283

British
British Journal of Educational Psychology (2010), 80. 283-305 2 0 / 0 The British Psychological Society bpsjournals.co.uk

The interplay between motivation, self-efficacy, and approaches to studying

Merc Prat-Sala'* and Paul Redford^
'Department of Psychology, The University of Winchester. UK ^Department of Psychology, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
Background. The strategies students adopt in their study are influenced by a nunnber of social-cognitive factors and impact upon their academic performance. Aims. The present study examined the interrelationships between motivation orientation {intrinsic and extrinsic), self-efficacy (in reading academic texts and essay v^^riting), and approaches to studying (deep, strategic, and surface). The study also examined changes in approaches to studying over time. Sample. A total of 163 first-year undergraduate students in psychology at a UK university took part in the study. Methods. Participants completed the Work Preference Inventory motivation questionnaire, self-efficacy in reading and vi/riting questionnaires and the short version of the Revised Approaches to Study Inventory. Results. The results shov^ed that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation orientations v/ere correlated with approaches to studying. The results also showed that students classified as high in self-efficacy (reading and writing) were more likely to adopt a deep or strategic approach to studying, while students classified as low in self-efficacy (reading and writing) were more likely to adopt a surface approach. More importantly, changes in students' approaches to studying over time were related to their self-efficacy beliefs, where students with low levels of self-efficacy decreased in their deep approach and increased their surface approach across time. Students with high levels of selfefficacy (both reading and writing) demonstrated no such change in approaches to studying. Conclusions. Our results demonstrate the important role of self-efficacy in understanding both motivation and learning approaches in undergraduate students. Furthermore, given that reading academic text and writing essays are essential aspects of many undergraduate degrees, our results provide some indication that focusing on self-efficacy beliefs amongst students may be beneficial to improving ttieir approaches to study. i t

* Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Alerce Prat-Sala, Department of Psychology, The University of Winch West Hill. Winchester SO22 4NR, UK {e-mail: merce.prat-sala^winchester.ac.uk).
D O l : 10.1348/000709909X480563

284

Merc Prat-Sala and Paul Redford

Students use different strategies, skills, and processes in their leaming and studying situations. The strategies a student adopts are influenced by a number of social-cognitive factors and impact upon their academic performance. Motivational orientation (Deci, 1971, 1975) and sell-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997, 2(K)1) have been identified as two individual difference variables that are associated with students approaches to studying (Entwistie, Tait, & McCune, 2000; Newstead, 1998; Tait, Entwistie, & McCXine, 1998), their academic peribrmance (Bouffard, Boileau, & Vezcau, 2001; Lane & Line, 2001; Lane, Lane, & Kyprianou, 2004) and their self-regulated learning (Pintrich, 1999)However, little research has examined how motivation orientation (as a stable individual-difference trait) and task specific self-efficacy interact with the approaches to studying students adopt. Moreover, little research has examined these influences over time. An examination of changes across time should give an indication of the socialcognitive processes involved in student learning.

Motivation orientation In the early 1970s, two broad types of motivation orientation were identified: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971, 1975). People intrinsically motivated engage in a task for its own sake, because tbe task itself is interesting, appealing and satisfying, with no apparent reward except ibr the enjoyment gained from performing the tasks. In contrast people who are extrinsically motivated engage in a task because of a separate outcome or reward they might gain tlirough the task, because the recognition they gain from it, or because it has been prescribed by otlier people (Deci, 1971, 1975). Although not always explicitly stated, these two broad types of motivation were generally perceived as contrastive ways of engaging in a task, i.e., as opposites in a bipolar continuum. If an individual engages in a task to obtain a reward (whether material, e.g., money or marks, or non-material, e.g., verbal praise or positive feedback) then the individual is characterized as engaging in a task for extrinsic reasons. On the other hand, when no apparent separate outcome or reward is involved, the individual is characterized as engaging in a task for intrinsic motives. Furthermore, some researchers suggest that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation and consequently the two constructs are proposed as antithetical (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999a,b, 2001; but see Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Eisenberger, Pierce, & Cameron, 1999). However, Ryan and Deci (2000) in their self-determination theory suggest that as people internalize demands (regulations) and assimilate them to the self (selfregulation), they become more intrinsically motivated. In this sense, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation beliefs are seen less as opposite bipolar constructs but more as a continuum, or possibly a multi-stage process from extrinsic to more intrinsic motivation. In the field of self-regulated learning, Pintrich (1999) reports evidence on the relationship between self-regulated learning and three motivation goal orientations: mastery goal, extrinsic orientation, and relative ability orientation. He suggests that students can have multiple simultaneous motivational goals that might interact with self-regulation. Tliis proposal does not seem to sit well with the assumption that motivational beliefs are bipolar, at least with respect to the relationship between students' motivation goal orientations and their self-regulation. Similarly, Harter (1981) suggested that, in the classroom at least, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation did not need to be perceived as a bipolar construct as she could imagine situations where the two factors could collaborate. Moreover, empirical work using orthogonal motivation orientation scales has demonstrated that intrinsic

Factors affecting appraaches to studying 285

and extrinsic motivation can co-occur in both elementary and school age children (Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005) and in adult populations (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994). A further issue related to motivation theory is that the majority of research on this area assumes that motivation orientation is context or task dependent. For example, Pintrich (1999) argues that students" motivation and self-regulated learning are context specific. Wolter (1998) found that college students used different strategies to regulate their motivation dependijig on whether the material they had to learn seemed to them irrelevant, difficult, or horing. However, Amabile et al. (1994) developed the Wt)rk Preference Inventory (WPi) designed to measure intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations as stable personalit)' characteristics or traits. l"heir inventory showed high levels of test-retest reliability after 6 months and good levels of stability even after 52 months. Furthermore, lo gain a clearer understanding of motivation, Amabile et ai. created a morefine-grainedbreakdown of the elements that characterize intrinsic and extrinsic motivation orientation by defining subscales. Tbe intrinsic motivation subscale includes challenge and enjoyment, and extrinsic motivation subscale includes compensation (getting high pay or high marks) and outward (e.g., value the recognition of others). One of the aims of the present research was to examine the relationship between motivation orientation, as a stable personality trait, and students" approaches to studying. More importantly, we were interested in examining how the fine-grained motivation subscales were related to students" approaches to studying. From a theoretical point of view, the subscales proposed by Amabile ei ui allow us to obtain a detailed insight Into the relationship between motivation orientation and approaches to studying.

Self-efficacy belief

Perceived self-efficacy is the belief people have in their capabilities to perform a specific task (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Efficacy belief is a key factor in regulating behaviour leading to human competence (Pintrich, 1999; Pintrich & De (iroot, 1990). Self-efficacy beliefs affect peoples cognititjns, motivations, affective processes, and ultimately their behaviour (Bandura, 1997). In comparison to people with low levels of selfefficacy, people with bigh levels of self^fficacy are more likely to persevere in the face of difficulties, more likely to demonstrate intrinsic motivation when engaged and pertbrming a task, and less likely to feel disappointed in the face of failure. They are less likely to feel stressed and more frequently perceive a difficult situation as challenging as opposed to difficult. Moreover, setbacks and failure affcct individuals with low levels of self-efficacy more strongly, even in the cases of mild failure. Overall, in these circumstances they are slower to recover their sense of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1993, 1994, 1997). In effect people with the same level of skill on a specific task might perform differently depending on their belief in their own ability (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Perceived self-efficacy can also affect our emotional responses of fear and anxiety (Bandura, 1977, 1983; Bandura & Adams, 1977). Althotigb the initial proposal was made regarding individuals with severe phobias, it can be extended to any sittiation where the increase of an individuars fear and anxiety leads to a decrease of the individuals perceived competence in performing a given task, including students' perceived self-efficacy in being able to perform academic tasks such as writing essays or perform well on exams.

