhancing students’ outcomes in order to increase teaching quality. It will also serve as a

source of information and reminders about how the professional development process works.

Students. Students are crucial as subjects (for example, research dealing with teaching

methods, curricula, and other areas related to the scholarship of teaching and learning).

Future Researcher. The future researchers also gain significance in this study. It could

guide them in gathering information and act as a foundation for a larger investigation. The

findings of this investigation will be used to write their research paper.

 7

Scope and Delimitation of the study

This present study will focus on Self-regulated learning efficacy and Academic

Performance of BECED and BTLED 1st year Students at Salay Community College, Salay

Misamis Oriental.

Definition of Terms

Academic Performance- is affected by a variety of variables, including intellectual capacity,

personality, drive, aptitude, hobbies, study habits, self-worth, and the teacher-student

dynamic. Diverging performance happens when there is a discrepancy between academic

performance and the student's anticipated performance.

Self-Efficacy- A person's self-efficacy relates to their confidence in their ability to carry out

the behaviors required to achieve particular performance goals (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997).

The belief in one's capacity to exercise control over one's own motivation, behavior, and

social environment is known as self-efficacy.

 8
Self-regulated Learning- a student organizes a task, executes it, assesses how they did, and

then comments on the results. The cycle then resumes as the student makes adjustments and

is ready for the subsequent challenge using the reflection.

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents related literature and studies supporting and/or explaining the

relationship between the variables of the study.

Related Studies

Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one's capacities to plan and carry out the

actions necessary to obtain given attainments" (Bandura, 1997). The desire to have control

over our personal situations appears to have been present throughout human history. With the

past, when people had little knowledge of the outside world, they prayed in the expectation

that good gods would assist them and/or shield them from bad gods. In the hope or idea that

the gods would appreciate their commitment and hard work, elaborate ceremonies were

established. We discovered that we can significantly influence our reality as we learnt more

about it and how it functions. Most crucially, we have direct control over our immediate

surroundings, particularly in terms of our interpersonal connections. The conviction that we

 9
can, in fact, change things in a way we wish is what spurs us to try affecting our surroundings

in particular ways. As a result, research has generally concentrated on how people perceive

their efficacy rather than on how well they can actually accomplish their aims (Bandura,

1997).

When self-esteem is measured with the proper level of specificity, which may be

achieved by employing multidimensional instruments, the predictive potential of self-esteem

is extremely strong (Marsh et al., 2006).

In addition, humans experience overall sentiments of worth (Brown & Marshall,

2006, p. 4 define global self-esteem as "the way people typically feel about themselves [...] a

feeling of fondness for oneself that is not produced from rational, judgmental processes").

It was stressed that students' academic self-efficacy is likely to decrease when they

lose their academic desire, find it difficult to deal with learning issues, or both (Sanaie et al.,

2019). Self-efficacy beliefs, according to Bandura et al. (2001), dictate how people feel,

think, motivate themselves, and act. Academic self-efficacy is the student's confidence in his

ability to complete his intended academic goals. It also relates to the student's assessment of

his capacity to plan and carry out the steps necessary to achieve specific levels of academic

achievement (Sarkoc & Oksuz, 2017).

By improving dedication and commitment, increased self-efficacy has a significant

impact on academic performance, and motivation. Academic self-efficacy serves as an

internal drive for pupils to overcome obstacles and accomplish objectives (Taylor, 2014).

Evidence reveals that adolescents who lack clinical motivation and self-esteem also have low

levels of self-efficacy and don't believe they can succeed in school. These students will steer
 10
clear of any learning opportunities because they believe they would fail. To prevent making

mistakes, they could also hesitate to start educational duties (Mills, et al,. 2017).

It was suggested that social variables have an impact on both intrinsic and extrinsic

incentives. These elements include the important relationships and help those children feel

they receive from their family, instructors, friends, and peers. In this regard, it is believed that

the student's perception of social support is one of the most important factors in fostering

academic drive for success (Fung & Webster, 2018). One's overall perceptions of whether or

not one's social network is sufficiently supportive are referred to as one's perceived social

support (Wood, 2016). It deals with how people view their friends, family, and other people

as potential sources of practical assistance, emotional support, and other forms of support

when they are in need (Bagci, 2018).

 11

Related Literature

The literature has acknowledged cognitive ability and academic self-efficacy as

reliable indicators of academic performance. However, the specific processes that might

control the connection between cognitive skills and academic self-efficacy have not received

enough attention (Schunk, 2004). They would manage their resources wisely, think that

intelligence is malleable, prioritize mastery over achievement, and hence perform better in

school (Dweck, 2006). Students that believe in incremental intelligence have been found to

have higher self-efficacy, better motivation, and a focus on metacognition rather than boxing

themselves in (Komarraju, Karau, & Schmeck, 2009).

