Volume 11 - Articles-1400
MEJDS (2021) 11: 27 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.IAU.Z.REC.1399.039
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Yadi Yosefabad S, Kiani Q, Entesar Foumani G. The Mediating Role of Academic Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem in the Relationship between Learning Styles and Test Anxiety in Female Students. MEJDS 2021; 11 :27-27
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-2318-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-2318-en.html
1- Department of Psychology, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University
Abstract: (2231 Views)
Background & Objectives: Anxiety is among the most frequent problems in students. In addition to creating academic problems, it may also generate behavioral complications. Test anxiety could be induced by several reasons, such as environmental (e.g., school and family environment & peers), and intrapersonal characteristics. Overlooking the contributing factors that induce test anxiety can lead to individual and social risks for students and families, including high financial costs, academic failure, and learning disabilities. Therefore, it is essential to address this issue. The present study aimed at determining the mediating role of academic self–efficacy and self–esteem in the relationship between learning styles and test anxiety in Iranian 11th–grade female students.
Methods: This was a correlational study. The study population consisted of all 11th–grade female students living in Tabriz City, Iran, in the 2019–2020 academic year. The study sample consisted of 430 students who were randomly selected in 3 stages. Initially, the third district out of 5 educational districts was randomly selected. Next, 5 schools were randomly selected from this area. Finally, volunteer eligible students were selected as the research sample. The inclusion criteria included female gender; no mental health disorders; willingness to participate in the study; residing in Tabriz City, and not receiving pharmacotherapy for biopsychological conditions. The study participants who failed to complete the questionnaires were excluded from this study. Data collection tools were the Test Anxiety Questionnaire (Abolghasemi et al., 1996), Academic Self–Efficacy Scale (Midgley et al., 2000), Kolb Learning Style Inventory (Kolb & Kolb, 2005), and Rosenberg Self–Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Gender, grade, and age were considered as the control variables. For statistical analysis, descriptive statistical procedures (e.g., mean & SD), and inferential statistics, including Spearman's rank correlation coefficient were employed in SPSS. To assess the model's goodness of fit, structural equations were conducted using AMOS via the asymptotic distribution–free procedure. This is because the obtained data were not normally distributed and this procedure was not sensitive to the abnormality of distribution. The significance level of all tests was set at 0.05.
Results: Based on the Spearman test data, there was no relationship between self–esteem, visual learning style, reflective observation, and experimentalism (p>0.05). There was a positive relationship between academic self–efficacy and self–esteem (r=0.26, p<0.001). There was a negative relationship between test anxiety and visual learning style (r= –0.53, p<0.001); a positive and significant relationship between test anxiety and abstract learning style (r=0.52, p<0.001), and a positive and significant relationship between test anxiety and experimental learning style (r=0.39, p<0.001). The goodness of fit results revealed that the direct effect of learning styles was not significant on self–esteem (β=–0.02, p=0.67). The direct effect of self–esteem was significant on academic self–efficacy (β=0.19, p=0.001). Learning styles significantly impacted academic self–efficacy (β=–0.14, p=0.006). Academic self–efficacy significantly influenced test anxiety (β=0.13, p=0.001). Additionally, the effect of self–esteem was significant on test anxiety (β=–0.07, p=0.04); learning style also presented a significant effect on test anxiety (β=0.62, p=0.001). The indirect effect of self–esteem on test anxiety was not significant (p=0.500); neither was the total effect of self–esteem on test anxiety (p=0.486). The indirect effects of learning styles were not significant on test anxiety either (p=0.517). The total effect of learning styles was also insignificant on test anxiety (p=0.482). Furthermore, the study results revealed that the research model had acceptable goodness of fit (AGFI=0.96, RMSEA=0.054).
Conclusion: Teachers and school counselors can reduce students' test anxiety by improving their academic self–efficacy as well as experimental, abstract, and objective learning styles.
Methods: This was a correlational study. The study population consisted of all 11th–grade female students living in Tabriz City, Iran, in the 2019–2020 academic year. The study sample consisted of 430 students who were randomly selected in 3 stages. Initially, the third district out of 5 educational districts was randomly selected. Next, 5 schools were randomly selected from this area. Finally, volunteer eligible students were selected as the research sample. The inclusion criteria included female gender; no mental health disorders; willingness to participate in the study; residing in Tabriz City, and not receiving pharmacotherapy for biopsychological conditions. The study participants who failed to complete the questionnaires were excluded from this study. Data collection tools were the Test Anxiety Questionnaire (Abolghasemi et al., 1996), Academic Self–Efficacy Scale (Midgley et al., 2000), Kolb Learning Style Inventory (Kolb & Kolb, 2005), and Rosenberg Self–Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Gender, grade, and age were considered as the control variables. For statistical analysis, descriptive statistical procedures (e.g., mean & SD), and inferential statistics, including Spearman's rank correlation coefficient were employed in SPSS. To assess the model's goodness of fit, structural equations were conducted using AMOS via the asymptotic distribution–free procedure. This is because the obtained data were not normally distributed and this procedure was not sensitive to the abnormality of distribution. The significance level of all tests was set at 0.05.
