Self-Efficacy Study on selected Grade 7 Students in Galileo 2015-2016

Researchers:

Michael F. Ballad

Gian Benedict M. Calucag

Troy Janus G. Delos Santos

Jerryck C. Dulin

Jorge Paolo C. Obordo

 CHAPTER I

Introduction

A. Background of the study

Tugueagarao City Science High School (TCSHS), a well-known institution which

produce scholars who are highly intelligent, talented and disciplined. The school was established
as a city project headed by the former mayor Delfin Telan Ting and founded in 2008. 4 batches
of alumni have graduated from this school where some went to private and public schools in and
out of the province.

Students were assigned to ask selected Grade 7 TCSHS students in their gender, awards
in elementary & high school, economic status, etc.

B. Statement of the Problem

This study aims to collect information about the Grade 7 students specifically their
gender, awards in elementary & high school and economic status.

C. Hypothesis

1. The student’s gender does not have any relationship with his/her economic status.

2. The student’s economic status does not have any effect on his/her awards in high
school.

D. Significance

This study aims to collect information about the Grade 7 students specifically their
gender, awards in elementary & high school and economic status, etc. This study is significant
for it shows the relationship between the gender of the students and his/her economic status, and
the relationship between the economic status of the student and his/her academic performance in
school.

E. Scope and Limitations

The study was conducted at the Tuguegarao City Science High School on January 26,
2016. The results were gathered from 15 selected students of the Tuguegarao City Science High
School.

F. Review of Related Literature

The self-beliefs that individuals use to exercise a measure of control over their
environments include self-efficacy beliefs -- "beliefs in one's capability to organize and execute
the courses of action required to manage prospective situations" (Bandura, 1997, p. 2). Because
self-efficacy beliefs are concerned with individuals' perceived capabilities to produce results and
to attain designated types of performance, they differ from related conceptions of personal
competence that form the core constructs of other theories. Self-efficacy judgments are both
more task- and situation-specific, contextual if you will, and individuals make use of these
judgments in reference to some type of goal. To better understand the nature of self-efficacy
beliefs it may be useful to explain how they are acquired, how they influence motivational and
self-regulatory process, and how they differ from similar or related conceptions of self-belief.

Self-efficacy beliefs have also received increasing attention in educational research,

primarily in studies of academic motivation and of self-regulation (Pintrich & Schunk, 1995). In
this arena, self-efficacy researchers have focused on three areas. Researchers in the first area
have explored the link between efficacy beliefs and college major and career choices,
particularly in science and mathematics (see Lent & Hackett, 1987, for a review). This line of
inquiry has important implications for counseling and vocational psychology theory and practice,
given that findings have provided insights into the career development of young men and women
and can be used to develop career intervention strategies. Findings from the second area suggest
that the efficacy beliefs of teachers are related to their instructional practices and to various
student outcomes (Ashton & Webb, 1986). In the third area, researchers have reported that
students' self-efficacy beliefs are correlated with other motivation constructs and with students'
academic performances and achievement. Constructs in these studies have included attributions,
goal setting, modeling, problem solving, test and domain-specific anxiety, reward contingencies,
self-regulation, social comparisons, strategy training, other self-beliefs and expectancy
constructs, and varied academic performances across domains.

Self-efficacy's broad application across various domains of behavior has accounted for its
popularity in contemporary motivation research (Graham & Weiner, 1996). Now that two
decades have passed, the time seems propitious to assess the direction that this bourgeoning line
of inquiry has taken in academic contexts. To that end, the purpose of this chapter is to acquaint
the reader with the defining characteristics of self-efficacy beliefs, outline some problems that
have plagued research in this area, examine current directions in self-efficacy research, and
suggest strategies to guide future directions. To set the foundation for this exploration, a brief
overview of the role of self-beliefs in Bandura's social cognitive theory will first be offered. This
will be followed by a more in-depth examination of the sources, effects, and defining
characteristics of self-efficacy beliefs, as well as of some problems that affect research. Because
various reviews of the influence of self-efficacy in academic settings can be found elsewhere
(see Bandura, 1997; Hackett, 1995; Lent & Hackett, 1987; Maddux & Stanley, 1986; Multon,
Brown, & Lent, 1991; Pajares, 1996c; Schunk, 1989, 1991; Zimmerman, 1995), such a review
will not be part of this chapter. Instead, major findings will be identified and discussed insofar as
they inform the directions charted. Last, suggestions are offered that may help guide subsequent
research and practice.

