1877–0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.236
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 1040–1045
WCES-2011
Gender differences in factors affecting academic performance of
high school students
Sayid Dabbagh Ghazvini
a, Milad Khajehpour
aaIslamic Azad University, Roudehen Branch, Young Researchers Club, Tehran, 1773854661, Iran
Abstract
The following study examines gender differences existing in various cognitive motivational variables (locus of control, academic self-concept and use of learning strategies) and in performance attained in school subjects of Literature and Mathematics. For this purpose, a sample of 363 students was selected from the high school students in the first, second and third academic years. For achieving to the purpose used of locus of control questionnaire, self-concept questionnaire and LASSI.
Results show the existence of gender difference in variables under consideration, with girls showing internal locus of control, using attitude, motivation, time management, anxiety, and self-testing strategies more extensively, and getting better marks in Literature. With boys using concentration, information processing and selecting main ideas strategies more, and getting better marks in mathematics. Gender differences were not found in external locus of control, in academic self-concept, and in study aids and test strategies. Results suggest that differences exist in the cognitive-motivational functioning of boys and girls in the academic environment, with the girls have a more adaptive approach to learning tasks. However, the influence of contextual variables that may differently affect boys' and girls' motivation was not taken into account. Thus future research should address the influence of such factors.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Motivational variables; Locus of control; Academic self-concept; Learning strategies; Academic performance; Gender differences
1. Introduction
One of the reasons it was most important to analyse factors affecting academic performance is because of its significant influence on academic motivation and use of them for increasing academic success. As a consequence, learning and motivation are two variables for joint analysis. Though for some years research on school learning has centred its attention in the cognitive trend, we currently find, coming from different perspectives, a generalized emphasis on the necessary interrelation between the cognitive and the motivational (Pintrich, 2000).
In fact, one of the suggestion that best encompasses the complexity of motivational processes at the academic level comes from Pintrich and De Groot (1990), where they distinguish three general categories of relevant constructs for motivation in educational contexts: an expectation component, including students' beliefs about their ability to complete a task; a value component, including students' goals and beliefs about the task's importance and interest, and an affective component, including affective-emotional consequences derived from completing a task, as well as the results of success or failure at an academic level. All these motivational beliefs have been related to self-regulate learning. Thus, various research papers claim that students adopting an intrinsic motivational orientation
* Sayid Dabbagh Ghazvini. Cellphone.: +98-912-303-5466
E-mail address: HopeSparkle@yahoo.com
Open access underCC BY-NC-ND license.
use cognitive strategies and self-regulating processes to a greater degree than students who adopt an extrinsic motivational orientation (Pintrich & De Groot 1990; Miller, Behrens, Greene & Newman, 1993).
Current research claims that subjects' active involvement in the learning process increases when they trust their own abilities and have high self-efficacy expectations, they value the tasks and feel responsible for the learning objectives (Miller et al., 1993; Zimmerman, Bandura & Martinez-Pons, 1992).
Models and theories of motivation which exist today not only highlight the cognitive determinants of motivation, but they also focus on the effects that certain contextual, personal variables have on cognitive and affective components of the motivational process.
Gender is one of the personal variables that have been related to differences found in motivational functioning and in self-regulated learning. Different research has demonstrated the existence of different attribution patterns in boys and girls, such that while girls tend to give more emphasis to effort when explaining their performance (Lightbody et al., 1996; Georgiou, 1999), boys appeal more to ability and luck as causes of their academic achievement (Burgner & Hewstone, 1993). Regarding gender differences in academic self-concept, there is no evidence of such differences existing (Gabelko, 1997), and when such differences do occur, it is to the detriment of the girls (Hilke & Conway, 1994).
Taking locus of control, academic self-concept and learning strategies as the backbone of this paper, our research objective consists of analysing existing differences in these variables as a function of the students' gender.
2. Backgrounds 2.1. Locus of Control
Locus of control (Rotter, 1966a) is conceptualized on a dynamic bipolar continuum spanning from internal to external. Internal locus of control is characterized by the belief that consequences are a result of one's own behaviour. In other words, individuals who believe that their successes or failures result from their own behaviours possess an internal locus of control.
Additionally, individuals with an internal locus of control typically engage in proactive and adaptive behaviours (Demellow & Imms, 1999; Peterson et al., 1993 and Rothbaum et al., 1982). On the other hand, external locus of control is characterized by the belief that consequences are a result of fate, luck, or powerful others. In other words, individuals who attribute their successes or failures to something incongruent with their own behaviours possess an external locus of control. Thus, individuals with an external locus of control might not take responsibility for their own actions or behaviours. Subsequently, individuals with an external locus of control tend to be reactive and avoid distressing situations (Gomez, 1997 and Gomez, 1998).
Rotter (1966a) argued that even though locus of control was conceptualized on a dynamic continuum, it is a fairly stable psychological construct. He contended that individuals with an internal locus of control would continue to engage in activities that would reinforce the expectancy that their behaviours affected subsequent consequences. Meanwhile, individuals with an external locus of control would engage in maladaptive behavioural patterns that became self-fulfilling in that they would not perceive connections between their actions and the ensuing consequences. Essentially, individuals' locus of control would impact how they perceived and interacted within their surroundings. Hence, when individuals were introduced to novel experiences, they would be expected to react in a consistent manner reflective of their locus of control orientation and level of cognitive processing. Further, there is evidence that locus of control is related to cognitive development.