Results: Based on the Spearman test data, there was no relationship between self–esteem, visual learning style, reflective observation, and experimentalism (p>0.05). There was a positive relationship between academic self–efficacy and self–esteem (r=0.26, p<0.001). There was a negative relationship between test anxiety and visual learning style (r= –0.53, p<0.001); a positive and significant relationship between test anxiety and abstract learning style (r=0.52, p<0.001), and a positive and significant relationship between test anxiety and experimental learning style (r=0.39, p<0.001). The goodness of fit results revealed that the direct effect of learning styles was not significant on self–esteem (β=–0.02, p=0.67). The direct effect of self–esteem was significant on academic self–efficacy (β=0.19, p=0.001). Learning styles significantly impacted academic self–efficacy (β=–0.14, p=0.006). Academic self–efficacy significantly influenced test anxiety (β=0.13, p=0.001). Additionally, the effect of self–esteem was significant on test anxiety (β=–0.07, p=0.04); learning style also presented a significant effect on test anxiety (β=0.62, p=0.001). The indirect effect of self–esteem on test anxiety was not significant (p=0.500); neither was the total effect of self–esteem on test anxiety (p=0.486). The indirect effects of learning styles were not significant on test anxiety either (p=0.517). The total effect of learning styles was also insignificant on test anxiety (p=0.482). Furthermore, the study results revealed that the research model had acceptable goodness of fit (AGFI=0.96, RMSEA=0.054).
Conclusion: Teachers and school counselors can reduce students' test anxiety by improving their academic self–efficacy as well as experimental, abstract, and objective learning styles.
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
Psychology
References
1. 1. Üner A, Mouratidis A, Kalender İ. Study efforts, learning strategies and test anxiety when striving for language competence: the role of utility value, self-efficacy, and reasons for learning English. Educational Psychology. 2020;40(6):781–99. [DOI]
2. 2. Roos A-L, Goetz T, Voracek M, Krannich M, Bieg M, Jarrell A, et al. Test anxiety and physiological arousal: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Educ Psychol Rev. 2021;33(2):579–618. [DOI]
3. 3. von der Embse N, Jester D, Roy D, Post J. Test anxiety effects, predictors, and correlates: A 30-year meta-analytic review. J Affect Disord. 2018;227:483–93. [DOI]
4. 4. Bender A, Ingram R. Connecting attachment style to resilience: Contributions of self-care and self-efficacy. Personality and Individual Differences. 2018;130:18–20. [DOI]
5. 5. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory for personal and social change by enabling media. In: Entertainment-education and social change: History, research, and practice. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2004. pp: 75–96.
6. 6. Schunk DH, Pajares F. Self-efficacy theory. In: Handbook of motivation at school. New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2009. pp: 35–53.
7. 7. Zimmerman null. Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000;25(1):82–91. [DOI]
8. 8. Zysberg L, Schwabsky N. School climate, academic self-efficacy and student achievement. Educational Psychology. 2020;2020:1–16. [DOI]
9. 9. Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R. Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2008;9(3):105–19. [DOI]
10. 10. Estrada FJP, García-Prieto FJ, Conde-Vélez S. Learning styles in university students: types of strategies, materials, supports, evaluation and performance, case study. European Journal of Contemporary Education. 2020;9(2):394–409.
11. 11. Kolb D. Experimental learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice- Hall; 1985.
12. 12. Orth U, Robins RW. Development of self-esteem across the lifespan. In: Handbook of personality development. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press; 2019. pp: 328–44.