286

Merc Prat-Sala and Paul Redford

In educational settings, research has shown that self-efficacy is positively related to academic performance (Bong, 201; Bouffard et al., 2001; Lane et al., 2004; Ofori & Charlton, 2002; Richardson, 2007), academic motivation (Bong & Clark, 1999), selfregulating learning (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Schunk Sc. Zimmerman, 1997), and reading/writing performance (McCarthy, Meier, & Rinderer, 1985; Meier, McC^arthy, & Schmeck, 1984; Pajares &Johnson, 1994. 1996; Pajares & Valiante, 1997; Shell. Colvin. & Bruning, 1995; Shell, Murphy, & Bruning. 1989) and negatively associated with cheating (Finn & Frone, 2004). Many types of self-efficacy have been studied. For example, Bouffard et al. (2001) examined the relationsliip between students' self-efficacy in French and their academic performance. Lane and Lane (2001) developed a self-efficacy measure to assess the competences necessary to achieve success in a particular course. Similarly, Pintrich and De (iroot (1990) hwked at self-efficacy in performing class work, and Finn and Frone (2004) investigated the relationship between academic self-efficacy and cheating. Finally. Richardson (2007) used self-efficacy for learning when examining the relationships between student's demographic background, their motives and attitudes, their approaches to learning and their academic performance. There is also substantial evidence for the relationship between self-efficacy in writing and writing performance (McCarthy et al., 1985; Meier et al., 1984; Pajares &Johnson, 1994. 1996; Pajares & Valiante, 1999; Shell et al, 1989,1995; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994) and some limited evidence for the relationship between self-efficacy in readitig and writing performance (Shanahan & Lomax. 1986; Shell et al, 1995). For example. Shell ci a/. (1989) examined the relationship between self-efficacy writing and undergraduate student writing performance by developing a writing self-efficacy instrument containing two subscaies: the writing task and the writing skills subscales. The writing task measured participants' confidence in the communicative aspects of writing, through being able to clearly and successfully communicate a message in 16 different writing tasks (e.g.. 'write a letter to a friend or family member'). The writing skills measured participants' confidence in the structural aspects of writing, through being able to correctly perform eight different writing skills (e.g.. 'correctly spell all words in a one page passage'). The results showed that tbe writing skills subscale accounted for 10% of the variance in writing performance, although the writing task scale was not predictive of writing scores. Similar results have been ibund for school students (see Pajares & Johnson. 1996, for 9tb grade high school students; Pajares & Valiante, 1997, for 5th grade students; Pajares & Valiante, 1999, for middle school students; or Shell et al, 1995. for 4th, 7th, and 10th grade students). Writing essays requires not only good writing skills, but is built upon key readijig skills. Sbell et al (1989) developed a self-efficacy reading instrument tbat included two subscales: the reading task and tbe reading .skill subscales. The reading task measured undei^raduate students' confidence in being able to perform 18 reading tasks (e.g., to read 'a letter from a friend or family member). The reading skill measured participants' confidence in being able to perform nine reading skills (e.g.. 'recognise letters'). They found that reading self-efficacy was the key predictor of writing performance (accounting for 13% of tbe variance). A strong relationship between reading and writing was also found by Shanahan and Lomax (1986) with 2nd and 5th grade children, and Shell et al (1995) with 4th, 7th, and 10th grade children. However, although both the reading and writing scales developed by Sbell et al (1989) contain some aspects wbich might be considered as foundational subskills upon wbich higher order processes of writing are grounded (e.g., correctly spell all words in a one page passage"), there are

Factors affeaing approaches to studying 287

other aspects not included but are central for essay writing in higher education (e.g.. 'critically evaluate ideas and arguments in an es.say using evidence')In the current research, we weres t30.000 T7 1(e) Tj075.960 88Tw106.00c( 3.e 6wt8 i4 evid0.133 T3.e h) Tj0.75

288

Merc Prat-Sala and Paul Redford

Ramsden (1983) introduced subscales of motivation into their ASI to examine the diiferent types of motivation orientation behind each approach to study. Factor analysis of these subscales revealed that the deep approach was associated with intrinsic motivation, where the student s intention is to learn out of interest, as a form of persona! development (Entwistie, 1988a). The deep approach has also been related to the need for achievement (i.e., to succeed), whereas the surface approach has been associated with both fear of failure and extrinsic motivation, where the .student s effort is foeused on what is required for each particular task, and the student's main concern is with completion of the task or course coupled with fear of failure. The strategic approach has been associated with both extrinsic motivation, and competitive or achievement motivation. The intention ofthe student is to achieve the best performance (i.e., the liighest marks), to show mastery, and to outperform others (Entwistie, 1988a,b; Entwistle et al., 2000; Tait et al., 1998). A variety of individual differences associated with students' approaches to studying have been identified, such as self-esteem (Abouserie, 199'5), age (Richardson, 1995), gender (Hayes & Richardson, 1995), eoping strategies (Appelhans & Schmeck, 2002; Moneta & Spada, 2009; Moneta, Spada, & Rost, 2007), and personality traits (Duff, Boyie, Dunleavy, & Ferguson, 2004; Zhang, 2003). Furthermore, Richardson (2007) has shown that the relationship between students' motivation and attitudes, and their approaches to studying is bidirectional with variations in student's motives and attitudes leading to variations in their approaches to studying and vice versa. There is some evidence for the relationship between academic self-efficacy (Liem, Lau, & Nie, 2008) or general self-efficac7 (Moneta et al., 2007) and approaches to studying. However, as far as we arc aw^are, there is no evidence to show a relationship between self-effieacy in reading and self-efficacy in writing and approaches to studying. Given that reading and writing are two core tasks in many undergraduate degrees, it seems relevant to examine how students' self-efficacy in reading and writing relates to their approaches to studying, hence the second aim of the present research is to examine tiiis relationship.