CHAPTER 2

Materials and Methods

A. Background of the study

The following materials were used in the making of the study.

Survey Form
Pen
Paper
Computer/laptop

B. Preparation and Conduction of the Study

The Self-efficacy study on Grade 7 Galileo was conducted using the procedure performed
by the researchers:

The researchers first wrote the names of the students of Grade 7 Galileo, the researchers
then gave the survey form. After collecting the questionnaires, the researchers put their data in
Microsoft Excel. The following were some of the questions:

a. Name

b. Age
c. Year Level

d. Section

e. Awards in Elementary

f. Awards in High School

g. Economic Status

C. Treatments

The researchers conducted a survey among the 15 students of 7 Galileo to determine

different information about them. The researchers tallied their data using the following codes:

Gender: 0-Male, 1-Female

Awards in Elementary: 0-with awards, 1-no awards

Awards in High School: 0-with awards, 1-no awards

Economic Status: 0-poor, 1-middle, 2-rich

D. Research Design

Table 1 below shows the frame of the table in the Microsoft Excel.
N A Y S G A A E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
a g e e e w w c 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
m e a ct n a a o
e r i d r r n
L o e d d S
e n r s s t
v E H a
e S t
l
E. Data Analysis

The researchers used SPSS Version 16 (Statistical Package for Social Science) software
for analyzing the collected data.

CHAPTER 3

Results and Discussions

Table 2 below shows the data of the one-sample T-test.

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Q1 16 6.12 11.454 2.863

Q2 16 4.62 8.702 2.175

Q3 16 6.88 12.878 3.220

Q4 16 6.00 11.231 2.808

Q5 16 7.38 13.793 3.448

Q6 16 5.75 10.786 2.696

Q7 16 6.75 12.668 3.167

Q8 16 7.38 13.808 3.452

Q9 16 5.75 10.780 2.695

Q10 16 7.25 13.567 3.392

Q11 16 7.38 13.812 3.453

Q12 16 6.00 11.284 2.821

Q13 16 6.50 12.166 3.041

Q14 16 7.00 13.110 3.277

Q15 16 6.62 12.409 3.102

Q16 16 7.25 13.562 3.391

Q17 16 6.12 11.506 2.876

Q18 16 8.00 14.958 3.739

Q19 16 5.88 11.026 2.757

Q20 16 6.25 11.722 2.930

Q21 16 6.12 11.459 2.865

Q22 16 6.50 12.155 3.039

Q23 16 8.25 15.429 3.857

Q24 16 6.75 12.657 3.164

Q25 16 8.00 14.962 3.741

Table 3 below shows the results of the one-sample T-test.

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 0

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper

Q1 2.139 15 .049 6.125 .02 12.23

Q2 2.126 15 .051 4.625 -.01 9.26

Q3 2.135 15 .050 6.875 .01 13.74

Q4 2.137 15 .049 6.000 .02 11.98

Q5 2.139 15 .049 7.375 .03 14.72

Q6 2.132 15 .050 5.750 .00 11.50

Q7 2.131 15 .050 6.750 .00 13.50

 Q8 2.137 15 .050 7.375 .02 14.73

Q9 2.134 15 .050 5.750 .01 11.49

Q10 2.138 15 .049 7.250 .02 14.48

Q11 2.136 15 .050 7.375 .01 14.74

Q12 2.127 15 .050 6.000 -.01 12.01

Q13 2.137 15 .049 6.500 .02 12.98

Q14 2.136 15 .050 7.000 .01 13.99

Q15 2.136 15 .050 6.625 .01 13.24

Q16 2.138 15 .049 7.250 .02 14.48

Q17 2.129 15 .050 6.125 .00 12.26

Q18 2.139 15 .049 8.000 .03 15.97

Q19 2.131 15 .050 5.875 .00 11.75

Q20 2.133 15 .050 6.250 .00 12.50

Q21 2.138 15 .049 6.125 .02 12.23

Q22 2.139 15 .049 6.500 .02 12.98

Q23 2.139 15 .049 8.250 .03 16.47

Q24 2.133 15 .050 6.750 .01 13.49

Q25 2.139 15 .049 8.000 .03 15.97

Table 4 below shows the Chi-square Test with the age as factor.