13. 13. Duy B, Yıldız MA. The mediating role of self-esteem in the relationship between optimism and subjective well-being. Curr Psychol. 2019;38(6):1456–63. [DOI]
14. 14. Arabi A, Sedigh Arfaei F. The relationship of study habits, achievement goals and academic self-efficacy with test anxiety of high school students. Journal of Educational Psychology Studies. 2020;17(38):105–24. [Persian] [Article]
15. 15. Dianat H, Razaee A, Talepasand S, Mohammadifar MA. Predictive effect of self-regulation and academic self-efficacy on the test anxiety: the mediating role of academic procrastination. Studies in Learning & Instruction. 2018;9(2):122–45. [Persian] [Article]
16. 16. Hashemi S, Akbari A, Abbasi Asl R. Relationship between dimensions of family communication, pattern emotional intelligence, academic self-efficacy and test anxiety in first grad high school male students. Journal of Modern Psychological Researches. 2015;10(40):101–28. [Persian] [Article]
17. 17. Akbaryboorang M, Aminyazdi SA. Test-anxiety and self-efficacy: a study on the students of Islamic Azad University, branch of southern Khorasan. The Horizon of Medical Sciences. 2009;15(3):70–6. [Persian] [Article]
18. 18. Yesilyurt E. Academic locus of control, tendencies towards academic dishonesty and test anxiety levels as the predictors of academic self-efficacy. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice. 2014;14(5):1945–56.
19. 19. Meyers LS, Gamst G, Guarino AJ. Applied multivariate research: design and interpretation. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2017.
20. 20. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2016.
21. 21. Aboighasemi A, Asadi Moghaddam A, Najarian B, Shokrkon H. Construction and validation of a test for the measurement of test anxiety among ahwaz guidance school students. Journal of Educational Scinces. 1997;3(2):61–74. [Persian] [Article]
22. 22. Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Middletown, CT, England: Wesleyan University Press; 1965.
23. 23. Pullmann H, Allik J. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: its dimensionality, stability and personality correlates in Estonian. Personality and Individual Differences. 2000;28(4):701–15. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00132-4
24. 24. Rajabi G, Karjo Ksmai S. A study of confirmatory structure two-factor model of the persian version rosenberg self-esteem scale. Journal of Psychological Models and Methods. 2012;2(6):33–43. [Persian] [Article]
25. 25. Midgley C, Maehr M, Hruda L, Anderman E, Anderman L, Freeman K, et al. Manual the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan; 2000.
26. 26. Seif D. Predicting self-efficacy in mathematics based on goal orientations among outstanding students. Journal of Teaching and Learning Studies. 2015;7(2):21–40. [Persian] [DOI]
27. 27. Kolb A, Kolb D. The Kolb learning style inventory—version 3.1 2005 technical specifi cations. Boston, MA: Hay Resource Direct; 2005.
28. 28. Ghajarzadeh M, Adili-aghdam F. Learning styles of medical residents of different disciplines in Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Razi Journal of Medical Sciences. 2012;19(94):27–32. [Persian] [Article]
29. 29. Khodabande S, Dartaj F, Asadzadeh H, Falsafinejad M, Ebrahimi Ghavam S. the role of learning styles on prediction and clarification of students’ achievement motivation and academic performances. Biquarterly Journal of Cognitive Strategies in Learning. 2015;2(3):39–51. [Persian] [Article]
30. 30. Darvishzade M, Sabzevari S, Garrosi B, Hassanzade A. Reviewing learning styles regarding medical students of Kerman University of Medical Sciences and providing a teaching method appropriate based on their views. Strides in Development of Medical Education. 2013;10(3):376–84. [Persian] [Article]
31. 31. Powell DA, Schafer WD. The robustness of the likelihood ratio chi-square test for structural equation models: a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 2001;26(1):105–32. [DOI]
32. 32. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research. 1992;21(2):230–58. [DOI]
33. 33. Talsma K, Schüz B, Norris K. Miscalibration of self-efficacy and academic performance: Self-efficacy ≠ self-fulfilling prophecy. Learning and Individual Differences. 2019;69:182–95. [DOI]
34. 34. McLeod S. Kolb's learning styles and experiential learning cycle. Simply Psychology [Internet]. 2017. [Article]
35. 35. Kolb DA. The Kolb learning style inventory. Massachusetts: Hay Resources Direct Boston; 2007.
36. 36. Mpwanya MF, Dockrat S. Assessing learning styles of undergraduate logistics students using Kolb’s learning style inventory: A cross-sectional survey. South African Journal of Higher Education. 2020;34(3):210–28. [DOI]
37. 37. Stander J, Grimmer K, Brink Y. Learning styles of physiotherapists: a systematic scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):2. [DOI]
38. 38. Mascret N, Danthony S, Cury F. Anxiety during tests and regulatory dimension of anxiety: A five-factor French version of the Revised Test Anxiety scale. Curr Psychol. 2019;30:1–11. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
