Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 

C 2018 Decision Sciences Institute

Volume 16 Number 3
July 2018

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

An Examination of College Students’

Problem-Solving Self-Efficacy, Academic
Self-Efficacy, Motivation, Test Performance,
and Expected Grade in Introductory-Level
Economics Courses
Leslie Ramos Salazar† and Stephen L. Hayward†
West Texas A&M University, 806-651-2548, e-mail: lsalazar@wtamu.edu,
shayward@wtamu.edu

ABSTRACT
This study investigated whether self-efficacy influenced students’ educational outcomes
in introductory-level economics courses. First, this study investigated the correlations
between problem-solving self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy, and motivation. Second,
this study investigated whether problem-solving and academic self-efficacy served as
predictors of students’ motivation, test performance, and expected grade. Correlational
analyses suggest that problem-solving and academic self-efficacy are correlated with
student motivation. Results show that problem-solving self-efficacy was a predictor of
student motivation and test performance. Academic self-efficacy and problem-solving
self-efficacy were also predictors of their expected grade. Implications and future direc-
tions for economics education are also discussed.

Subject Areas: Academic Self-Efficacy, College Students, Economics

Education, Expected Grade, Motivation, Problem-Solving Self-Efficacy, Test
Performance.

INTRODUCTION
Student motivation and performance in introductory economics courses continue
to be issues of concern for many educators in higher education institutions (Arnold
& Straten, 2012). Interestingly, undergraduate assessments in economics courses
are becoming mandatory across many business colleges in the United States
(Bosshardt & Watts, 2008). Students often take economics courses as a single-
semester course by combining microeconomics and macroeconomics concepts,
or as a two-semester course with principles of microeconomics and principles
of macroeconomics in 4-year universities (Siegfried & Walstad, 2014). However,

† Corresponding Author.

217
218 Students’ Self-Efficacy in Economics Courses

as soon as complexity is introduced in the assessment mechanisms of introduc-

tory economics courses, students’ motivation and academic performance dwindle
(Ariani, 2016; Brahim, Johnson & McKenzie, 2012), which can affect educators’
ability to achieve their students’ learning outcomes. A common learning objec-
tive in introductory economics courses is to empower students to think and learn
for themselves by providing them with the self-efficacy to do so (McGoldrick &
Garnett, 2013). Introductory economics courses often emphasize students’ ability
to engage in the problem-solving and critical thinking process to enable students
to think like “economists” in a complex world (McGoldrik, 2008).
Conversely, when students are demotivated and perform poorly in their
courses, students are more likely to display poor class attendance (Caviglia-Harris,
2006; Durden & Ellis, 2003) and may drop out of college during their first aca-
demic year (Baars & Arnold, 2015). Both instructors and students of introductory
economics courses care about students’ academic performance, motivation, and
grades, but for different reasons (Allgood, Waldstad, & Siegfried, 2015). Instructors
care about students’ success because it influences their overall course evaluations,
and students care because it influences their course grade or grade point average
(Allgood et al., 2015). Because the problem-solving process in economics courses
is difficult for many students, it is important to investigate whether self-efficacy
influences students’ motivation and performance in economics classes. Thus, the
main purpose of this study is to investigate whether self-efficacy constructs posi-
tively impact students’ motivation, performance, and expectations for achievement
in introductory economics classes.

Self-Efficacy Theory
Bandura (1997) developed the theory of self-efficacy as an extension from so-
cial cognitive theory to explain how individuals judge their own competencies
or skills. Self-efficacy is defined as “a generative capability in which cognitive,
social, emotional and behavioral subskills must be organized and effectively or-
chestrated to serve multi-purposes” (p. 37). Efficacy in higher education refers to
the belief within oneself to perform academic tasks or to solve academic problems
(Bandura, 1997; Wigfield, 1994). Students with high self-efficacy tend to dis-
play more competence in achieving their academic performance goals than those
with low self-efficacy (Wigfield, 1994). High self-efficacy students are also more
likely to be intrinsically motivated to succeed in college because of their inherent
self-belief in their academic abilities (Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005).
While self-efficacy is highly evident in academic settings (Brouwer, Ellen,
Flache, & Hofman, 2016), there are two types of self-efficacy that are primarily
relevant to students’ academic motivation and success, which include problem-
solving self-efficacy and academic self-efficacy. Problem-solving self-efficacy
(PSE) refers to the specific belief that one can successfully solve the problems
encountered at school (Bandura, 2006). Problem-solving self-efficacy can impact
students’ motivation to complete problems in academic classrooms despite their
level of difficulty (Bandura, 2006). On the other hand, academic self-efficacy
(ASE), a broader construct, is defined as the “specific personal beliefs about
one’s ability to organize, regulate, and execute actions to attain desired levels
Ramos Salazar and Hayward 219

of academic performance” (Feldman, Davidson, Ben-Naim, Maza, & Margalit,

2016, p. 65). Academic self-efficacy has been shown to be a causal predictor of
problem-solving efficacy, particularly in mathematical courses (Pajares & Miller,
1994). More specifically, academic self-efficacy has been shown to predict stu-
dents’ academic performance regarding their grade point average and expected
course grades (Bembenutty & White, 2013). Students who display high academic
self-efficacy in college may be likely to display high problem-solving self-efficacy
in economic classrooms (Bandura, 2006). For instance, a study by Crippen and
Earl (2007) found that students who worked on Web-based examples displayed
both problem-solving skills and academic self-efficacy. To date, the existing liter-
ature has examined self-efficacy and problem solving; however, the literature has
focused solely on examining one type of self-efficacy (e.g., academic or problem-
solving) when exploring student outcomes (Bembenutty & White, 2013). Thus,
this will be the first study to investigate both self-efficacy constructs in students
in economics courses to better understand whether both self-efficacy constructs
influence motivation, test performance, and grade expectations.