Age * Total Crosstabulation

Count

Total Total

67 75 79 80 87 91 92 94 95 98 99 105

Age 12 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 11

13 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3

11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Total 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 15
 Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 26.818 22 .218

Likelihood Ratio 19.124 22 .638

Linear-by-Linear Association .110 1 .740

N of Valid Cases 15

Explanation: 36 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .07.

Table 5 below shows the Chi-square Test with the section as factor.

Section * Total Crosstabulation

Count

Total

67 75 79 80 87 91 92 94 95 98 99 105 Total

Section Galileo 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 15

Total 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 15

Chi-Square Tests

Value
a
Pearson Chi-Square .

N of Valid Cases 15

Explanation: No statistics are computed

because Section is a constant.
Table 6 below shows the Chi-square Test with the gender as factor.

Gender * Total Crosstabulation

Count

Total

67 75 79 80 87 91 92 94 95 98 99 105 Total

Gender Male 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 7

Female 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 8

Total 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 15

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 10.312 11 .503

Likelihood Ratio 14.136 11 .226

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.979 1 .160

N of Valid Cases 15

Explanation: 24 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .47.

Table 7 below shows the Chi-square Test with the economic status as factor.

Economic Status * Total Crosstabulation

Count

Total

67 75 79 80 87 91 92 94 95 98 99 105 Total

Economic Status middle 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 15

Total 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 15
 Chi-Square Tests

Value
a
Pearson Chi-Square .

N of Valid Cases 15

Explanation: No statistics are computed

because Economic Status is a constant.

Table 8 below shows the Chi-square Test with the awards in elementary as factor.

Awards Elementary * Total Crosstabulation

Count

Total

67 75 79 80 87 91 92 94 95 98 99 105 Total

Awards Elementary without awards 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

with awards 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 14

Total 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 15

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 15.000 11 .182

Likelihood Ratio 7.348 11 .770

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.869 1 .172

N of Valid Cases 15

Explanation: 24 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .07.
Table 9 below shows the Chi-square Test with the awards in high school as factor.

Awards High School * Total Crosstabulation

Count

Total

67 75 79 80 87 91 92 94 95 98 99 105 Total

Awards High School without awards 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4

with awards 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 11

Total 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 15

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 11.591 11 .395

Likelihood Ratio 13.578 11 .257

Linear-by-Linear Association .144 1 .704

N of Valid Cases 15
 Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2-

Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 11.591 11 .395

Likelihood Ratio 13.578 11 .257

Linear-by-Linear Association .144 1 .704

Explanation: 24 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .27.

Table 10 below shows the question number and the mean of the data collected.

Question # Mean
Q1 3.27
Q2 2.47
Q3 3.67
Q4 3
Q5 3.94
Q6 3.07
Q7 3.6
Q8 3.93
Q9 3.07
Q10 3.87
Q11 3.93
Q12 3.2
Q13 3.47
Q14 3.73
Q15 3.53
Q16 3.87
Q17 3.27
Q18 4.27
Q19 3.13
Q20 3.33
Q21 3.27
Q22 3.47
Q23 4.4
Q24 3.6
Q25 4.27
 CHAPTER 4

Conclusions and Recommendations

A. Conclusion

The main purpose of this study was to collect information from different students of 7

Galileo and test some of their personal likes/dislikes to their age, gender, etc.

Based on the results, the student’s gender does not have any relationship with his/her
economic status. Lastly, the student’s economic status does not have any effect on his/her awards
in elementary or high school.

The Grade 7 students are above moderate in both interpersonal and intrapersonal
mindsets, based from the data and results shown. Meaning, the students are approachable, fun to
be with, don’t have lots of negativities and enjoy new adventures.

B. Bibliography

M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement.

Volume 10, (pp. 1-49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Retrieved from:

http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/effchapter.html