Two components of Bandura's theory, self-regulation and self-efficacy, significantly

rely on cognitive processes. In the case of self-regulation, they stand for a person's capacity

to manage their behavior by internal reinforcement or punishment, and in the case of self-

efficacy, they represent a person's confidence in their capacity to accomplish desired goals as

a result of their own actions.

 12
Ozer & Benet-Martinez (2005) provide explanations of the connections between

performance and self-efficacy. They assert that they involve resource management, cognitive

and metacognitive processes, and motivational elements. In other words, pupils who have

high self-efficacy are more persistent, diligent, prefer to handle more challenging

assignments, and can manage their anxieties. Zhang (2002) offers an important insight when

he claims that students who have higher levels of self-efficacy are better able to handle

cognitive demands. Anderson, Boyles, and Rainie (2012) add the element of mastery goal

orientation to this clarification.

Usher and Pajares (2008, p. 751) stated that self-efficacy "predicts students' academic

achievement across academic areas and levels." However, studies that have examined the

motivational mechanism that mediates the relationship between self-efficacy and

achievement are few, and are therefore necessary to comprehend how and why self-efficacy

affects students' academic performance.

 13

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research setting, design, participants and sampling

procedure, research instruments, data gathering procedure, and statistical treatment of the

study.

Research Setting

The study was conducted at Salay Community College, Salay Misamis Oriental. It

focused on the appropriate location for the researcher. This study was implemented on the

education students, the BECED and BTLED 1st year level.

Research Design

The study was used the correlational research design with the use of survey method to

gather the needed data. Survey questionnaire was used in collecting information to the

BECED and BTLED first year students.

 14
Research Instruments

The researcher used a survey questionnaire to gather data that consist two parts. The

survey questionnaire that the researcher will use in this study was also from Bandura 2006.

Part I is the profile of the students regarding to their course. Part II is the question about Self-

regulated learning efficacy. As a result, data gathering will be followed by content analysis.

A panel of specialists in survey questionnaire construction will analyze the validity of the

structured surveys. The survey questionnaire will be adopted by Bandura (2006). The

reliability of A. Bandura's Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Self-Efficacy (MSPSE) was

studied using the Cronbach alpha measure of internal consistency. The divergent validity of

the MSPSE was also examined using subscale correlations, and the construct validity of the

measure was studied through application of principal axes factor analysis. A sample of 500

college-bound high school students completed the MSPSE. A three-factor model was

selected based on previous empirical findings, application of the screen test of R. B. Cattell,

and consideration of the theoretical nature of the factors. The three factors were identified

and labeled as: (1) social efficacy; (2) academic efficacy; and (3) self-regulatory.

Interrelationships among the factors are examined, and potential uses of the MSPSE were

discussed. (Contains 5 tables and 16 references.) (Author/SLD)

Respondents and Sampling Procedure

The respondents of the study are the education students in Salay Community College,

the Bachelor of Early Childhood Education (BECED) and Bachelor of Technology and

Livelihood Education (BTLED). The Bachelor of Early Childhood education was composed
 15
in three section/block which result as total of 128. The Bachelor of Technology and

Livelihood education was composed of five section/block which result as the total of 216.

The total population of the first-year education students is 344. The researcher used Slovin’s

formula and the online sampling calculator to get the sample size. By the use of the Slovin’s

formula the results represent the desired population of the respondents. The sample size

which results to 185. In the Online sampling calculator results 182, but we used the Slovin’s

formula because the online sampling calculator stated 50% of the proportion. The sample

size which results to 185 will be the respondents to select randomly with the use of the

proportion random sampling procedure to get the desired number of respondents in every

block/section.

Table 1 present the respondents of the study as to respondents’ course.

Table 1 Respondents of the Study

Course No. of Respondents

BECED 66

BTLED 118

TOTAL 184

Data Gathering Procedure

The researcher secured a letter of authorization to the president of Salay Community

College. The researchers' mentor and the institution's president will also sign the letter.
 16
Following its acceptance, the researchers will write another letter for the respondents in Salay

Community College, Salay Misamis Oriental the first-year education students. After that, the

researcher will track down the students and conduct the survey. Using a laptop and computer,

the data was processed and examined.

Methods of Data Analysis

The returned questionnaires were coded and application of data cleaning techniques

will be done to examine duplicate or irrelevant observations from the data set. For data

summarizing, the responses to the questionnaires will be analyzed using regression analysis

in Microsoft Excel. Analysis for Part 1 will be conducted employing descriptive statistic tool

to examine the profiles of the students. For research question Part 2, the Descriptive

correlational will be employed to examine the Self-regulated learning efficacy of BECED

and BTLED 1st year Students at Salay Community College, Salay Misamis Oriental.

Statistical Techniques

Mean and Standard Deviation was used for Problem 1 and 2. Pearson r correlation

was used for problem 3 and 4.