Self-Efficacy and Student Motivation

Self-efficacy is an important theoretical concept to consider when investigating stu-
dents’ motivation in economics education. For instance, self-efficacious students
may be motivated to perform well in economics classes (Bandura, 1997). Students
with high self-efficacy beliefs may complete difficult tasks and problems in eco-
nomics classes in comparison to those with low self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura &
Schunk, 1981; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1999). On the other hand, students with
low self-efficacy beliefs in the problem-solving process may not display motiva-
tion in learning abstract concepts in economics courses and may give up as soon
as they encounter difficult problems (Bandura, 1997). Depending on how students
view their perceived failure in solving academic problems, students may feel either
motivated or demotivated by it (Bandura, 2001).
Previously, Yoshida et al. (2008) found that students who were confident
in their ability to solve difficult problems were more likely to be academically
motivated. One of the reasons for this finding was that self-efficacious students
were motivated to persevere despite the academic challenges, whereas those with
low self-efficacy reported low motivation in completing difficult academic tasks
(Yoshida et al., 2008). Another study by Hoffman and Spatariu (2008) found that
individuals with high self-efficacy beliefs reported being better able to engage in
problem-solving tasks in comparison to those with low self-efficacy beliefs. A
3-year longitudinal study also found an association between intrinsic motivation
and problem-solving self-efficacy (Cassidy & Giles, 2009).
In addition, Prat-Sala and Redford (2010) found that students who reported
high academic self-efficacy in reading and writing were more motivated to study in
comparison to those with low self-efficacy. Another review study found that sev-
eral studies have shown the correlation between academic self-efficacy and school
effort (Usher & Pajares, 2008). A study by Vancouver, More, and Yoder (2008)
found a positive association between self-efficacy and motivation in undergradu-
ate students in higher education. Other studies have found a positive correlation
220 Students’ Self-Efficacy in Economics Courses

between student motivation to learn and academic self-efficacy in nursing students

(Hassankhani, Aghdam, Rahmani, & Mohammadpoorfard, 2015), dance students
(Hsia, Huang, & Hwang, 2016), and medical students (Artino, La Rochelle, &
Durning, 2010). Similarly, Chang et al. (2014) found that high self-efficacy Inter-
net learners reported being more motivated to learn in comparison to those with
low self-efficacy.
In the economics education literature, it is known that individuals who dis-
play high self-confidence in their academic capabilities also tend to be highly
motivated to perform well in their academic objectives and goals (Benabou &
Tirole, 2002; Koch, Nafziger, & Nielsen, 2015). Additionally, Robih, Suratman,
and Soesatyo (2017) found that self-efficacy is positively associated to students’
learning motivation, such that those with high self-efficacy are more motivated to
learn the course material than those with low self-efficacy. Thus, it is worth in-
vestigating whether self-efficacy continues to be positively associated to students’
motivation in economics courses.
Few studies have found support that academic self-efficacy serves as a
positive predictor for student motivation (Komarraju & Dial, 2014; Richards &
Levesque-Bristol, 2016; Zimmerman, 2000). For instance, students with high aca-
demic self-efficacy report being self-motivated to succeed (Komarraju & Dial,
2014). Another cross-sectional study found that self-efficacy in community ser-
vice learning courses impacted students’ self-regulated motivation levels (Richards
& Levesque-Bristol, 2016). Interestingly, to our knowledge no recent study has
examined whether academic self-efficacy is a predictor of academic motivation in
economics courses. However, a previous economics study found that students who
perform better from their perceived skills in their economics courses tend to be more
motivated, especially when they attribute their performance to their career success
(Siebert et al., 2006). Thus, this study will investigate how problem-solving and
academic self-efficacy may influence students’ motivation in economics courses
(Brouwer et al., 2016). Given the findings of the previous literature, the following
hypotheses are posed.

H1: There is a positive association between problem-solving self-efficacy

and student motivation in introductory economics courses.
H2: There is a positive association between academic self-efficacy and stu-
dent motivation in introductory economics courses.
H3: The self-efficacy variables positively predict student motivation after
controlling for the demographic variables in introductory economics
courses.

Self-Efficacy and Academic Test Performance

Social cognitive theory suggests that self-efficacy is associated with academic
test performance (Bandura, 1997). For instance, several studies found that self-
efficacy is associated with cognitive task performance and the problem-solving
process during the assessment process (Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990; Niemivirta &
Tapola, 2007). In an experiment, Ouweneel, Schaufeli, and Blanc (2013) found
that changes in self-efficacy result in changes in the academic performance of
Ramos Salazar and Hayward 221

undergraduate students, such that when students have low-self efficacy they per-
form poorly on exams, but when they have high self-efficacy they perform highly.
Academic self-efficacy has also been linked with students’ anticipated perfor-
mance on previous exams (Zohar, 1998) and achievement in math, science, reading,
and writing assessment courses (Pajares, 2003; Pajares & Miller, 1994; Pajares,
Britner, & Valiante, 2000). A meta-analysis discovered that academic and gen-
eral self-efficacy positively predicted academic performance regarding students’
grade point averages (Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991). Evidence of this moderate
impact among self-efficacy and academic achievement on exams is also provided
by Agustiani, Cahyad, and Musa’s (2016) university study. While self-efficacy
has not been directly examined in economics courses, prior studies have found
that students in introductory economics courses who believed they could perform
well in tests put an increased amount of effort in studying for their midterm ex-
ams, which led them to perform with higher scores than those who put less effort
(Bonesronning & Opstad, 2015; Krohn & O’Connor, 2005). Given the results of
the previous literature, the following hypothesis is posed.
H4: The self-efficacy variables positively predict test performance after con-
trolling for the demographic variables in introductory economics courses.

Self-Efficacy and Academic Grade Expectations

Self-efficacy can also predict students’ grade expectations in economics courses.
Students with high problem-solving efficacy may expect to receive higher grades
in their courses (Dull, Schleifer, & McMillan, 2015). When encountering difficult
problems, efficacious students will maintain their confidence and strive to be
successful in the problem-solving process to perform according to their grade
expectations (Bandura, 1997). However, students with poor problem-solving skills
may expect lower grades in their courses (Bandura, 1997).
Students with academic self-efficacy may hold beliefs in their ability to per-
form with better grades in their courses, and as a result may hold higher grade
expectations to ensure their achievement in their courses (Skinner, Wellborn, &
Connell, 1990; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). For instance, in accounting courses,
self-efficacious students may expect higher grades, whereas those with negative
perceptions of their own skills may expect lower grades (Bandalos, Finney, &
Geske, 2003; Dull et al., 2015). In addition, students in introductory economics
courses who are overconfident in their abilities hold higher grade expectations;
however, students with low confidence in their abilities hold lower grade expec-
tations, and as a result assess economics courses negatively (Grimes, 2002). An
undergraduate meta-analysis also found a strong correlation between academic
self-efficacy beliefs and academic grades (Multon et al., 1991). Another study
by Elias and Macdonald (2007) found that self-efficacy predicts students’ grade
performance. Additionally, a different study examined both principles of microe-
conomics and principles of macroeconomics and found that students’ demographic
factors such as gender and ethnicity also impacted their overall expected grades in
the course and their overall college GPA (Rhodd, Schrouder, & Allen, 2008). An-
other study found that older students enrolled in principles of economics courses
report being less confident in their abilities to perform well in economics courses
222 Students’ Self-Efficacy in Economics Courses

in comparison to younger students; as a result, they held low grade expectations

(Nowell & Alston, 2007). Given the findings of previous research, the following
hypothesis will be investigated.