Factors influencing students' approaches to studying

In addition to the evidence that individual differences .such as age and gender affect approaches to studying (Hayes & Richardson, 1995; Richardson, 1995), contextual factors such as assessment have also been shown to influence approaches to studying both directly and indirectly (Newstead, 1998; Newstead & Findlay, 1997; Thtnias & Baiji, 1984, see also Entwistie & Entwistle, 1991; Ramsden, 1997 for similar proposals). Thomas and Bain (1984) asked undergraduates to complete a learning activities questionnaire after they had completed four different types of assessment (two multiple choice exams, a written assignment, and a short answer exam), which were carried out at different times. They found that participants tended to use a more surface approach and less deep approach for the multiple choice exams but a more deep and less surface approach for the open-ended assessment. Tliese results show a direct effect between the type of assessment and the approaches to studying used by students. Similar results were found by ScouUer ( 1998) when she asked participants to identify their approaches to studying to botb an essay and a multiple choice question (MCQ) examination. Again, participants were more likely to use a surface approach for the MCQ examination but a deep approach for the essay examination. Furthermore, these same participants perceived the MCQ examination as assessing knowledge-based, low le\'els of intellectual

Factors affecting approaches to studying 289

skills and abilities but the essay assignment as assessing higher levels of intellectual skills and abilities. Scouller suggests that students' perception ofthe skills and abilities needed for assessment might moderate their approaches to studying. A similar conclusion that assessment affects students' approaches to studying was put forward by Newstead and Findlay (1997), who demonstrated that students' approaches to studying changed over the course of one setnester, Overall, there was an increase in the adoption ofthe surface approach. The deep approach decreased but not significantly. The authors attributed these results to the fact that the assessment was at the end of the semester and hence students focused on this instead of their learning. Thesefindingsindicate that students' approaches to studying do not need to be directly affected by the type of assessment (as in Scouiler, 1998 or Thomas & Bain, 1984), but that assessment in genera! seems to affect how students approach their studies. However, it is also possible that .self-efficacy may inlluence these changes. Thefinalaim of the research was to examine whetherfirst-yearpsychology students" approaches to studying change over time and whether their perceived self-efficacy in reading and writing is related to changes in their approaches to studying. From a theoretical point of view, we can assume that students might use their peribrmance on different types of assessments (among other factors) to monitor and reassess their levels of self-efficacy in reading and writing (see, e.g., Bandura, 1997 for principal sources of self-efficacy beliefs).

Aims ofthe study

The study presented below had three main aims. First, we were interested in examining the relationship between motivation orientation as a stable personality trait and students' approacbes to studying. As mentioned above intrinsic motivation is ittentified as one of the individual characteristics behind the deep approach to studying as the deep approach is linked to interest in ideas and the course content (Entwistie & Ramsden, 1983; Tait etal., 1998). Tlierefore, we expected a link between the intrinsic motivation suhscales enjoyment' and challenge' and the deep approach to studying. Furthermore, we expected that compensation, a subscale of extrinsic motivation, would also be related to the deep approach as this approach has been related to the need for achievement (Entwistie, 1988a). The surtace approach is associated with fear of failure, lack of purpose or lack of confidence, and with a heavy reliance on the prescribed syllabus (e.g., Entwistie & Ramsden, 1983; Tait et al., 1998). Thus, it was expected that the surtace approach would be negatively related to the extrinsic subscale of "compensation' as the student might perceive 'compensation' (i.e., marks) as a threat due to their fear of failure; and negatively related to the intrinsic subscale of challenge' as students might dislike challenging situations which might be perceived as situations likely to increase their likelihood of failure. Finally, it is possible tha there is a relationship between the surtace approach and the extrinsic subscale of 'outwards' to reflect the student overreliance on the syllabus (i.e., on what has been prescribed by other people). The strategic approach is associated with extrinsic and competitive motivation (Entwistle, 1988a,b). Thus, it was expected that the strategic approach would be correlated with the extrinsic motivation subscale of 'compensation' as students adopting this approach would aim to obtain the highest possible marks and with the two intrinsic subscales as students adopting this approach are characterized by having a positive attitude towards their studies (EntwisUe & Ramsden, 1983).

290

Merc Prat-Sala and Paul Redford

The second aim of the present research was to examine the relationship between self-efficacy (reading and writing) and students' approaches to studying. As far as we are aware, there is no evidence to show a link between self-efficacy and students' approaches to studying. However, there is some evidence that shows a link between self-esteem and approaches to studying. For example, using the AS in undet^raduate suidents" approaches to studying, Abouserie (1995) showed that low self-esteem is related to superficial approaches to studying and hence associated with this processing approach. In contrast, self-esteem was positively correlated with a deep processing approach. Therefore, given that perceived self-efficacy is one of the factors behind intrinsic motivation (cf. Ryan & Deci, 2000) and that self-esteem is positively correlated with a deep processing approach (Abouserie. 1995), it was predicted that the deep and strategic approaches to studying would be positively correlated to both perceived selfefficacy in reading and perceived self-efficac-y in writing. In contrast, and based on Bandura's (1983) proposal on the links between perceived self-efficacy and fear and anxiety, and the negative correlation between self-esteem and superficial approaches to learning (Abouserie, 1995), it was predicted that both perceived self-efficacy in reading and perceived self-efficacy in writing would be negatively correlated to the surface approach to studying. Tbefinalaim of tbe study was to examine whether students' approaches to studying change over time. In particular, we were interested in examining whether self-efficacy is related to possible changes in students" approaches to studying over time.

Method Participants

A sample of 163first-yearundergraduate students from an UK university took part in the study. Students were undertaking single or combined honours programmes in psychology. Tlie mean age of the sample was 21.4 years (SD = 5.92; range = 18-47 years).' There were 140 females and 23 males. All participants were tested twice, once at the beginning of the first semester, 2 weeks after they had entered university (Time 1) and again in February, 4 months later when they had started the second semester (Time 2).~
Measures
Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory

Tlie sbort version ofthe Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI) is an 18-item inventor)^ aiming to identify students" approaches to studying. The questionnaire has three subscales with six items each: deep approach (seeking meaning, relating ideas.
The sample in both Times I and 2 included some mature students (over 21 years old), hence the slightty increased mean age from [he traditionai 18-year-old entry for HE in the UK. This is also reflected in t/ie SD. There were 62 portidponts that took pan in the study during Time I but not during Time 2 and 44 participants that took part in the study during Time 2 but not during Time I. Note that only students attending a 'psychology research methods lecture' for Time I and a 'psychology research practice workshop' for Time 2 were invited to take part in the study (see procedures). Therefore, students that were absent during the testing eaure/workshop or had not enrolled to one of the modules, did not have the chance to take part in the study both times. We carried out the analyses including all the participants that took part at each time and the results were extremely similar to the ones reported here.

Factors affeaing approaches to studying 291

use of evidence, and interest in ideas), surface approach (lack of punise, lack of understanding, syllabus-boundness, and fear of failure), and strategic approach (organized studying, time management, achieving motivation, and monitoring effectiveness). Participants responded to items along a seven-point Likert-type .scale fn)m 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). We modified the originalfive-pointscale to make it consistent with tbe scales of the otber questionnaires used in tbis study. Subscales scores were formed by obtaining the mean score from tbe responses on the items in each subscale (Entwistle et al, 2000; Tait et al, 1998).

Work Preference Inveritory

This is a 3()-item inventor)' which aims to identify participants' motivation towards what they do in their studies. This instrument has two main scales each containing two subscales: intrinsic motivation, which includes 'enjoyment' and 'challenge' and extrinsic motivation, which includes 'outward' and 'compensation' subscales. Participants responded to items along a seven-point Likert-tj'pe scale from 1 (never true of me) to 7 (very true of me), with the scoring reversed when the item was negative. Subscales scores were formed by obtaining tbe mean from the responses on tlie items for each subscale (Amabile et al, 1994).

