The Role of Domain-Specific Non-Cognitive Variables in Postsecondary Academic Success

Mary Nelson; Bernard P. Gee; Sarah Hoegler

doi:10.31686/ijier.vol4.iss11.1

Authors

Mary Nelson

Western Connecticut State University, USA
Bernard P. Gee

Western Connecticut State University, USA
Sarah Hoegler

Western Connecticut State University, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol4.iss11.1

Keywords:

Post-secondary education, Self-Regulated Learning, Metacognition, Non-Cognitive Variables, Self-Efficacy, Growth Mindset, Domain Specificity

Abstract

The Self-Regulated Learner must possess certain non-cognitive beliefs in order to remain sufficiently motivated in the pursuit of academic success. Students who are do not possess such beliefs are more likely to struggle in academics. This problem is especially pronounced in students at public universities and community colleges. Even though these students have the appropriate background knowledge to be awarded a high school diploma, they must still acquire certain non-cognitive beliefs, in particular self-efficacy (a belief in one’s ability to succeed and master the tasks at hand within a given domain), in order to be motivated to apply the knowledge they learned in high school, regulate their study habits, and monitor their progress. This exploratory study surveyed 42 undergraduates enrolled in a psychological statistics course. A hierarchical multiple regression assessed the extent to which self-efficacy predicted final statistics exam grades, while controlling for prior GPA. This analysis showed that prior GPA explained 38.9% of the variability in final exam grades and self-efficacy accounted for another 7.3% of the variance, explaining a total of 46.2% of the variance in final exam performance. These findings indicate that non-cognitive variables play an essential role in the prediction and promotion of academic performance at the college level in public universities. Developing students’ self-efficacy beliefs in specific courses may improve students’ performance. Different methods of employing interventions to alter students’ non-cognitive beliefs are discussed, with particular focus on the use of exam wrappers to promote self-efficacy and improve course grades.

Author Biographies

Mary Nelson, Western Connecticut State University, USA

Professor, Dept. of Psychology
Bernard P. Gee, Western Connecticut State University, USA

Assistant Professor, Dept. of Psychology
Sarah Hoegler, Western Connecticut State University, USA

Undergraduate Honors Student, Dept. of Psychology

References

Ainscough,L., Foulis, E., Colthrope, K., Zimbardi, K., Robertson-Dean, M., Chunduri, P., & Lluka, L. (2016). Changes in biology self-efficacy during a first year university course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(2), 1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-04-0092

Artino, A. R. (2012). Academic self-efficacy: From educational theory to instructional practice. Perspectives on Medical Education, 1, 76-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-012-0012-5

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Bol, L. & Hacker, D. J. (2012). Calibration research: Where do we go from here? Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00229

Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Griffin, J. (2014) Measuring the academic self-efficacy of first-year accounting students. Accounting Education, 23(5), 407-423. 10.1080/09639284.2014.931240 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2014.931240

Conley, D. T. (2003). Mixed messages: What state high school tests communicate about student readiness for college. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy Research, University of Oregon.

Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefining college readiness. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center, University of Oregon.

Dai, T., & Cromley, J. (2014). Changes in implicit theories of ability in biology and dropout from STEM majors: A latent growth curve approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 233-247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.003

Dweck, C. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Feldman, D., & Kubota, M. (2015). Hope, self-efficacy, optimism, and academic achievement: Distinguishing constructs and levels of specificity in predicting college grade-point average. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 210-216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.022

Garrett, J., Alman, M., Gardner, S., & Born, C. (2007). Assessing students’ metacognitive skills. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 71(1): Article 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5688/aj710114

Hanebutt, R. (2015). Metacognitive regulation intervention(s) in undergraduate science instruction (Doctoral dissertation). DePauw University, Greencastle, IN.

Isaacson, R. M & Fujita, F. (2006). Metacognitive knowledge monitoring and self-regulated learning: Academic success and reflection on learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 39-55.

Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit beliefs, goals and effort regulation matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 67-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.005

Komarraju, M., Ramsey, A., & Rinella, V. (2013). Cognitive and non-cognitive predictors of college readiness and performance: Role of academic discipline. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 103-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.007

Kurnaz, M.A., & Cimer, S.O. (2010). How do students know that they have learned? An investigation of students’ strategies. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3666-3672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.570

Lovett, M.C. (2010). What are exam wrappers and how can we use them. In Ambrose, S.A; Bridges, M.W., Lovett, M. C., DiPietro, M., Norman, M. K (Eds.), How learning works: 7 research based principles for smart teaching, 251-254. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Muretta, R. J. (2004). Exploring the four sources of self-efficacy (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Touro University College of Business Administration, Cypress, CA.

Nelson, M., Gee, B., Heath, J., & McAndrew, C. (2015). Performance indicator parallels shift in mindset, grit, and academic success. Symposium presented at the 2015 Lilly International Conference; Evidence Based Teaching and Learning, Bethesda, MD. May 28-31, 2015.

Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2006). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 159-179. 10.1007/210409-006-9595-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10409-006-9595-6

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: Regents of the University of Michigan.

Romero, C., Master, A., Paunesku, D., Dweck, C. S., & Gross, J. (2014). Academic and emotional functioning in middle school: The role of implicit theories. Emotion, 14(2), 227-234. 10.1037/a0035490. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035490

Sedlacek, W. E. (2011). Using noncognitive variables in assessing readiness for higher education. Readings on Equal Education, 25, 187-205.

Stipek, D. & Gralinski J. H. (1996). Children’s beliefs about intelligence and school performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 88(1), 397-401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.397

van der Meer, J. (2012). “I don’t really see where they are going with it”: Communicating purpose and rationale to first year students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 36, 81-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2011.596195