H5: The self-efficacy variables positively predict expected grade after con-
trolling for the demographic variables in introductory economics courses.

METHOD
Participants included 160 undergraduate students enrolled in a public, medium-
sized Midwestern university. The sample included 115 males and 45 females who
completed a paper-based questionnaire during the spring and fall of 2016. The
demographic characteristics of the sample are provided in Table 1.

Procedures
Participants were recruited in medium-sized Principles of Macroeconomics and
Principles of Microeconomics courses offered at the College of Business. Both
economics sections are required courses for students of the College of Business.
However, one of either section counts as a core curriculum elective for nonbusi-
ness majors. Typically, students enroll in one of these two sections per semester,
and not all students completed both courses prior to completing the performance
survey. Data collection occurred in the mornings under the same instructor for
all economics sections. Participants volunteered to complete a paper-based survey
and an 18-item comprehensive test based on the problem-solving aspect of eco-
nomics concepts. Participants also provided their demographic information and
perceptions about their self-efficacy, motivation, grade expectations, and perfor-
mance after the completion of their final exam toward the end of the course in both
economics courses.

Measures
Problem-Solving Self-Efficacy
Bandura’s (2006) Problem-Solving Self-Efficacy scale was used to measure stu-
dents’ problem-solving self-efficacy in economics courses. In this measure, par-
ticipants indicate their degree of confidence from 0 to 100 in solving a percentage
of the problems provided by economics courses, with higher values representing
higher degrees of self-efficacy in the problem-solving process. The Cronbach’s
alpha reliability of this scale was .91 in this study.

Academic Self-Efficacy
The Academic Self-Efficacy Scale developed by Chemers, Hu, and Garcia (2001)
was used to measure academic self-efficacy. This scale comprises eight Likert-type
items that range from 1 (very untrue) to 7 (very true). Participants indicate their
perceptions on how they perform several academic tasks. Sample items include
“I know how to take notes,” “I know how to study to perform well on tests,” and
“I am very capable of succeeding at this college.” Those who score higher in this
Ramos Salazar and Hayward 223

Table 1: Characteristics of the sample.

Variable n %

Gender
Female 45 28.10%
Male 115 71.90%
Age
13-18 29 18.10%
19-29 128 80.00%
30-49 3 1.90%
Ethnicity
Caucasian 99 62.30%
Hispanic 38 23.90%
African-American 9 5.70%
Asian-American 5 3.10%
Native-American 4 2.50%
Other 4 2.50%
Class standing
Freshman 68 42.50%
Sophomore 46 28.70%
Junior 34 21.30%
Senior 12 7.50%
First generation
Yes 64 40.30%
No 95 59.70%
GPA
1.00-1.99 3 1.90%
2.00-2.49 22 13.80%
2.50-2.99 46 28.90%
3.00-3.49 52 32.70%
3.50-3.99 30 18.90%
4.00 6 3.80%
Expected grade
A 42 26.40%
B 68 42.80%
C 41 25.80%
D 1 0.60%
F 7 4.40%

scale indicate a higher degree of academic self-efficacy. The Cronbach’s alpha

reliability of this scale was .82.

Motivation
The State Motivation Scale adapted by Christophel (1990) was used to measure mo-
tivation in economics courses. Twelve items with bipolar adjectives were used to as-
sess students’ motivational attitudes about taking economics courses. Sample items
included feelings such as “motivated/unmotivated,” “interested/uninterested,” and
“inspired/uninspired.” Higher values indicated higher motivation levels. The Cron-
bach’s alpha reliability in this study was .80.
224 Students’ Self-Efficacy in Economics Courses

Academic Test Performance

The comprehensive exam was developed to assess economics students’ academic
performance in understanding economics concepts. A total of 18 questions from a
comprehensive exam were used to measure students’ performance in the economics
problem-solving process in the microeconomics and macroeconomics courses.
Students’ performance was dummy-coded based on whether students answered
the questions correctly (1) or not (0), and then summed to a numerical test score.
The composite of higher test scores indicated higher performance on the problem-
solving comprehensive exam, and lower scores indicated poor performance.

Grade Expectations
To assess students’ expectations for achievement, we asked students to indicate
their expected grade in their economics courses from A, B, C, D, or F. Grade
expectations were dummy-coded to elicit high grade expectations (1 = A, B) and
low grade expectations (0 = C, D, F). Previous economics studies have indicated
that economics students expect an “A” or a “B” in economics courses to be
successful; whereas earning a “C,” “D,” or “F” is perceived as being unsuccessful
in economics courses (Andrews, Swanson, & Kugler, 2007; Ballard & Johnson,
2005). Thus, in the logistic regression analysis, we adopted a dichotomous variable
of expected grade, which is consistent to prior economics studies (Arnold & Straten,
2012; Ballard & Johnson, 2005).

Control Variables
Several control variables were also measured including students’ gender, ethnicity,
age, and class standing.

ANALYSIS
Correlational Hypotheses Results
A correlational analysis was used to assess hypotheses 1 and 2. The first hypothesis
stated that problem-solving self-efficacy was positively associated with student
motivation. The results showed that problem-solving self-efficacy was positively
associated with student motivation (r = .24, p < .01). The second hypothesis stated
that academic self-efficacy was positively associated with student motivation. The
results showed that this hypothesis was supported (r = .22, p <.01). Post hoc
correlation analyses were also run to investigate whether students’ problem-solving
and academic self-efficacy were positively correlated to students’ grade point
average. Results showed that GPA was positively correlated to problem-solving
self-efficacy (r = .14, p < .05) and academic self-efficacy (r = .29, p < .01).

Hierarchical Regression Results

Several multiple regressions were used to analyze Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5. Zero-
ordered correlations among the independent variables are presented in Table 2.
The third hypothesis predicted that after controlling for gender, ethnicity,
age, and class standing, problem-solving efficacy and academic self-efficacy would
Ramos Salazar and Hayward 225

Table 2: Reporting means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlation matrix.

Measure 1 2 3 4 5
1. Problem-solving self-efficacy 1
2. Academic self-efficacy .31** 1
3. Motivation .24** .22** 1
4. Expected grade .31** .35** 0.07 1
5. Test performance .33** .17** 0.05 0.29** 1
M 5.75 5.4 4.07 0.70 12.41
SD 2.37 0.88 0.83 0.46 3.3

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01.