Self-efficacy in readir^g and sef-efficacy in writing

These two instruments aim to identify students' perceived self-efficac-y belief in reading academic texts in higher education (self-efficacy in reading) and students' perceived seif-efficacy belief in essay writing in higher education (.seif-efficacy in writing). Each instrument consists of 12 items. The self-efficacy in reading scale contains items that make reference to participant's perceived self-efficacy in comprehending the content of their reading, such as how well can you identify all the key points when reading ajournai article or academic book?, or after you bave read a text, how well can you answer questions on it? The self-efficacy in writing scale contains items that make reference to their .self-<rfficacy in writing essays, such as how ivell can you demonstrate substantial subject knowledge in your essay?, or how well can you protide relevant evidence to support your argument?. Participants responded to items along a seven-ptiint Likert-type scale from 1 (not well al all) to 7 (verj' well). For eiich of the two self-efficacies (reading and writing) the total score was formed by obtaining the mean from all 12 items corresponding to each instrument (Appendix).

Procedure

The participants completed the set of questionnaires during the second week of the first semester (Time 1 ) and again during the second week of the second semester (4 months later: Time 2) of their first year as undei^niduate students. During the second time of testing students had completed the assessment for the first semester but were still unaware of the results they obtained. To guarantee the maximum number of participants completing the task, tbe questionnaires were administered at the end of a psychology research methods lecture for Time 1 and a psychology research practice workshop for Time 2. Nevertheless, at all times, participants were made aware of the voluntar)' nature of their participation and were fi-ee to leave if they did not want to take part in the study.

292

Alerce Prat-Sala and Paul Redford

Because of the repeated measures nature of the design of this study, we asked participatits to include their ID student number in each set of questionnaires for identifying purposes. However, participants were assured of the confidentiality of their answers and that their anonymity would always be preserved. Results and discussion Table 1 shows the Revised Approaches to Studing Inventory (RASI), Work Preference Inventory, self-efficac^y in reading, and self-efficacy in writing alpha coefficients scores for each subscale for the present sample for each testing time. As ean be seen in Table 1 overall all the subscales present acceptable alpha coefficients, with only four scores slightly below .7,
Table I. Values of coefficient alpha for individual subscales Subscales Motivation Intrinsic Extrinsic Enjoyment Challenge Outwards Compensation Deep Strategic Surface Writing Reading Number of items 15 15 8 7 Alpha Time I .723 .707 .695 .697 .720 .649 .815 .791 .725 .898 .897 Alpha Time 2 .817 .705 .766 .740 .765 .656 .795 .789 .745 .918 .881

to
5 6 6 6 12 12

Approaches to studying

Seif-efficacy

Motivation orientations and their relationship with approaches to studying

The first aim of the study was to examine the relationship between the motivation orientations proposed by Amabile et al. (1994) and the approacbes to studying proposed by Entwistle et al (2()()()). The results of Pearson r correlations (Table 2) show that the deep approach is positively eorrelated with the two subscales of intrinsic motivation 'enjoyment' and 'challenge' at both Times 1 and 2. Additionally, at Time 2 the deep approach is negatively correlated to the extrinsic subscale of 'outwards. More notably, at Time 2 the deep approach is additionally positively correlated to the extrinsic subscale of 'compensation'. Tbis is in agreement with tbe proposal that the deep approach is linked to the need fbr achievement and the proposal that students might not only be interested in the subject they are reading at university but they might also be interested in obtaining a good degree: hence marks become relevant, especially once they have spent some time at university. As predicted, the strategic approach is correlated with the two subscales of intrinsic motivation 'enjoyment' and challenge'. Additionally, as predieted. the strategic approach is positively correlated with the extrinsic subscale of compensation". These resuits match tbe proposal tbat the strategic approach is associated with Interest in tbe subject but also signilicantly with extrinsic and competitive motivation. Finally, the surface approach is negatively correlated with the intrinsic subscale 'challenge' and positively correlated w^ith the extrinsic subscale of 'outw^ard' at both Times 1 and 2. Additionally, the surface approach is negatively correlated to

Fortors affecting approaches to studying 293 Table 2. Correlation coefficients between subscales of motivation and approaches to studying Enjoyment
Tinrie 1

Challenge

Outward

Compensation

Deep Strategic Surface Time 2 Deep Strategic Surface

.452*** .185* .020 .496**=* 273*** .049

.488*** .362*** -.401***

-.037 .001 .306*** -.216** -.029 .232**

.141 .370*** -.128 .284*** - .223**

.525***
.402*** - .380***

*p < .05; **p < .01; * * * f > < .001. 'compensation' at Time 2. From these results, it is possible to suggest tbat students adopting the surface approach are likely to prefer non-challenging situations (nonthreatening) and might perceive 'compensation' (e.g., marks) as threatening liue to their fear of failure. Note that similar to the deep approach, compensation only becomes related to the surface approach for Time 2, when students have spent some time in higher education, when they may have a clearer understanding of their study approach and motivations. Multiple regression analyses were then performed to determine the predictive value of motivation orientation subscales on students' approaches to studying. Tor all the analyses, we used the stepwise methods with the four motivation subscales as the predictor variables and each ofthe approaches to studying as the dependent variables. The first set of analyses focused on the data from Time 1. When the deep approach was used as the outcome variable, a significant model emerged (F(2, 160) 39.10, p < .001). The model explained 32% of the variance with challenge contributing 23.3%
Table 3. Regression analyses of approaches to studying at each testing time Criterion Time 1 Deep Strategic Surface Predictor Adj. R^

0.376 0.321 0.323 0.314 - 0.340 0.294 -0.145 0.262 0.361 0.190 -0.156 0.410 0.281 -0.503 0.275

P
.0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .046 .001 .0001 .004 .020 .0001 .0001 .0001 .001

Challenge Enjoyment Compensation Challenge Challenge Outward Compensation Challenge Enjoyment Compensation Outward Compensation Challenge Chalienge Enjoyment

.233 .320

.132
.224 .156 .216 .230 .272 .353 .372 .389 .238 .307 .139 .194

5.43 4.64 4.62 4.48 -4.80 4.08 -2.01 3.38 5,17 2.88 -2.35 5.99 4.11 -6.37 3.48

Time 2 Deep

Strategic Surface

294

Merc Prat-Sala and Paul Redfard

and enjoyment contributing 8.7% (see Table 3)- A further significant model emerged when the strategic approach was used as the outcome variable (F(2, 160) = 24.33, p < .001). The model explained 22.4% ofthe variance with compensation contributing 13.2% and challenge contributing 9.2%. A final significant model emerged when the surface approach was used as the outcome variable ('(3,159) = 17.15, p < .001). The model explained 23% ofthe variance, with challenge contributing 15.6%, outwards contributing 6% and compensation contributing a further 1.4% (see Table 3). Note that the relationships between the surface approach and both challenge and compensation were negative. The second set of analyses focused on the data from Time 2. Again a significant model appeared when the deep approach was used as the outcome variable (/'(4,158)^ 26.79. /> < .001). The model explained 38.9% of the variance with challenge contributing 27.2%, enjoyment contributing 8.1%, compensation contributing 1.9%, and outward contributing 1.7%. Note though, that the relationship between the deep approach and outwards was negative. For the strategic approach, a further significant model emerged (F(2, 160) = 36.80, p < .001). The model explained 30.7% ofthe variance with compensation contributing 23.8% and challenge contributing 6.9%. A final significant model emerged with the surface approach (.f(2, 160) = 20.56, p < ,001). The model explained 19.4% of the variance, with challenge contributing 13.9% and enjoyment contributing a ftirther 5.5%. The correlation between surface approach and challenge was negative (see Table 3)-