Several studies (Shute et al., 1984; Skinner et al., 1998 and Weisz & Stipek, 1982) have reported that locus of control orientation during childhood tends to be more external than locus of control orientation during adolescence and adulthood. Subsequently, locus of control orientation during adolescence tends to be more internal than children tend yet, more external than adults. Additionally, internal locus of control have been found to be related to abstract cognitive reasoning while external locus of control is related to concrete cognitive reasoning (Shute et al., 1984). 2.2. Self-Concept
Self-concept is an important construct in psychology and education. Byrne (1984) concluded that ‘self-concept’ is a multidimensional construct, having one general facet and several specific facets, one of which is ‘academic
self-concept’. The term ‘academic self-concept’ can be characterized by two elements consistent with the Shavelson model (Strein, 1993).
First, academic self-concept reflects descriptive (e.g., I like math) as well as evaluative (e.g. I am good at math) aspects of self-perception. Second, self-perceptions associated with academic self-concept tend to focus on scholastic competence, rather than attitudes. It is referred to as a person’s perception of self with respect to achievement in school (Reyes, 1984).
A student’s self-perception of academic ability or achievement will affect their school performance (Marsh, 1990). There is a general consensus that children with special educational needs or learning difficulties tend to have lower self-concept than those without difficulties (Gurney, 1988; Elbaum & Vaughn, 2001). They are vulnerable to low self-concepts because of a tendency to academic failure, the stigmatizing nature of their learning problems and the segregation from mainstream schooling that many learning disabled students experience.
2.3. Learning Strategies
Weinstein, Husman & Dierking (2005, p. 741) describe learning strategies as “tools used in the service of goals”. This means that a learner’s goal- and motivational orientation determines how and if learning strategies are used. Tessmer and Jonassen (1988) say that “learning strategies represent a learner-controlled method for processing and recalling of knowledge from instruction and instructional materials”. While Weinstein et al. (2005, p. 733) define learning strategies as “… any thoughts, behaviours, beliefs, or emotions that facilitate the acquisition, understanding, or later transfer of new knowledge and skills.” Shortly, we could describe a strategic learner as one who knows what measures need to be taken in order to learn something in a specific situation and environment.
Weinstein (1994) emphasizes on our ability to be in charge of our skill, will and self-regulation. Learning is more than cognition. It is an internal process of affective, cognitive, and behavioural factors where the end result is dependent on our ability for self-regulation (Weinstein, et al., 2005).
The factors are constantly changing within a learning situation. The self-regulatory process is adjusted based on continuous feedback and experiences of the self in the environment. The learner needs to continuously monitor progress through three self-oriented feedback loops; 1- behavioural self-regulation (strategically adjusting study tactics based on self-observation), 2- environmental self-regulation (adjustment of environmental factors or outcome), and 3- covert self-regulation (adjusting and monitoring cognitive and affective states) (Zimmerman, 2005).
According to social cognitive theory for learning, there is a triadic reciprocal causation between the environment, the learner, and his/her self-regulation of behaviour (Bandura, 1986).
Several researchers divide self-regulated learning into two categories: motivation and learning strategies (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1991; Ruohotie, 2002). Similarly, Tessmer & Jonassen (1988) divide learning strategies into two categories based on how they function to control the learning process: primary strategies and support strategies. Primary strategies work directly with the information to be learned and have to do with our cognition. Support strategies are all aimed at improving general cognitive functioning, and have to do with our self-regulation for learning.
3. Method 3.1. Subjects
Using multistage cluster sampling the sample is composed of 363 students between the ages of 15 and 18 (M=16.4 SD=.42), in ten public high schools in Tehran. Out of the whole sample, 187 were female and 176 were male. As for the "school year" variable, 118 students were in 1st of high school, and 126 were in 2nd grade of high school and 119 students were in 3rd of high school.
3.2. Variables and Instruments
The target cognitive-motivational variables of this study are locus of control, academic self-concept, and learning strategies used by the students. Evaluation of self-concept was carried out using a researcher made questionnaire
that used from standard scales to making the questionnaire statements. After initial survey, the final version in a pilot study carried out on 120 high school students (girl and boy) in Tehran. The reliability was obtained using cronbach's alpha coefficient 0.91 and using test-retest 0.88. Content validity was confirmed by psychometric and Educational Psychology experts. Construct Validity also was tested by obtaining each term correlation with the total correlation test. Scores on the questionnaire are based on 18 items. In order to complete this questionnaire, subjects must respond to a series of two options (yes or no) items. A high score on this inventory indicates a higher self-concept, while a low score shows low self-concept.