Table 3: Results of hierarchical multiple regression model of motivation.

Motivation

t β pr² R² R² change

Block one (demographic variables) 0.07*

Gender 0.21 0.02 0.02
Ethnicity –2.87 –0.24** –0.24
Age 0.94 0.08 0.08
Class standing 0.40 0.04 0.03
Block two 0.15*** 0.08***
Problem-solving self-efficacy 3.52 0.30*** 0.30
Block three
Academic self-efficacy 1.50 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.01

Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01, *** p < .001. β = standardized beta coefficients.

positively impact students’ motivation (Table 3). The multiple regression analysis
revealed a significant model [R² = .16, F(4, 136) = 4.72, p < .001] after putting
the control variables in the first block, problem-solving self-efficacy on the second
block, and academic self-efficacy on the third block. In the first block (R² = .07,
R² = .04), ethnicity (β = −.24, t = −2.87, p < .01, pr² = −.24) was found to
be an inverse predictor of student motivation, but the other demographic variables
were not found to be predictors. In the second block after accounting for the
demographic variables (R² = .15, R² = .12), problem-solving self-efficacy was
found to be a positive predictor of student motivation (β = .30, t = 3.52, p <
.001, pr² = .30). In the third block after accounting for the demographic variables
(R² = .16, R² = .13), academic self-efficacy (β = .13, t = 1.50, p > .05) was not
found to be a predictor of student motivation. Therefore, the third hypothesis was
partially supported.
The fourth hypothesis predicted that after controlling for gender, ethnicity,
age, and educational level, problem-solving efficacy and academic self-efficacy
would positively predict student’s performance on the comprehensive exam
(Table 4). The multiple regression analysis revealed a significant model [R² =
.24, F(6, 142) = 7.48, p < .001] after putting the control variables in the first block
and problem-solving self-efficacy and academic self-efficacy on the second block.
226 Students’ Self-Efficacy in Economics Courses

Table 4: Results of hierarchical multiple regression model of performance.

Test Performance

t β pr² R² R² change

Block one (demographic variables) 0.14***

Gender –1.97 –0.16 –0.16
Ethnicity –1.26 –0.11*** –0.10
Age –4.5 –0.36 –0.35
Class standing 0.76 0.06 0.06
Block two (self-efficacy subscales) 0.24*** 0.10***
Problem-solving 4.23 .34*** 0.34
Academic –0.14 –0.01 –0.01

Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01, *** p < .001. β = standardized beta coefficients.

In the first block (R² = .14, R² = .14), ethnicity (β = −.11, t = −1.26, p < .001,
pr² = −.10) was found to be an inverse predictor of students’ test performance,
but the other demographic variables were not found to be predictors. In the sec-
ond block after accounting for the demographic variables (R² = .24, R² = .24),
problem-solving self-efficacy was found to be a positive predictor of student’s test
performance (β = .34, t = 4.23, p < .001, pr² = .34). However, academic self-
efficacy (β = −.01, t = −.14, p > .05) was not found to be a predictor of students’
test performance. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis was partially supported.

Logistic Regression Results

The fifth hypothesis predicted that after controlling for gender, ethnicity, age,
and class standing, problem-solving efficacy and academic self-efficacy would
positively predict students’ expected grade on economic courses. The logistic re-
gression analysis revealed a significant model of the categorical dependent variable
(expected grade: 1 = A, B; 0 = C, D, F) after putting the control variables in the first
block and problem-solving self-efficacy and academic self-efficacy on the second
block. In the first block, the demographic variables were not found to be predictors
of expected grade. In the second block after accounting for the demographic
variables, academic self-efficacy was found to be a positive predictor of students’
expected grade (X² = 3.93, p < .05, Cox & Snell R² = .09, Nagelkerke R² = .30).
However, problem-solving self-efficacy was not found to be a predictor of students’
expected grade. Additional regression estimates, Wald statistics, and significance
values are provided in Table 5. Therefore, the fifth hypothesis was partially
supported.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was two-fold. The first was to investigate whether
problem-solving and academic self-efficacy were associated with students’ moti-
vation in economics courses. The second was to investigate whether both types
of self-efficacy (problem-solving and academic) serve as positive predictors of
students’ motivation, test performance, and grade expectations. Examining these
Ramos Salazar and Hayward 227

Table 5: Results of logistic regression model of expected grade.

Expected Grade

B SE Wald χ² Exp (B)

Constant –3.01*** 0.39 60.13 0.05

Control variables
gender –0.16 0.90 0.03 0.85
Ethnicity –21.47 0.69 0.01 0.01
Age 20.09 0.50 0.98 0.01
Class standing 37.08 1.35 0.09 0.01
Independent variables
Problem-solving –0.13 0.28 0.21 0.88
Academic 0.90* 0.57 2.50 0.41

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

constructs may benefit future educational studies in the area of economics in higher
education.

Self-Efficacy and Motivation

Previous studies have demonstrated the correlation between self-efficacy and stu-
dent motivation in higher education. In this study, both problem-solving self-
efficacy and academic self-efficacy were positively correlated with student moti-
vation. University studies have confirmed a strong correlation between students’
self-efficacy skills and academic motivation, which deter procrastination habits
(Cerino, 2014) and maintain the motivation to learn course material (Ibrahim &
Jaaffar, 2017). Since efficacious students believe in their abilities to perform well
during the problem-solving process in university courses, students are likely to
be motivated to put forth more effort than low self-efficacy students in course
assessments (Lindblom-Ylänne, Haarala-Muhonen, Postareff, & Hailikari, 2017).
This finding also confirms prior economics education findings that found a corre-
lation between students’ self-efficacy and their perceived motivation to learn the
material in their courses, which can be beneficial to the fulfillment of instructors’
learning outcomes (Koch et al., 2015; Robih et al., 2017). Thus, this study ratifies
the relationship between students’ self-efficacy skills and motivation in economics
courses.
Additionally, post hoc results revealed that students who have high levels
of both academic and problem-solving self-efficacy also had high college grade
point averages. If students exhibit low levels of both academic and problem-
solving efficacy, then students are more likely to report having low grade point
averages. This finding is consistent with previous university studies that found
that academic and problem-solving self-efficacy are both positively associated
to university students’ academic performance, such as their grade point average
(Cassidy & Giles, 2009; Elias & MacDonald, 2007).
Interestingly, only problem-solving self-efficacy was shown to be a predictor
of student motivation after controlling for the demographic variables. Students who
felt confident in their abilities to solve economic problems were also motivated to
228 Students’ Self-Efficacy in Economics Courses