Interim discussion The analyses reported above show two main results. First, we found that students adopting certain approaches to studying can be both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated, suggesting that motivation orientation is orthogonal. We found that the deep approach was related to the two intrinsic subscales "enjoyment' and challenge' but also to the extrinsic subscale of 'compensation'. This was true during Time 2 after students had spent some time in higher education and after they had already completed the assessment for their first semester. At all times, the strategic approach was related to the extrinsic subscale of "compensation' and to the intrinsic subscales of 'challenge' and 'enjoyment'. Finally, at all times the surface approach was negatively related to the intrinsic subscale of challenge' but positively related to the extrinsic subscale of outward'. Additionally, the surface approach was negatively related to the extrinsic subscale of 'compensation" but at Time 2 only. These results revealed that challenge' was the strongest predictor of the deep approach, accounting for 23.3% of the variance at Time 1 and 27.2% at Time 2. The second strongest predictor was "enjoyment', accounting for 8.7% of the variance at Time 1 and 8.1% at Time 2. For the surface approach, 'challenge' was also the strongest predictor accounting for 15.6% ofthe variance at Time 1 and 13.9%iat Time 2. However, here the relationship was negative. This means that unlike students adopting the deep approach, the students who are more likely to adopt the surface approach are less likely to seek or enjoy challenging situations. Finally, 'compensation' was the strongest predictor of the strategic approach, accounting for 13.2% of the variance at Time 1 and 23.8% at Time 2. The second strongest predictor was challenge', accounting for 9-2% at Time 1 and 6.9% at Time 2.

Factors affeaing approaches to studying 295 Self-efficacy in reading and writing and their effects on approaches to studying

The present research also aimed to examine tbe relationship between self-efficacy in reading and self-efficacy in writing in higher education, and approaches to studying. When participants were tested during Time 1, they had been at university for only 2 weeks. Consequently, they had no experience at writing essays at higher education level and very little experience of reading academic books and articles. Therefore, students would have been unclear about the specific behaviours needed to be successful in these tasks. Hence, it is fair to assume that the scores obtained during Time 1 would have been based on students' past experience and expectations about university and not their real experience in higher education (HE). To judge students" self-efficacies in reading and writing in HE, we needed to wait until students had spent some time at university and hence had acquired some experience in writing essays and reading academic texts in HE. These scores were obtained during Time 2. The next step consisted of examining the relationsbip between the three approaches to studying and the se!f-efficac7 in writing and self-efficacy in reading scales. The results of Pearson r correlations (Table 4) show that both the deep and the strategic approach positively correlated with both self-^ficac7 in reading and self-efficac7 in writing. This means that students adopting these approaches also have high levels of belief in their abilities to write essays and gain knowledge by reading academic journals or btjoks. ln contrast, the surface approacb correlated negatively with both seif-efficac7 in reading and self-eficacy in writing. Hence, tbe students adopting this approach have low selfefficacy beliefs in their abilities in reading and writing in higher education.
Table 4. Correlations coefficients between self-efficacy and approaches to studying at Time 2 Self-efficacy in writing Deep Strategic Surface ***p < .001. Possible changes of approaches to studying over 4 months .330*** .352*** -.481*** Self-efficacy in reading .457*** .433*** -.458***

For ()ur next analyses and to explore tlie effects of self-efficacy on students" approaches to studying, we categorized students into either high self-efficacy or low self-efficacy based on the median obtained from their self-efficacy scales at Time 2 (Table 5). As can be seen in Table S, tbe mean scores for the deep and the strategic approaches are higher for the participants classified as high self-efficacy in writing than for those classified as low self-efficacy in writing. This is true at all testing times (all p's < .05). In contrast, at all testing times, the mean scores for tbe surface approach are higher for the participants classified as low self-efficacy in writing than for those classified as high self-efficacy in writing. The pattern is identical for self^fficacy in reading (all/7's < .005). These results imply that self<'fficacy and study strategy are related. The final aim of the present study was to examine whether students' approaches to studying change over a 4-month period. Moreover, we were interesietl in whether (his change was related to their self-efficacy score. As we had multiple dependent variables (deep, strategic, surface) at multiple points in time (Times 1 and 2) across two groups (high and low self-efficacy) our design was doubly multivariate. We therefore analysed the results using a multivariate approach to repeated measures. We carried out two

296

Merc Prat-Sala and Paui Redford

Table 5. Mean scores for students classified as high and low self-efficacy across approaches to studying and cime Deep Time I
Setf-efficacy in reading

Strategic Time 2 Time I Time 2 Time I

Surhce Time 2

Low (N = 81 ) High (N = 82) L o w ( N = 86)'' High (N = 77)

4.48 (0.91 )' 4.88 (0.75) 4.55(0.86) 4.83(0.82)

4.19 (0.80) 4.92 (0.81 ) 4.28(0.83) 4.87(0.84)

4.55 (0.89) 5.02 (0.87) 4.49(0.93) 5.11(0.77)

4.23 (0.89) 4.91 (0.94) 4.25(0.89) 4.93(0.94)

3.94 (0.88) 3.50 ( 1.00) 3.93(0.99) 3.50(0.88)

4.19 (0.96) 3.44 (0.91 ) 4.21(0.97) 3.37(0.85)

Self-efficacy in writing

^ SD in parenthesis. ' Due to the participants scores a 50/50 split was not possible. These figures represent a 52.8%/47.2% split.

analyses, one each for self-efficacy in reading and writing. The key finding is the higher order interaction between time and self-efficac7 on approaches to studying. This result was significant tor both seif-efficacy in reading (Wilks' A = .939, /'(3, t5S) - 3-419, J-.019, partial TI^ = .061) and self-efficacy in writing (Wilks' A - .917, F(5,158) = 4.753./ ^ -003, partial TI" - .083). The univariate within subject effects demonstrated that tor tbe reading seif-efficacy groups the interaction between self-efficacy and time was significant for the deep approach (F( I, l60) = 8.638, p = .004, partial -ri^ = .051 ) and nearing significance for the surface approach (f(l, l60) = 3.649,p= .058, partial TI" = .022) but not significant for the strategic approach (F(l, 160) = 2.366, p=.l26, partial Tn^^.015). Tbese results were replicated for the writing self-efficacy groups where there was a statistically significant interaction between self-efcacy and time for the deep approach (/'(1,160) - 8.622, p = .OO4, partial 71^^.051) and for the surface approach (F(\, 160) = 7.552. p = .007, partial T)- ^ .045) but not significant for the strategic approach (F(l, 160) - .457, p = .50, partial TI^ = .003). Tbese results demonstrate that whereas the approaches to studying adopted by the bigb seif-efficacy group did not change between Times 1 and 2 (Figures Ib and 2b), the approaches to studying adopted by tbe low self-efficac7 group became less deep (/J s < .001 for reading and writing self-efficacy) and more surface (/; = .038 tor reading self-efficacy,^ = .006 for writing self-efficacy; Figures la and 2a). These results imply that students with lower levels of self<-fficacy in reading and writing tend to change their study strategies as university progresses, adopting worse study strategies over time. Conversely, students with high self-efficacy continue to adopt successful study strategies.

