Volume 10 -
MEJDS (2020) 10: 137 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Khoshab S, Towhidi A, Tashk A. The Effects of Self-Regulation Learning Strategies Training on Academic Buoyancy and Academic Achievement in Female Students With Academic Problems. MEJDS 2020; 10 :137-137
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-2027-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-2027-en.html
1- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman
Abstract: (2401 Views)
Background & Objectives: Academic buoyancy, academic achievement, and self–regulation are to some extent correlated with each other. Self–regulation is a multi–dimensional concept, i.e., its aspects have concurrent inner and independent relations. Besides, it refers to cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, behavioral, and affective activities. Self–regulation learning strategies include overt approaches (controlling the task situation & others in the task setting) and covert methods (meta–cognitive control, motivation control & emotion control). On this basis, learning self–regulation strategies significantly impact eliminating or decreasing students’ numerable academic problems, such as academic languish and poor academic achievement, which encompass numerous female students. Therefore, the current research aimed to investigate the effects of self–regulation learning strategies training on academic buoyancy and academic achievement among female students with academic buoyancy and academic achievement problems.
Methods: This was an experimental study with a pretest–posttest and a control group design. The research statistical population consisted of all the second–grade female high school students in Kerman City, Iran, in the 2015–2016 academic year. The study participants were selected using a multiphase cluster sampling method in the final forth cluster of a school, as well as a simple cluster sampling approach. Accordingly, among all schools in the region one, 9 high schools were randomly recruited. Then, 4 classes were considered among them. The sample size was estimated to range between 32 and 50 individuals using Cohen’s table. This number was confirmed by GPower software concerning the effect size, the alpha 0.05, and the test power indices. Subsequently, 46 students with academic buoyancy and academic achievement problems were identified. By simple random clustering method, the selected students were placed into two groups of experimental and control (n=23/group). The Academic Buoyancy Scale (ABS) (Dehghanizadeh & Hosseinchari, 2012) and the Grade Point Average (GPA) of the first semester of the students were considered as the screening tools (diagnosing academic problems) and as the pretest scales; the second semester GPA was considered as the posttest measure. The inclusion criteria of the study were not using any medicine, not participating in any workshop simultaneously or in the previous three months, the lack of any mental health disorders (according to the school counselor), acquiring low scores in the ABS, presenting low academic achievement, and providing written informed consent forms of the participating parents and their children. Furthermore, the study exclusion criteria included absence from even one training session, experiencing a sudden poor academic achievement for any reason, initiating pharmacotherapy, beginning to participate in any instructional workshop or any other treatment, and unwillingness to continue participation in the experiment for any reason. The experimental group received 8 sessions of training, each lasting two hours and two times a week. The study instruction was based on Zimmerman and Risemberg’s model of instruction (1997), i.e., conducted by the researcher. After the end of the instructional sessions, the posttest was administrated (reconducting the ABS) and the GPA was recorded for the experimental and control groups. The obtained data were analyzed using Multivariable Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) in SPSS.
Results: The age of the individuals in the experimental and control groups (summed together or separated from each other) ranged from 15 to 17 years. The mean (SD) age of the study groups was 16.173(0.491) years; the experimental and control groups’ mean (SD) age scores were 16.043(0.638) and 16.043(0.562) years, respectively. The descriptive analysis data indicated an increase in the explored students’ academic buoyancy and academic achievement in the posttest phase. In terms of inferential analysis, the ultimate findings suggested the significant effectiveness of the self–regulation learning strategies training on students’ academic buoyancy (p˂0.001) and their academic achievement (p˂0.001). Additionally, based on the effect size, the instruction–induced effectiveness (the effect of the independent variable) on the academic buoyancy was approximately 60% (p˂0.001) with the test power of 1. Moreover, the later effect (the experimental effect) on academic achievement was around 26% (p˂0.001) with the test power of 0.963.
Conclusion: The self–regulation learning strategies training was effective in enhancing female high school students’ academic buoyancy and academic achievement; thus, through presenting these training strategies to students with academic buoyancy or academic achievement problems, it is possible to improve their academic conditions.
Methods: This was an experimental study with a pretest–posttest and a control group design. The research statistical population consisted of all the second–grade female high school students in Kerman City, Iran, in the 2015–2016 academic year. The study participants were selected using a multiphase cluster sampling method in the final forth cluster of a school, as well as a simple cluster sampling approach. Accordingly, among all schools in the region one, 9 high schools were randomly recruited. Then, 4 classes were considered among them. The sample size was estimated to range between 32 and 50 individuals using Cohen’s table. This number was confirmed by GPower software concerning the effect size, the alpha 0.05, and the test power indices. Subsequently, 46 students with academic buoyancy and academic achievement problems were identified. By simple random clustering method, the selected students were placed into two groups of experimental and control (n=23/group). The Academic Buoyancy Scale (ABS) (Dehghanizadeh & Hosseinchari, 2012) and the Grade Point Average (GPA) of the first semester of the students were considered as the screening tools (diagnosing academic problems) and as the pretest scales; the second semester GPA was considered as the posttest measure. The inclusion criteria of the study were not using any medicine, not participating in any workshop simultaneously or in the previous three months, the lack of any mental health disorders (according to the school counselor), acquiring low scores in the ABS, presenting low academic achievement, and providing written informed consent forms of the participating parents and their children. Furthermore, the study exclusion criteria included absence from even one training session, experiencing a sudden poor academic achievement for any reason, initiating pharmacotherapy, beginning to participate in any instructional workshop or any other treatment, and unwillingness to continue participation in the experiment for any reason. The experimental group received 8 sessions of training, each lasting two hours and two times a week. The study instruction was based on Zimmerman and Risemberg’s model of instruction (1997), i.e., conducted by the researcher. After the end of the instructional sessions, the posttest was administrated (reconducting the ABS) and the GPA was recorded for the experimental and control groups. The obtained data were analyzed using Multivariable Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) in SPSS.