engage rationally in their academic studies. Several self-efficacy studies have found
evidence that problem-solving skills serve as a predictor for students’ motivation
levels (Bernacki, Nokes-Malach, & Aleven, 2015; Eseryel, Law, Ifenthaler, Xun,
& Miller, 2014; Hoffman & Schraw, 2009). Studies have explained that students
who are confident in their abilities to solve difficult problems may be more likely
to be motivated to perform well in their courses (Bernacki et al., 2015; Eseryel
et al., 2014; Hoffman & Schraw, 2009). Thus, self-efficacious students who feel
confident in the problem-solving process may also be self-motivated to perform
well in economics courses.
On the other hand, academic self-efficacy was not shown to be a posi-
tive predictor of students’ motivation after accounting for problem-solving self-
efficacy and the demographic variables. This finding was inconsistent with pre-
vious studies that have found that academic self-efficacy served to be a positive
predictor of motivation (Chang et al., 2014; Prat-Sala & Redford, 2010; Usher &
Pajares, 2008; Vancouver et al., 2008). There are two possible reasons why we
did not find an effect for academic self-efficacy on students’ motivation. First,
previous studies that found this effect did not control for any demographic vari-
ables or for other self-efficacy variables. Because we controlled for gender, age,
ethnicity, and class standing, this might have reduced academic self-efficacy’s
variance in predicting students’ motivation levels. For example, the inverse as-
sociation between ethnicity and students’ motivation might explain a possible
measurement bias of the motivation instrument. If this is the case, results may
differ when adopting different motivational instruments. Second, academic self-
efficacy was measured to encompass general academic beliefs, not just in eco-
nomics courses. Future studies may continue to explore whether academic self-
efficacy serves as a meaningful predictor of students’ motivation in economics
classes.

Self-Efficacy and Academic Test Performance

According to Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory, self-efficacy should positively
predict students’ academic test performance in college courses. When investigating
the predictors of students’ test performance, we found that problem-solving self-
efficacy predicted students’ test performance after controlling for the demographic
variables. If students report feeling confident about their ability to complete eco-
nomics problems during a comprehensive exam, it can lead to students’ higher
performance in economics courses. Yet, if students have poor self-confidence in
their ability to complete difficult economic problems in assessments, then this can
also predict their poor performance. Our finding is consistent with Multon and
colleagues’ (1991) meta-analytical findings that self-efficacy predicts students’
academic test performance. Previous research has also found that students’ con-
fidence in their problem-solving and academic abilities can impact students’ test
performance (Ackerman & Deshields, 2013; Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990). As a re-
sult, possessing high confidence in one’s problem-solving abilities may impact
one’s performance on tests in economics courses. Thus, it is invaluable to continue
to examine the effects of problem-solving self-efficacy on economics students’
performance levels in exams.
Ramos Salazar and Hayward 229

Interestingly, our study did not find support for academic self-efficacy as a
predictor of students’ test performance in economics courses. This finding is incon-
sistent with previous research that has found an effect of academic self-efficacy
on students’ grade point average, exam assessments, and course performance
(Agustiani et al. 2016; Multon et al., 1991; Ouweneel et al., 2013). After control-
ling for the demographic variables and problem-solving self-efficacy, academic
self-efficacy was not shown to be a predictor of students’ exam performance
for two reasons. First, academic self-efficacy assumes that students are highly
confident in their ability to complete academic tasks in general, and while this
concept is correlated with performance, this variable does not necessarily func-
tion as a predictor of students’ test performance in economics courses. Second,
given that the ethnicity served as a strong inverse predictor of students’ exam
performance in economics courses, controlling for this variable might have in-
fluenced academic self-efficacy’s effect on students’ performance. For instance,
ethnicity may have introduced measurement bias in the assessment of test per-
formance, such that individuals from different ethnic groups who come from
different cultures might have interpreted exams differently in economics courses.
However, future studies might want to continue to investigate why problem-
solving self-efficacy served as a predictor of students’ test performance but aca-
demic self-efficacy did not when controlling for demographic factors such as
ethnicity.

Self-Efficacy and Grade Expectations

Based on prior college student research, self-efficacy has been shown to impact
students’ expected grades. In this study, academic self-efficacy was found to be
a predictor of students’ expected grade in economics courses after controlling
for the demographic variables. Several studies have found an effect of academic
self-efficacy on students’ expected grade achievements (Elias & Macdonald, 2007;
Skinner et al., 1990). Students with high academic self-efficacy may have previ-
ously earned high grades in their prior classes, and as a result may expect higher
grades in college (Bandura, 1997; Dull et al., 2015). Yet, students with low aca-
demic self-efficacy may expect low grades in their classes. This study suggests
that high academic self-efficacy skills may positively predict students’ expected
grades. For instance, if a student has high academic self-efficacy, then this student
might expect to receive an A or a B in an economics course, and if a student has
low academic self-efficacy this student might expect to receive a C grade or below
in an economics course.
In addition, problem-solving self-efficacy was not found to be a predictor of
students’ expected grade after controlling for the demographic variables. Students’
confidence in their problem-solving abilities did not affect their expected grade
in economics courses. This finding is inconsistent with the self-efficacy literature
that suggests that problem-solving self-efficacy skills may serve as a predictor of
students’ expected grade achievements (Dull et al., 2015; Stadler, Becker, Greiff, &
Spinath, 2016). If students perceive themselves to be high in problem-solving self-
efficacy, then this does not mean that it is a predictor of their grade expectations
in their economics courses. Overall, future studies should continue to explore
230 Students’ Self-Efficacy in Economics Courses

problem-solving self-efficacy as a predictor of the students’ expected grade in

economics courses.