Interim discussion The analyses reported above sbow three main results. Tbe first set of results show that while tbere is a significant positive correlation between students seif-efficacy scores (both in reading and writing), and the deep and the strategic approach, tbere is a significant negative correlation between tbe self-efficacies in reading and self-efficacy in writing and tbe surface approacb. In the second set of analyses, participants were classified as either high or low self-efficacy in reading, and either high or low self-efficacy in writing. The results showed

Factors affecting approaches to studying 297 (a) 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 - Deep
Strategic

-*-

Surface

4.1
4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6
Time 1 Time (b) 5.4 5.25.04.84.6 4.4 c - - Deep
Strategic

it

Time 2

t 4.2
4.03.83.63.4. 3.23.0 Time 1 Time Figure I . (a) Changes in learning approaches between Times I and 2 by students classified as low selfefficacy in reading, (b) Changes in learning approaches between Times I and 2 by students classified as high self-efficacy in reading. Time 2

that for both tasks, participants classified as having high seif-efficacy demonstrated significantly bigher mean scores for deep and strategic approach and lower mean scores for the surfaee approach than the participants classified in the low self-efficacies category. This means that participants classified in the high self-efficacy (reading or writing) were more likely to adopt tbe deep or the strategic approach while the participants classilied in the low-self-efficacy (reading or writing) category were more likely to adopt the surface approach. Finally, the interaction between time, seif-efficacy, and approach to study demonstrated that students classified as low self-efficacy reduced their deep approach

298

Merc Prat-Sala and Paul Redford

(a) 4.6-, -Deep 4.5 4.44.34.2c d) 4.1 Strategic * Surface

4.03.93.8 3.7

3.6

Time 1 Time

Time 2

(b) 5.4-, 5.25.0 4.84.64.4-

*-Deep '-Strategic *- Surface

g 4.24.03.83.63.43.23.0
Time 1 Time Time 2

Figure 2. (a) Changes in learning approaches between Times I and 2 by students classified as low self-efficacy in writing, (b) Changes in learning approaches between Times I and 2 by students classified as high self-efficacy in writing.

and increased their surface approach between Times 1 and 2. For students classified as liigh self-efftcacy their approaches to studying did not change. This implies that self-efficacy may moderate the approaches to study that students adopt across time.

Conc\us\ons The results of the present study demonstrate the importance of self-efftcacy in understanding both motivation and learning approaches in undergraduate students.

Faaors affecting approaches to studying

299

Specifically, changes in students' learning approaches were dependent on their self-efficacy beliefs. The results also support the notion proposed by Amabile et al. (1994; see also Harter, 1981) that motivation orientation can work onhogonally (one can be high or low on both). Furthermore, these findings extend previous research on undergraduate students (Lepper et al, 2005), as deep, strategic and surface approaches to studying were related to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation subscales. Moneta and Spada (2(X)9) examined the relationship between the Amabile et al. (1994) motivation inventt)ry and Entwistle and colleagues approaches to studying. Their results show that intrinsic motivation was positively correlated to both the deep and the strategic approach and negatively correlated to the surface approach, and that extrinsic motivation was positively correlated with the surface approach. However. unexpectedly, they alsi) tbund a positive correlation between extrinsic motivation and both the deep and the strategic approach. Nonetheless, Moneta and Spada did not examine how the more fine-grained intrinsic and extrinsic subscales correlate with approaches to studying. As predicted, our results show that the deep and the strategic approach were significantly positively correlated with the intrinsic subscales of enjoyment and challenge at both times. Moreover, only the intrinsic subscale of challenge was negatively correlated to the surface approach both times. These results confirm and refine Moneta and Spada's (2009) results and demonstrate the need to understand motivation at a more detailed level than broad intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation. Contrary to our predictions, at Time 1 the deep approach was not correlated to any of the subscales of extrinsic motivation. However, as predicted, at Time 2 the deep appri)ach was positively correlated to the extrinsic subscale of compensatit)n and negatively correlated to the extrinsic subscale outwards. This demonstrates the changes in motivation that students adopting the deep approach may go through during their journey through higher education in the UK. As assessments become more important (and as they spend more time at university) students adopting the deep approach are also motivated by compensation, as well as by intrinsic factors. Furthermore, only the extrinsic subscale of compensation was positiveiy correlated to the strategic approach at both times. This demonstrates a specific focus on achievement for students adopting the strategic approach. This may help explain the finding that strategic approaches to study are related to academic pertbrmance. Finally, the extrinsic subscale of outward was positively correlated with the surface approach at both times. This might reflect student's inclination to heavily rely on the prescribed syllabus or on what others have prescribed (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Tait et ai, 1998). Therefore, being motivated by what others want (outward focus) results in a poorer study approach. The results of the regression analyses revealed that challenge and enjoyment were the strongest predictors of the deep approach at all times. In contrast, compensation was the strongest predietor of the strategic approach at all times, with challenge the second strongest predictor. Fntwistle et al. (2000) propose that students adopting the strategic approach have the determination to do well'. Hence at first glance, these results could be interpreted as students who adopt a strategic approach have an over-reliance on compensation and hence focus mainly on obtaining good marks. However, the strategic approach is also linked to achieving motivatit)n and students monitoring effectiveness. Therefore, the strong link between strategic approach and the subscale of compensation might not only reflect the students' determination to get good marks but it might also reflect their use of the marks as a way to monitor

300

Alerce Prat-Saa and Paul Redford

their progress and to get feedback on their skills, abilities, and performance. Lepper et al. (2005) suggest that grades can provide children with an indication of their competence and mastery on a particular task, and bence children's interest in grades can also be interpreted as an intrinsic interest on what they are doing. The same can be applied to undergraduate students who take the strategic approach. In this sense, for these students marks are related to both their intrinsic and their extrinsic motivation. The results of tbe regression analysis revealed tbat challenge was the strongest predictor of tbe surface approach at all times. It seems that the students who tend to adopt the surface approach are more likely to dislike challenging situations. This might be in part due to their high levels of fear of failure or due to their lack of understanding of the material being studied (Entwistle et al., 2000). The results ofthe study also show a positive correlation between the deep approach to studying and both self-efficacy in reading and writing and a negative correlation between the surface approach and both self-efficacies. These results are similar to the ones found by Abouserie (1995) for self-esteem, extending them to self-efficacy in reading and writing. Additionally, our results show a positive correlation between the strategic approach and both self-efficacies. These results demonstrate tbat not only does motivation influence their study approacb, but tbat students' belief in their abilities are related to the approaches they take to their studies. The results of the study also show that students classified as high in self-efficacy in reading or high in self-efficacy in writing were more likely to adopt the deep or tbe strategic approach while the students classified as low in self-efficacy in reading or low in self-efficacy in writing were more likely to adopt the surface approacb of stud> ing. This may have a double impact on students with low self-efficacy who may adopt inadequate approaches to deal with their low levels of belief in tbeir abilities, resulting in poorer performance, thereby reinforcing their beliefs. More notably, self-efficacy belief in reading and writing seems to be related to whether students change their approaches to studying across a 4-month period. Newstead and Findlay (1997) provided evidence that over the course of a semester students tended to change tbeir approach to studying. They attribute this to an increase in perceived assessment demands. The results of their study suggested that by the end of the semester, there was an increase in the adoption of tbe surface approach, though the adoption of the deep approach did not change. In Newstead and Findlay's results this may have been driven in part by the fact that tbeir data were collected during an assessment period. Our results demonstrated a more complex picture than this general shift in learning approaches across time. Newstead and Findiay"s (1997) results seems to tell us only part of the story, as our results also show that the changes in approaches to studying over time are related to students' self-efficacy beliefs. Tlie results show tbat the approaches to studying did not change between Times 1 and 2 for tbe students categorized as high in self-efficacy (both reading and writing). However, the approaches to studying changed between Times 1 and 2 for the students categorized as low in self-efficacy (reading and writing). For tbese students, the scores for the deep and the strategic appri)ach were significantly lower at Time 2 than at Time 1 while the scores for the surface approach were significantly higher at Time 2 than at Time 1. We can see that perceived self-efficacy (in both reading and writing) has implications for these students' approaches to their studies. From these results, it seems tbat those students with lower levels of self^fficacy on relevant university tasks end up altering their approaches to studying, which