Arbitrary Scale

Score Range Description Interpretation

 17

3 2.34-3.00 Always Highly certain can

do

2 1.67-2.33 Often Moderate can do

1 1.00-1.66 Never Cannot do at all

Ethical Consideration

The researcher produced letter to the concerned offices and institutions who were

involved in the study. After securing the consent and endorsement of the Dean of Education

Dr. Wenie Rose D. Canay, EdD, in Salay Community College. In obtaining the approval of

the request to conduct the study to the Panel member, to our research instructor, Dr. Rustum

A. Salvaña, RGC, PhD. For the respondents, were further assured that their responses will be

treated with utmost confidentiality.

 18

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter discussed the presentation, analysis and interpretation of gathering data

using frequency, percentage, mean, rank, and analysis of variance according to the given

problem one.

Problem 1. What is the profile of the students in terms of their course?

Table 1. Profile of the students of their course.

Program/Course Number of Respondents Percentage

BECED 66 35.86%

BTLED 118 64.13%

 19
TOTAL 184 100

Table 1 shows the profile of the respondents in terms of course. 118 out of 184 or

64.13%, majority of the respondents are BTLED and 66 out of 184 or 35. 86% are BECED

students.

Problem 2. What is the level of Self-regulated learning efficacy in doing the learning
strategy?

Indicator 1 2 3 Mean SD Qualitative Description

1. Finish my homework 9 105 70 2.50 2.33 Highly certain can do

assignments by deadlines
2. Get myself to study when 7 137 40 2.18 0.47 Moderate can do
there are other interesting
things to do
3. Always concentrate on school 2 122 60 2.32 0.49 Moderate can do
subject during class
4. Organize my school works 5 117 62 2.31 0.52 Moderate can do
5. Arrange a place to study 8 119 57 2.27 0.53 Moderate can do
without distractions
6. Get myself to do school work 7 102 75 2.37 0.56 Moderate can do
Over -all mean 2.27 Moderate can do
 20

Problem 3. What is the level of identifying learning strategy of 1 st years education

students?

Indicator 1 2 3 Mean SD Qualitative Description

1. Take good notes during class 9 118 57 2.26 0.54 Moderate can do
Instruction
2.. Use the library to get 17 120 47 2.16 0.57 Moderate can do
3. Plan my schoolwork for the 10 124 50 2.22 0.53 Moderate can do
4. Remember well information 9 133 42 2.18 0.50 Moderate can do
presented in class and textbooks
Over -all mean 2.27 Moderate can do

4.Is there a significant relationship between Self-Regulated Learning Efficacy in

doing the learning strategy and identifying the Learning Efficacy of first year

education students?
 21

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive Statistics
  Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10
Valid 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 2.495 2.179 2.315 2.261 2.163 2.217 2.310 2.179 2.266 2.370
Std. Deviation 2.331 0.474 0.489 0.541 0.568 0.529 0.519 0.496 0.533 0.557
Minimum 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Maximum 33.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000
Table 2

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of the data for self-regulated learning efficacy

questions 1-10. Based on the table 2, most of the respondents was doing the learning strategy

(which refers to the Q1 with the mean of 2.495) while the most of them was doing the

learning strategy (which refer to the Q2 with the mean of 2.179) and the identifying leaning

strategy (which refer to the Q8 with a mean of 2.179).

 22

Problem 2. What is the level of Self-regulated learning efficacy in doing the learning

strategy and the identifying learning strategy of 1st years education students?

1 2 3 Mean Standard Qualitative

Indicator Deviation Description

1. Finish my homework 9 105 70 2.33 2.33 Highly certain can do

assignments by deadlines

2. Get myself to study when 7 137 40 2.18 0.47 Moderate can do

there are other interesting
things to do
3. Always concentrate on school 2 122 60 2.32 0.49 Moderate can do
subject during class
4. Take good notes during class 9 118 57 2.26 0.54 Moderate can do
instruction
5. Use the library to get 17 120 47 2.16 0.57 Moderate can do
information for class
assignments
6. Plan my schoolwork for the 10 124 50 2.22 0.53 Moderate can do
day
7. Organize my school works 5 117 62 2.31 0.52 Moderate can do
8. Remember well information 9 133 42 2.18 0.50 Moderate can do
presented in class and
textbooks
9. Arrange a place to study 8 119 57 2.27 0.53 Moderate can do
without distractions
10. Get myself to do school work 7 102 75 2.37 0.56 Moderate can do
Overall mean 2.27 Moderate can do
 23

Principal Component Analysis

Chi-squared Test
  Value df p
Model 97.377 26 < .001
 

Component Loadings
  PC1 PC2 Uniqueness
Q10 0.698   0.480
Q2 0.692   0.515
Q9 0.641   0.495
Q7 0.552   0.646
Q1 0.475   0.728
Q3 0.455 0.435 0.604
Q5   0.818 0.328
Q6   0.772 0.359
Q4   0.550 0.562
Q8   0.538 0.706
Note.  Applied rotation method is varimax.