Implications for Economics Education

There are several implications that are revealed through the findings of this study.
First, our study suggests that Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory is beneficial in
our understanding of student outcomes such as motivation, test performance, and
expected grade. Previous economic education scholarship has neglected the use of
Bandura’s self-efficacy theory in understanding self-efficacy in introductory-level
economics courses in higher education. This study adds to the scholarship by sug-
gesting that problem-solving self-efficacy is a predictor of students’ motivation and
test performance in economics courses and academic self-efficacy was a predictor
of students’ expected grade.
Second, this study informs instructors of the value of developing students’
self-efficacy skills in economics courses. Instructors of economics may need to
develop strategies to enhance their students’ self-efficacy in the problem-solving
process given that it can influence their motivation levels and test performance in
economics courses. Instructors may develop several problem-solving exercises and
assessments that can provide students with plenty of practice to develop students’
confidence in practicing difficult economic problems. For example, instructors may
provide a mixture of easy, moderate, and difficult questions in sequence to nurture
students’ problem-solving and academic self-efficacy skills in economics courses.
Recommended strategies to effectively develop students’ self-efficacy in-
clude positive reinforcement or feedback upon completing problem-solving eco-
nomics assessments, the establishment of attainable academic goals in economics
courses (Schunk & Pajares, 2012), and the adoption of collaborative teaching
approaches to enable students to solve economics problems in groups (Fencl &
Scheel, 2005). To increase students’ learning about economics, this study also sug-
gests that instructors can motivate students to do so. Motivation can be triggered by
developing students’ confidence by providing incentives such as public acknowl-
edgment during class and giving candy to those who put exceptional effort in
completing moderate-to-difficult problems in the learning process. Providing rapid
feedback along with suggestions for improvement can also serve as incentives to
motivate students in introductory economics courses (Love & Kotchen, 2010). An-
other way to get students motivated to learn in introductory economics courses is to
use the “one-minute” paper by asking students about one important thing students
learned during the day and one issue that is still unclear to them (Becker, 2000). By
promoting students’ self-efficacy awareness and motivation in economics courses,
instructors may advance their students’ course learning outcomes.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has several limitations that will be noted along with ideas for future
research directions. First, the sample size was moderate given that we focused only
on economics courses. Future studies should strive for large sample sizes that assess
economic courses across different universities to enhance the generalization of the
findings. Second, this study used a cross-sectional sample of university students.
Ramos Salazar and Hayward 231

Future studies may conduct longitudinal studies on alumni to determine whether

their problem-solving and academic self-efficacy skills in economics courses are
correlated with their self-efficacy, motivation, and performance in the workplace.
Third, this study used a survey methodological approach. Future studies should use
the mixed methods approach by also collecting open-ended survey questions or
interview questions to understand the role of self-efficacy in students’ motivation,
performance, and expected grade in economics courses. Fourth, this study did not
control for students’ majors or the time of data collection during the semester.
Future studies need to compare students’ majors to determine if different fields
respond differently across the measures. Longitudinal studies also need to conduct
the measures at different points during the semester (e.g., beginning vs. end)
and determine the associations among other course outcomes. Fifth, the study
did not measure the variables upon the completion of both courses, which limits
the generalization of this study. Future studies may also survey only business
major students after the completion of both microeconomics and macroeconomics
courses to enhance the generalizability of the study. Sixth, ethnicity might have led
to a measurement bias of the findings of this study. To reduce this measurement
bias in the future, studies may implement different measures or use qualitative
methods such as interviews or focus groups to investigate why ethnicity influenced
the results in the study. Last, this study did not examine the feedback mechanism
that might have influenced the self-efficacy variables. Thus, future studies may
examine the impact of feedback from instructors and peers during the problem-
solving process in economics courses.

CONCLUSION
Overall, this study advanced our understanding of both problem-solving and aca-
demic self-efficacy on several economics student outcomes including motiva-
tion, test performance, and expected grade. Previously, other studies have fo-
cused on self-efficacy and these outcomes; however, to our knowledge, this was
the first study to investigate both problem-solving and academic self-efficacy in
introductory-level economics courses in higher education. Considering the value
of self-efficacy beliefs, Henry Ford once said, “Whether you think you can or think
you can’t, you’re right.”

REFERENCES
Ackerman, D. S., & Deshields, O. W. (2013). How ordering of assignments
can influence beliefs about the self and how these beliefs can impact
on student class performance. Alberta Journal of Educational Research,
59(4), 553–568. Retrieved from, http://www.ajer.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/
index.php/ajer/article/download/996/1109
Agustiani, H., Cahyad, S., & Musa, M. (2016). Self-efficacy and self-regulated
learning as predictors of students’ academic performance. Open Psychology
Journal, 9, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874350101609010001
232 Students’ Self-Efficacy in Economics Courses

Allgood, S., Walstad, W. B., & Siegfried, J. J. (2015). Research on teaching

economics to undergraduate. Journal of Economic Literature, 53(2), 285–
325.
Andrews, K., Swanson, J., & Kugler, P. (2007). Grade expectations. Journal of
Economics and Economic Education Research, 8(2), 3–18.
Ariani, D. W. (2016). Why do I study? The mediating effect of motivation and self-
regulation on student performance. Business, Management and Education,
14(2), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2016.329
Arnold, I. M., & Straten, J. T. (2012). Motivation and math skills as determinants of
first-year performance in economics. Journal of Economic Education, 43(1),
33–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2012.636709
Artino, A. R., La Rochelle, J. S., & Durning, S. J. (2010). Second-year medical stu-
dents’ motivational beliefs, emotions, and achievement. Medical Education,
44(12), 1203–1212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03712.x
Baars, G. J. A., & Arnold, I. J. M. (2015). Early indentification and characterization
of students who drop out in the first year at university. Journal of College
Student Retention, 16(1), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.2190/cs.16.1.e
Ballard, C., & Johnson, M. (2005). Gender, expectations, and grades in introductory
microeconomics at a US university. Feminist Economics, 11, 95–122.
Bandalos, D. L., Finney, S. J., & Geske, J. (2003). A model of statistics performance
based on achievement goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3),
604–616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.604
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Worth.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Re-
view of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839x.00024
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares &
T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, Vol. 5, Greenwich, CT:
Information Age, 307–337.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy,
and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 41, 586–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.41.3.586
Becker, W. E. (2000). Teaching economics in the 21st century. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 14, 109–119.
Bembenutty, H., & White, M. C. (2013). Academic performance and satisfaction
with homework completion among college students. Learning and Individual
Differences, 24, 83–88. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.linkdif.2012.10.013
Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2002). Self-confidence and personal motivation. Quar-
terly Journal of Economics, 1, 871–915.
Bernacki, M. L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Aleven, V. (2015). Examining self-
efficacy during learning: Variability and relations to behavior, performance,
and learning. Metacognition and Learning, 10, 99–117. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11409-014-9127-x
Ramos Salazar and Hayward 233