Factors affecting approaches to studying 301

consequently may have further negative effects on their grades and reinforce their self-efficacy beliefs. Therefore, these results are important for understanding a cycle of underperformance in students tbat may eventually infiuence overall perfi)rmance or retention witbin tlic university system, and may even have a broader inihience on a student's confidence in other areas; obviously these propositions will require further empirical examination. Needless to say, these results may only apply to first year psychology students in their initial stages of their degrees and hence a longitudinal study including students from a variety of disciplines, wbere students are followed throughout a longer period of time would provide a more extensive examination of the interplay between students" approaches to studying and self-efficacy in reading and writing. Nevertbeless, our results provide clear evidence of the role o self efficac\ in reading and writing on students' appniaches to studying at least during their initial stages at university. Although these results provide some clear indications of the relationships between motivation, approaches to studying, and self-efficacy there are also some conceptual issues surrounding the distinctiveness of these constructs. There is some conceptual overlap between tbe motivation subscales proposed b>' Amabile et al ( I99) as defining stable motivational traits, and tiie motivational state as part of ones approach to study. For example, 'compensation' is not only a general motivation orientation, but is a feature of tbe strategic approacb. Tlierefore, tbe reiatiotisbips between tbese variables may also be influenced b>' some conceptual (and item) overlap, and not just a relationship between distinct constructs. Further theoretical and conceptual work clarifying the distinctions between these constnicts is needed to fully understand tbe interplay between state and trait motivation and between general motivation orientation and specific approaches to studying. Despite this limitation, these results clearly sbow an effect of self-efficacy in reading and self-efficacy in writing on students' approaches to studying. Overall, these results have implications on students' bebaviour and self-regulation. From a motivation point of view, subjective judgments of efficacy determine how much effort a person makes and how much this person persists given an adverse situation, li a person's seif-efficacy is low, then it is more likely that person would put in less effort or would give up in difficult or challenging situations than if tbe person's .self-efficacy is higli (e.g., Bandura, 1986, 1989). Additionally, self-<.'fficacy is related to emotional reactions where people with low self-efficacy have higher stress levels and anxiety than people witb higb self-efficacy (Bandura. 1983, 1986). Finally, perceived self-<-fficacy also affects the goals people set for themselves. Tbe higher the level of self-efficacy the higher the goals they set for themselves and the more likely they would persevere and be committed to tbese goals (Bandura, 1991). All of this has obvious implication for students' behaviour in higher educati()n and students' likely successful completion. The two self-efficacies used in tbe present study were self-efficacy in reading and writing at higher education. Reading academic text and writing essays are essential aspects of any undergraduate degree. These results do provide some indication tbat focusing on self-efficacy beliefs amongst students may be beneficial to improving their study approaches. Moreover, knowing tbat self-efficac)' affects people's effort. perseverance and goals, and people's levels of stress and anxiety, it might be that students' self-efficacy in reading and writing might be an indicator of students' successful completion of their course or degree, though further research would be needed to confirm tbis proposal.

302

Merc Prat-Sala and Paul Redford

References

Abouserie, R. (1995). Self-esteem and achievement motivation as determinants of students' approaches to studying. Studies in Higher Education, 20, 19-26, Amabile, T. M., Hill, D. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). Thtr Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations./oMm/ of Personality and Social Psychology, 66. 950-967. Appelhans, B. M., & Schmeck, R. R. (2002). Learning styles and approach versus avoidant coping during academic exam preparation. College Students Journal, 36, 157-160. Bandura. A. (1977). Seif-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1983). Self-efficacy determinants of anticipated fears and calamities. Journal of Personalitjf atid .Social Psychology. 45, 464-469. Bandura, A. (i986). Socialfoundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. London: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agenc)' in social cognitive thct)ry. Ametican Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287. Bandura. A. (1993). Perceived self-efficaey in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28. 117-148. Bandtira. A. (1994). Selt-efficaty. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behaviour (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control New York: W.H. Freeman. Biindura, A. (2()01). Guide for construction setf-ej)icacy scales. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Bandura, A., & Adams, N. (1977). Analysis of seif-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognitive Werapy Research, 1, 297-304. Bong, M. (2001). Role of self-efficacy and task-value in predicting college students' course performance and future enrolment intentions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 553-570. Bong, M., & Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self<oncept and self-efficacy in academic moti^'ation research. Educational Psychology, 3-^. 139-153Bouffard, T., Boiteau, L., & Vezeau, (;. (2001). Students' transition from elementary to high school and changes of the relationship between motivation and academic performance. European Jounial of Psycijology of Education, 17, 589-604. Cameron, J,, & Pitrce, E. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A mctaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363-423Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105-115. Dfci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. London: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L, Koestner, R., S Ryan, R. M. (1999a). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 25, 627-668. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R.,&Ryan,R. M.( 1999b). The undermining effect is a reality after all-extrinsic rewards, txsk interest, and self-determination: Reply to Eisenberger, Pierce, and Cameron (1999) and Upper, Henderiong, and (.infy^s(]999). Psychological Bulletin. 125. 692-700. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001)- Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71, 1-27. Duff, A., Boyle, E., Dunleavy, K., & Fei^sason, J. (2(MH). Tlie relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1907-1920. Eisenberger, R., Pierce, W. D., &. Cameron, J. (1999). Effects of reward on intrinsic motivation negative, neutral, and positive: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin. 125.677-691.