Component Characteristics
Unrotated solution Rotated solution
Proportion Cumulativ SumSq. Proportion
  Eigenvalue Cumulative
var. e Loadings var.
Component
3.241 0.324 0.324 2.302 0.230 0.230
1
Component
1.337 0.134 0.458 2.275 0.228 0.458
2
 
 24
Correlation

Pearson's Correlations
Pearson's Lower 95% Upper 95%
      p
r CI CI
Doing the Learning Identifying the
- 0.275 *** < .001 0.136 0.404
Strat Learning Strat

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Assumption checks

Shapiro-Wilk Test for Bivariate Normality

      Shapiro-Wilk p
Doing the Learning Strat - Identifying the Learning Strat 0.573 < .001
 

Descriptives
  N Mean SD SE
Doing the Learning Strat 184 2.323 0.527 0.039
Identifying the Learning Strat 184 2.205 0.379 0.028
Table 2

Table 2 shows the participants’ level in doing the learning strategy and identifying

learning strategy. As shown Doing the learning strategy, the mean is 2.323 verbally

described as ‘Always and interpreted as ‘Highly certain. The standard deviation of (0.527).

While in Identifying the learning strategy, the mean is 2.205 verbally described as ‘often and

interpreted as ‘moderate can do. The standard deviation of (0.743). The data revealed that

doing the learning strategy among first year education students is a little bit higher than

identifying the learning strategy.

 25
Scatter plots

Doing the Learning Strat vs. Identifying the Learning Strat

Path Diagram
26
 27
Table 3. Is there a significant relationship between Self-Regulated Learning Efficacy in

doing the learning strategy and identifying the Learning Efficacy of first year education

students?

Linear Regression

Model Summary - Doing the Learning Strat

Adjusted
Model R R² RMSE
R²
H₀ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.527
H₁ 0.275 0.076 0.071 0.508
 

ANOVA
Model   Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
H₁ Regression 3.839 1 3.839 14.887 < .001
  Residual 46.930 182 0.258  
  Total 50.769 183  
Note.  The intercept model is omitted, as no meaningful information can be shown.
 

Coefficients
Collinearity
Statistics
Standard
Model   Unstandardized Standardized t p Tolerance VIF
Error
59.81
H₀ (Intercept) 2.323 0.039 < .001  
4
H₁ (Intercept) 1.480 0.221 6.684 < .001  
Identifying
the
  0.382 0.099 0.275 3.858 < .001 1.000 1.000
Learning
Strat
 28
Collinearity Diagnostics
Variance Proportions
Dimensio Condition
Model Eigenvalue (Intercept) Identifying the Learning Strat
n Index
H₁ 1 1.986 1.000 0.007 0.007
  2 0.014 11.747 0.993 0.993
Note.  The intercept model is omitted, as no meaningful information can be shown.
 
Binomial Test
Variable Level Counts Total Proportion p
COURSE 1 65 184 0.353 < .001
  2 119 184 0.647 < .001
BLOCK 1 23 184 0.125 < .001
  2 23 184 0.125 < .001
  3 19 184 0.103 < .001
  4 24 184 0.130 < .001
  5 24 184 0.130 < .001
  6 23 184 0.125 < .001
  7 24 184 0.130 < .001
  8 24 184 0.130 < .001
Q1 1 9 184 0.049 < .001
  2 105 184 0.571 0.065
  3 70 184 0.380 0.001
Q2 1 7 184 0.038 < .001
  2 137 184 0.745 < .001
  3 40 184 0.217 < .001
Q3 1 2 184 0.011 < .001
  2 122 184 0.663 < .001
  3 60 184 0.326 < .001
Q7 1 5 184 0.027 < .001
  2 117 184 0.636 < .001
  3 62 184 0.337 < .001
Q9 1 8 184 0.043 < .001
  2 119 184 0.647 < .001
  3 57 184 0.310 < .001
Q10 1 7 184 0.038 < .001
  2 102 184 0.554 0.161
  3 75 184 0.408 0.015
Q5 1 17 184 0.092 < .001
  2 120 184 0.652 < .001
 29
Binomial Test
Variable Level Counts Total Proportion p
  3 47 184 0.255 < .001
Q6 1 10 184 0.054 < .001
  2 124 184 0.674 < .001
  3 50 184 0.272 < .001
Q4 1 9 184 0.049 < .001
  2 118 184 0.641 < .001
  3 57 184 0.310 < .001
Q8 1 9 184 0.049 < .001
  2 133 184 0.723 < .001
  3 42 184 0.228 < .001
Note.  Proportions tested against value: 0.5.

Standardized Residuals Histogram

 30

Q-Q Plot Standardized Residuals