Bonesronning, H., & Opstad, L. (2015). Can student effort be manipulated? Does
it matter? Applied Economics, 47(15), 1511–1524.
Bosshardt, W., & Watts, M. (2008). Undergraduate students’ coursework in eco-
nomics. Journal of Economic Education, 1, 198–205.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1990). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cog-
nitive task. Journal of Social Psychology, 130(3), 353–363. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00224545.1990.9924591
Brahim, H. I., Johnson, J.A., & McKenzie, R. (2012). The effect on student per-
formance of web-based learning and homework in microeconomics. Journal
of Economics and Economic Education Research, 14(2), 115–125.
Brouwer, J., Ellen, J., Flache, A., & Hofman, A. (2016). The impact of social
capital on self-efficacy and study success among first-year university stu-
dents. Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 109–118. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lindif.2016.09.016
Cassidy, T., & Giles, M. (2009). Achievement motivation, problem-solving style,
and performance in higher education. Irish Journal of Psychology, 30(1-4),
211–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/03033910.2009.10446311
Caviglia-Harris, J. L. (2006). Attendance and achievement in economics: Inves-
tigating the impact of attendance policies and absentee rates on student
performance. Journal of Economics and Finance Education, 4(2), 1–15.
Cerino, E. S. (2014). Relationships between academic motivation, self-efficacy,
and academic procrastination. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research,
19(4), 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1515/jms-2016-0195
Chang, C -S., Liu, E. Z -F., Sung, H -Y., Lin, C -H., Chen, N -S., & Cheng,
S -S. (2014). Effects of online college student’s Internet self-efficacy on
learning motivation and performance. Innovations in Education and Teach-
ing International, 51(4), 366–377. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.
771429
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-
year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.55
Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors,
student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323–340.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378813
Crippen, K. J., & Earl, B. L. (2007). The impact of web-based worked ex-
amples and self-explanation on performance, problem solving, and self-
efficacy. Computers & Education, 49(3), 809–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2005.11.018
Dull, R. B., Schleifer, L. F., & McMillan, J. J. (2015). Achievement goal
theory: The relationship of accounting students’ goal orientations with
self-efficacy, anxiety, and achievement. Accounting Education: An Inter-
national Journal, 24(2), 152–174. http://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2015.
1036892
234 Students’ Self-Efficacy in Economics Courses

Durden, G., & Ellis, L. (2003). In class attendance a proxy variable for student
motivation in economic classes? An empirical analysis. International Social
Science Review, 78(1/2), 42–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/41887128
Elias, S. E., & MacDonald, S. (2007). Using past performance, proxy effi-
cacy, and academic self-efficacy to predict college performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 37(11), 2518–2531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2007.00268.x
Eseryel, D., Law, V., Ifenthaler, D., Xun, G., & Miller, R. (2014). An investiga-
tion of the interrelationships between motivation, engagement, and complex
problem solving in game-based learning. Journal of Educational Technology
& Society, 17, 42–53.
Feldman, D. B., Davidson, O. B., Ben-Naim, S., Maza, E., & Margalit,
M. (2016). Hope as mediator of loneliness and academic self-efficacy
among students with and without learning disabilities during the transi-
tion to college. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(2), 63–74.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12094
Fencl, H. S., & Scheel, K. R. (2005). Engaging students: An examination of
the effects of teaching strategies on self-efficacy and course climate in a
nonmajors physics course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(1), 20–
24.
Grimes, P. W. (2002). The overconfident principles of economics student: An
examination of a metacognitive skill. Journal of Economic Education, 33(1),
15–30.
Hassankhani, H., Aghdam, A. M., Rahmani, A., & Mohammadpoorfard, Z. (2015).
The relationship between learning motivation and self-efficacy among nurs-
ing students. Research and Development in Medical Education, 4, 91–101.
https://doi.org/10.15171/rdme.2015.016
Hoffman, B., & Schraw, G. (2009). The influence of self-efficacy and working
memory capacity on problem-solving efficiency. Learning & Individual Dif-
ferences, 19, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.08.001
Hoffman, B., & Spatariu, A. (2008). The influence of self-efficacy and
metacognitive prompting on math problem-solving efficiency. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 33(4), 875–893. http://doi.org.databases.wtamu.
edu/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.002
Hsia, L., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. (2016). Effects of different online peer-
feedback approaches on students’ performance skills, motivation and
self-efficacy in a dance course. Computers & Education, 1, 9655–9971.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.004
Ibrahim, H. I., & Jaaffar, A. H. (2017). Investigating post-work integrated learn-
ing (wil) effects on motivation for learning: An empirical evidence from
Malaysian public universities. International Journal of Business and Soci-
ety, 18, 13–32.
Koch, A., Nafziger, J., & Nielsen, H. S. (2015). Behavioral economics of education.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 115, 3–17.
Ramos Salazar and Hayward 235

Komarraju, M., & Dial, C. (2014). Academic identity, self-efficacy, and self-esteem
predict self-determined motivation and goals. Learning and Individual Dif-
ferences, 1, 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.02.004
Krohn, G. A., & O’Connor, C. M. (2005). Student effort and performance over the
semester. Research in Economic Education, 1, 3–28.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Haarala-Muhonen, A., Postareff, L., & Hailikari, T. (2017).
Exploration of individual study paths of successful first-year students: An
interview study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(4), 687–
701.
Love, D. A., & Kotchen, M. J. (2010). Grades, course evaluations, and academic
incentives. Eastern Economic Journal, 36(2), 151–163.
McGoldrik, K. (2008). Doing economics: Enhancing skills through a process-
oriented senior research course. Journal of Economic Education, 1, 342–356.
McGoldrick, K., & Garnett, R. (2013). Big think: A model of critical inquiry in
economic courses. Journal of Economic Education, 44(4), 389–398.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs
to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 38, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.30
Niemivirta, M., & Tapola, A. (2007). Self-efficacy, interest, and task performance:
Within-task changes, mutual relationships, and predictive effect. Zeitschrift
für Pädagogische Psychologie, 21(3/4), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1024/
1010-0652.21.3.241
Nowell, C., & Alston, R. M. (2007). I thought I got an A! Overconfidence across
the economics curriculum. Research in Economic Education, 1, 131–142.
Ouweneel, E., Schaufeli, W. B., & Blanc, P. M. (2013). Believe, and you will
achieve: Changes over time in self-efficacy, engagement, and performance.
Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 5(2), 225–247. https://doi.org/
10.1111/aphw.12008
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing:
A review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139–158.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308222
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs
in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 86, 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.193
Pajares, F., Britner, S. L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achieve goals
and self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Con-
temporary Educational Psychology, 25, 406–422. https://doi.org/10.1006/
ceps.1999.1027
Prat-Sala, M., & Redford, P. (2010). The interplay between motivation, self-
efficacy, and approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 283–305. https://doi.org/10.1348/0000709909x480563
Rhodd, R. G., Schrouder, S. M., & Allen, M. T. (2008). Does the performance
on principles of economics courses affect the overall academic success of
236 Students’ Self-Efficacy in Economics Courses