Factors affecting approaches to studying

303

Entwistle, N. (1988a). Motivation and learning strategies. Educational and Child Psychology, 5, Entwistlc, N. (1988b). Motivational factors in students' approaches tu learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and earning styles (pp. 21-51). London: Plenum Press. Entwistlc, N., & Entwistlc, A. (1991). Contrasting form of understanding for degree examinations: The student experience and its implications. Higher Education. 22. 205-227. Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm. Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approach to study inventory acnjss contni.sting groups and context. European Journal of the Psychology of Education, 15, 33-48. Finn, K. V, & Frone, M. R. (2004). Academic performance and cheating: Moderating n)Ie of school identification and ^c\(<czcy. Journal of Educational Research, 97. 115-122. Harter, S. ( 1981 ). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classrtMjm: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psycholrjgy, f, 300-312. Hayes, K., & Richardson, J. T E. (1995). Gender, subject and context as determinants of approaches to studying in higher education. Studies in Higher Education. 20, 215-222, Lane, J.. & Lane, A- (2001). Seli-efficacy and academic performance. Sociai Behavior and Personality, 29, 687-693. Lane, J., Lane, A., & Kyprianou, A. (2(K)4). Self-efficacy, self-esteem and their impact on academic performance. Social Hehavior and Personality, 32, 247-256. Lepper. M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates.yo/zr// of Elucaiional Psycholog}', 97, 184-196. Liem, A. I)., I-iti. S,. & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy. task value, and achievement goal in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement outcome. Contemporary Educational Psycholog}', 33, 486-512. Marton. F (1976). What docs It take to Icam? In N. Entwistle (Ed.), Strategies for research and development in higher education (pp. 32-43)- Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger. Marton, F. t Slj. R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning I - outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 46. 4-11. Marton, F, & Slj, R. (1997). Approaches to learning- In F Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Fds.), The experience of learning: Implications for teaching and stueiying in higher education (2nd ed., pp.39-5K). Edinbui^h: Scottish Academic Press. McCarthy, P, Meier, S.. & Rinderer, R. (1985). Self-efficacy and writing: A different view of self-evaluation. College Composition and Communication. 36, 465-471. Meier, S., McCarthy. P R., & Schmeck, R. R. (1984). Validity of self-efficac7 as a predictor uf writing performance. Cognitive Therayy and Research. 8, 107-120. Moneta, Ci. B., & Spada, M. M. (2009). Coping as a mediator of the relationships between trait intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and approaches to studying during academic exam preparation. l\'rsomility and Indit'idtial Difference, 46, >6-669. Moneta, Ci. B., Spada, M. M., & Rost, F M. (2(K)7)- Approaches to studying when preparing for final cxmsasafunctionofcopin^strate^es. Personality and Individual Diffetvnces, 43,191-202. Newstead, S. (1998). Individual differences in student motivation. In S. Brown, S. Armstrong, & C;. Thompson (Fds.), Motivating students (pp. 189-199)- London: Kogan PageNewstead, S., & Findlay, K. (1997). Some problems with using examination performance as a measure of teaching ahilitj'. Psychology Teaching Reriew. 6. 23-30. Ofuri, R., & Charlton, J. P. (2(M)2). A path nuxiel of factors influencing the academic performance of nursing students, yo/r;// of Advanced Nursing. 38. 507-515. Pajares, F, & Johnson, M. (1994). Cxinfidence and competence in writing: The role uf self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 313-331. Pajares. F, & Johnson, M. (1996). Self-eficacybeliefsand the writing performance of entering high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 163-174.

304

Merc Prat-Sata and Paul Redford

Pajares, F, & Valante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students' writing. Journal of Rduaitional Research. W, 353-360. Pajares. F. & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing self-belief of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology', 24, 390-405. Pintrich, P R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated leaming. International Juiirna! of Ethical ioncil Research. J/, 459-470. Pintrich, P R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-rcgulatcd learning components of classroom academic performance./iy//n/ of Educational Psychology. 82, 33-40. Ramsden. H ( 1997). The context of learning in academic departments. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The e.xperience of leaming: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education C2nd ed., pp. 39-58). Kdinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. Richardson, J, T. E. (1995), Mature students in higher-education: II. An investigation of approaches to studying and academic performance. Studies in Higher Education. 20, 5-17. Richardson, j . T E. (2007). Motives, attitudes and approaches to studying in distance education. Higher Education, 54, 385-416. Ryan, R. M., & Deci. E. I.. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrin.sic motivation, social development, and well-being. Ameiican Psychologist. 55, 68-78. Schunk. D. H.. & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulator>' competence. Educational Psychologist. 32, 195-208. ScouUer, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students' leaming approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35. 453-472. Shanahan. T., & I.omax, R. G. (1986). An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the reading-writing Tv\tionship. Journal of Edncatiotial Psychology, 78, 116-123. Shell, D. F, Colvin, C, & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectantly mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-level differences, yow'// ofEtHcational Psycholog^', 8'', 386-398. Shell, D. F, Murphy. C. C., & Bmning, R. H. (1989). Sclf-efficacj- and outeome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. yoMnwi/ of Educational Psychology, 81, 91-100. Tait, H.. Entwi.stle. N., & McCune. V. (1998). ASSIST: A rcconccptualisation ofthe Approaches to Studying [nventijry. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: lnim>ring students as learners (pp. 262-271). Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, The Oxford Centre for Staff and learning Development. Tilomas, P R., & Bain, J. D. (1984). Contextual dependence of leaming approaches: The effects of assessments. Human Learning. ,, 227-240. Wolter, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated leaming and college students' regulation of motivation. Journal of E.ducinional Psychology. 90. 224-235. Zhang, L. (2003). Does the big five predict learning approaches? Personality {nul Individual Dijferences. 34, 1431-1446. Zimmerman. B. J.. & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, J/, 845-862.
Received 10 July 2008; revised version received 25 August 2009

Factors affecting approaches to studying 305

Appendix
Self-efficacy belief in reading academic texts (1) How well can you identify all the key points when reading a journal article or academic book? (2) How well can you understand a journal article or academic book if you put a lot of effort in? (3) Whilst reading an article, how well can you identify other relevant references wbich you consider may be of further interest to read? (4) After you have read a text, how well can you answer questions on it? (5) How well can you understand the meaning of each sentence when you read? (6) How well can you recall the most important points (e.g., development of an argument) when you have finished reading a journal article or book chapter? (7) Before you critically evaluate a statement, how well have you understood its meaning? (8) How well can you search effectively for relevant background reading when writing an essay? (9) Wiien reading, how well can you make notes in your own words? (10) If you cannot understand an academic text, how well can you understand it if yt)u go to a lecture about it? (11) How well can you use a variety of different methods to enable your understanding of a book chapter or journal article? (e.g.. highlighting, underlining, etc.). (12) How well can you select the most appropriate reading from a number of relevant articles and books?

Self-efficacy belief in essay writing (1) How well can you express your arguments clearly in essays? (2) How well can you link the paragraphs to make your essay coherent and make the text flow? (3) If you put in a lot of effort, how well can you write an essay you are proud of? (4) How well can you provide relevant evidence to support your argument? (5) Before you finish your essay, how well can you make the conclusion relate to the introduction and the essay question? (6) How well can you write an effective introduction which informs the reader of your intentions for the essay? (7) How well can you demonstrate substantial subject knowledge in your essay? (8) How well can you think about what is required of you before you write an essay? (9) How well can you put ideas together in such a way that they are clear to the reader? (10) How well can you critically evaluate ideas and arguments in an essay using evidence, but without using personal opinion.s? (11) How well can you plan and write essays because you know what the tutor expects of you? (12) How well can you adopt a variety of different methods to enhance your essay writing, according to the question? (e.g., noting everything down straight away or writing the essay in separate blocks and then putting it together, etc.),

Copyright of British Journal of Educational Psychology is the property of British Psychological Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.