Results: The age of the individuals in the experimental and control groups (summed together or separated from each other) ranged from 15 to 17 years. The mean (SD) age of the study groups was 16.173(0.491) years; the experimental and control groups’ mean (SD) age scores were 16.043(0.638) and 16.043(0.562) years, respectively. The descriptive analysis data indicated an increase in the explored students’ academic buoyancy and academic achievement in the posttest phase. In terms of inferential analysis, the ultimate findings suggested the significant effectiveness of the self–regulation learning strategies training on students’ academic buoyancy (p˂0.001) and their academic achievement (p˂0.001). Additionally, based on the effect size, the instruction–induced effectiveness (the effect of the independent variable) on the academic buoyancy was approximately 60% (p˂0.001) with the test power of 1. Moreover, the later effect (the experimental effect) on academic achievement was around 26% (p˂0.001) with the test power of 0.963.
Conclusion: The self–regulation learning strategies training was effective in enhancing female high school students’ academic buoyancy and academic achievement; thus, through presenting these training strategies to students with academic buoyancy or academic achievement problems, it is possible to improve their academic conditions.
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
Psychology
References
1. Martin AJ. Academic buoyancy and academic outcomes: towards a further understanding of students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), students without ADHD, and academic buoyancy itself. Br J Educ Psychol. 2014;84(Pt 1):86–107. [DOI]
2. Martin AJ. Academic buoyancy and academic resilience: Exploring ‘everyday’ and ‘classic’ resilience in the face of academic adversity. School Psychology International. 2013;34(5):488–500. [DOI]
3. Martin AJ, Marsh HW. Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of students’ everyday academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology. 2008;46(1):53–83. [DOI]
4. Mawarni A, Sugandhi NM, Budiman N, Thahir A. Academic buoyancy of science student in senior high school: analysis and implications for academic outcomes. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2019;1280:032046. [DOI]
5. Usher EL, Schunk DH. Social Cognitive Theoretical Perspective of Self-Regulation. In: Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance. 2nd ed. New York, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2018. pp: 19–35.
6. Santrock JW. Life-Span Development. 13th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education; 2011.
7. Zimmerman BJ, Risemberg R. Self-Regulatory Dimensions of Academic Learning and Motivation. In: Phye GD, editor. Handbook of Academic Learning. San Diego: Academic Press; 1997. pp: 105–25. [DOI]
8. Fomina T, Burmistrova-Savenkova A, Morosanova V. Self-regulation and psychological well-being in early adolescence: a two-wave longitudinal study. Behav Sci (Basel). 2020;10(3):67. [DOI]
9. Alvi E, Gillies RM. Teachers and the teaching of Self-Regulated Learning (SRL): The Emergence of an Integrative, Ecological Model of SRL-in-Context. Education Sciences. 2020;10(4):98. [DOI]
10. Shih H-J. L2 anxiety, self-regulatory strategies, self-efficacy, intended effort and academic achievement: a structural equation modeling approach. International Education Studies. 2019;12(3):24–35.
11. Matric M. Self-regulatory systems: Self-regulation and learning. J Process Man, New Technol. 2018;6(4):79–84. [DOI]
12. El-Adl A, Alkharusi H. Relationships between self-regulated learning strategies, learning motivation and mathematics achievement. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences. 2020;15(1):104–11.
13. Dörrenbächer L, Perels F. Self-regulated learning profiles in college students: Their relationship to achievement, personality, and the effectiveness of an intervention to foster self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences. 2016;51:229–41. [DOI]
14. Mirhosseini FS, Lavasani MG, Hejazi E. The effectiveness of self-regulation learning skills on motivational and academic variables among students. World Familu Medicine Journal. 2018;16(5):68–75.
15. Yıldızlı H, Saban A. The effect of self-regulated learning on sixth-grade Turkish students’ mathematics achievements and motivational beliefs. Ewing BF, editor. Cogent Education. 2016;3(1). [DOI]
16. Bahrami F. The relationship between cognitive emotion regulation and academic buoyancy with the role of mediating self-handicapping in students. Iranian journal of educational sociology. 2017;1(6):114–24. [Persian] [Article]
17. Rameli MR Kosnin A. Predicting model of academic buoyancy: The roles of achievement goals and self-regulation. Journal of Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience. 2018;24(1):553–5.
18. Ergen B, Kanadli S. The effect of self-regulated learning strategies on academic achievement: a meta-analysis study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. 2017;(69):55–74.
19. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1983.
20. Saif AA. Modern educational Psychology: psychology of learning and instruction. Tehran: Doran Press; 2019. [Persian]
21. Dehghanizadeh MH, Hosseinchari DM. Academic buoyancy and Perception of Family Communication Patterns: Mediatory role of Self- efficacy. Studies in Learning & Instruction. 2012;4(2):21. [Persian] [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