undergraduate business majors? International Review of Economics Educa-

tion, 1, 48–62.
Richards, A. R., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2016). The influence of self-efficacy
and self-regulated motivation on civic learning in service learning courses.
Journal of College Student Development, 57(7), 827–843. https://doi.org/
10.1353/csd.2016.0081
Robih, M. W., Suratman, B., & Soesatyo, Y. (2017). The effects of self-efficacy,
the role of teacher, parents participation to student’s learning motivation at
vocational high school North Surabaya. Journal of Economics and Economic
Education Research, 18(2), 1–9.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2012). The development of academic self-efficacy. In
A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation.
San Diego: Academic Press, 15–31
Siebert, J., Litzenberg, K., Gallagher, R., Wilson, C., Dooley, F., & Wysocki, A.
(2006). Factors associated with students’ academic motivation in agricultural
economics classes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(30),
750–762.
Siegfried, J. J., & Walstad, W. B. (2014). Undergraduate coursework in economics:
A survey perspective. Journal of Economic Education, 45(2), 147–158.
Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well
in school and whether I’ve got it: The role of perceived control in children’s
engagement and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.22
Stadler, M. J., Becker, N., Greiff, S., & Spinath, F. M. (2016). The complex
route to success: Complex problem-solving skills in the prediction of univer-
sity success. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(2), 365–379.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1087387
Usher, E., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review
of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78,
751–796. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321456
Vancouver, J. B., More, K. M., & Yoder, R. J. (2008). Self-efficacy and re-
source allocation: Support for a nonmonotonic, discontinuous model. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 93, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.
93.1.35
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A
developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49–78.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02209024
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achieve-
ment motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.
https://doi.org/10.1108/s0749-7423(2010)000016a005
Yoshida, M., Tanaka, M., Mizuno, K., Ishii, A., Nozaki, K., Urakawa, A., &
Watanabe, Y. (2008). Factors influencing the academic motivation of individ-
ual college students. International Journal of Neuroscience, 118, 1400–1411.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207450701242982
Ramos Salazar and Hayward 237

Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and
academic success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 677–706.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-4139-z
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.
1999.1016
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shift-
ing from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.241
Zohar, D. (1998). An additive model of test anxiety: Role of exam-specific expec-
tations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 330–340. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.330

APPENDIX

Part I: Demographics

What is your gender?

A. Male
B. Female

What is your age?

Ethnicity: Please indicate all that apply.
A. Caucasian
B. Hispanic
C. African-American
D. Asian-American
E. Native-American
F. Other (please specify):

Current Level of Education:

A. Freshman
B. Sophomore
C. Junior
D. Senior
E. Graduate student

Are you a first generational student?

Yes
No
N/A
238 Students’ Self-Efficacy in Economics Courses

What is your current grade point average (GPA)?

1.00-1.99
2.00-2.49
2.50-2.99
3.00-3.49
3.50-3.99
4.00
What grade do you expect in this class at the end of the semester?
A
B
C
D
F
I don’t know

Problem-Solving Self-Efficacy

Instructions: Please rate how certain you are that you can solve the problems in
this economics course at each of the levels described below:
Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100 using the
scale given below:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cannot Moderately Highly certain
do at all can do can do

Confidence (0-100)
Can solve 10% of the problems
Can solve 20% of the problems
Can solve 30% of the problems
Can solve 40% of the problems
Can solve 50% of the problems
Can solve 60% of the problems
Can solve 70% of the problems
Can solve 80% of the problems
Can solve 90% of the problems
Can solve 100% of the problems
Ramos Salazar and Hayward 239

Academic Self-Efficacy Scale

Instructions: The following questions will ask you about how your own percep-
tions about how you approach your academic endeavors. Please use the scale below
to respond to the following 7-point scale from 1 (Very Untrue) to 7 (Very True).
Very Untrue Very True
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. I know how to schedule my time to accomplish my tasks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. I know how to take notes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I know how to study to perform well on tests. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I am good at research and writing papers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. I am a very good student. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. I usually do very well in school and at academic tasks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. I find my academic work interesting and absorbing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. I am very capable of succeeding at this college. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

STATE MOTIVATION SCALE

Directions: These items are concerned with how you feel about this specific class
that you are taking right now. Please circle the number toward either word, which
best represents, your feelings. Note that in some cases the most positive score is
“1” while in other cases it is “7.”

1 (Never or never rarely true) 2 3 4 5 (Very often or always true)

1. Motivated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unmotivated
2. Interested 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninterested
3. Involved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninvolved
4. Not stimulated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Stimulated
5. Don’t want to study 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Want to study
6. Inspired 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uninspired
7. Unchallenged 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Challenged
8. Uninvigorated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Invigorated
9. Unenthused 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Enthused
10. Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Excited
11. Aroused 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Aroused
12. Not fascinated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fascinated

Leslie Ramos Salazar (PhD, Arizona State University) is an assistant & Abdullat
professor of business communication and decision management at the Paul and
Virginia College of Business at West Texas A&M University. Her teaching areas
include current issues in management communication, business communication
for health care managers, business communication, and statistics for business and
economics. Her research specializes in health communication, business communi-
cation, conflict management, and interpersonal communication. Her publications
240 Students’ Self-Efficacy in Economics Courses

appear in Health Communication, Communication Teacher, Communication Stud-

ies, Communication Quarterly, and Business and Professional Communication
Quarterly. She also serves on the editorial board of Communication Research
Reports, Western Journal of Communication, and Communication Reports.

Stephen L. Hayward (MBA, Middle Tennessee State University) is an instructor

of economics at the Paul and Virginia College of Business at West Texas A&M
University. Prior to being employed at WTAMU, he worked as an executive vice-
president and director of The First State Bank of Elkhart, Kansas for 20 years
and taught principles of economics and introduction to computers for Seward
County Community College, Liberal, Kansas. He also participates with various
local, state, and federal government agencies in economic development, historic
and recreational trail development, and nonmotorized transportation infrastructure
development. His teaching areas include principles of macro and micro economics
with an emphasis on banking, small business operations, human relations and local
economic development as well as the economic history of the United States and
Western Europe. His research reflects his broad interests in human interactions.
His publications have appeared in the Journal of Instructional Pedagogies and
Academy for Economics and Economic Education. He has also coauthored two
books entitled, Walks and Rambles on the Cimarron National Grassland, a hiking
guide for the Cimarron National Grasslands in Southwest, Kansas and The Santa
Fe Trail in Morton County, Kansas, an inventory and cataloging of the historic
remains of the Santa Fe Trail in Morton County, utilizing aerial archeological
techniques from his personal airplane.