On the other hand, for determining internal or external locus of control, we looked at scores obtained by students in the locus of control scale (LCS) (Rotter, 1966b)
We also considered students' use of strategies directed at comprehension and significance of learning, these being measured from students' scores in the LASSI (Learning and Study Strategies Inventory) by Weinstein (1987). Finally, based on marks given to each student by their teacher in the semester prior, they were asked to report their marks for Literature and Mathematics. Marks were categorized in a range of scores from 0 to 20.
4. Results
In general, results found for gender differences regarding variables under consideration, indicate that significant differences exist between both groups in locus of control, (see Table 1).
Table1: Differences of averages in internal and external locus of control found in High school students.
As in the above table is shown girls having more internal locus of control than boys (p < .001). However there was no significant difference among external locus of control boys and girls.
As for academic self-concept, we can also distinguish significant differences between male and female students (see Table 2).
Table2: Differences of averages in academic self-concept found in high school students.
R G n M S Girl 187 13.24 2.49 Boy 176 12.88 3.26 گ 363 13.06 2.89 t = 1.19
As for academic self-concept, results show very similar levels in both boys and girls, since the differences we found were not significant.
Regarding use of learning strategies, results do not show differences in boys' and girls' use of study aids and test strategies. Female students make greater use of attitude, motivation, time management, anxiety and self-testing strategies, whereas, differences were found as a function of gender in the use of concentration, information processing and selecting main ideas; male students make greater use of these learning strategies (see Table 3).
Table3: Differences of averages in use of learning strategies found in high school students.
Gender Girl Boy Analyse
R
Strategies M S M S t p
Internal Locus of Control External Locus of Control
R G n M S S M n R G Boy 92 6.32 1.47 2.19 16.12 84 Boy Girl 107 5.39 2.21 1.98 15.78 80 Girl Ȉ 199 5.82 1.9 2.09 15.95 164 گ * t = 3.32 p < .001 t = 1.04
Attitude 19.49 3.08 17.72 3.81 4.85 .0002 * Motivation 26.63 5.17 24.43 4.3 4.42 .0003 * Time Management 25.54 5.06 23.92 5.87 2.81 .0073 * Anxiety 36.68 4.31 35.18 5.29 2.95 .0049 * Concentration 18.84 5.23 20.81 6.34 3.22 .0022 * Information Processing 20.05 5.99 21.24 5.19 2.03 .0485 *
Selecting Main Ideas 15.11 4.69 16.15 3.1 2.51 .0162 *
Study Aids 14.36 4.77 14.92 4.54 1.15 .2177
Self-Testing 29.37 6.18 28.02 5.7 2.16 .0367 *
Test Strategies 15.21 4.42 14.89 5.13 0.63 .3974
Finally, not only were differences found as a function of gender in locus of control and use of learning strategies, but differences were also produced in performance attained in the literature and mathematics (see Table 4).
Table4: Differences of averages in performance found in high school students.
Literature Mathematics R G n M S S M n R G Girl 187 15.86 3.02 3.44 11.95 187 Girl Boy 176 14.68 4.16 5.37 13.29 176 Boy گ 363 15.29 3.66 4.52 12.6 363 گ t=3.08 p < .01 t=2.85 p < .01
As the table above show, girl students obtained better marks in the subject of Literature than their male counterparts. However, boy students obtained better marks in subject of mathematics than female students.
5. Discussion
Results described above reflect the existence of differences between boys and girls in locus of control. We find specifically that while female students show more internal locus of control, didn’t show significant difference in external locus of control with male students. Differences were not found in academic self-concept among male and female students as a function of gender. The study in fact reveals how boys use significant learning strategies to a lesser degree than do girls. Finally, the fact that the girls take greater responsibility for their academic failures (being less concerned than the boys about looking good), together with their greater use of significant learning strategies, is associated with the girls' obtaining better results in the subject of Literature. However, despite the girls showing a more adaptive cognitive-motivational pattern than the boys, the former do not obtain significantly higher marks in the subject of Mathematics. In summary, results suggest that differences exist in the cognitive-motivational functioning of boys and girls in the academic environment. However, as indicated by Patrick et al. (1999) or Anderman and Midgley (1997), one aspect that may be influencing the relationship that exists between motivation and student's gender is the type of academic discipline. Future research should take into account not only differences in performance in different subjects, but also differences that are produced as a function of gender in self-concept, locus of control and strategies used in different disciplines. Furthermore, it would also be interesting to determine how other variables, such as boys' and girls' perceptions of their classes and their teachers, as well as differential treatment they might be receiving, might be influencing their motivation and academic success.
References
Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived academic competence and grades across the transition to middle level schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 269-298.
Burgner, D., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Young children's causal attributions for success and failure: “self-enhancing boys” and “self-derogating girls”. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11, 125-129.
Byrne, B. (1984). The general/academic self-concept nomological network: A review of construct validation research. Review of Educational Research, 54, 427-456.
Demellow, L. R., & Imms, T. (1999). Self-esteem, locus of control, and coping styles and their relationship to school attitudes of adolescents
Psychological Studies, 44, pp. 24– 34.
Elbaum, B., & Vaughn, S. (2001). School-based interventions to enhance the self-concept of students with learning disabilities: A Meta-Analysis.
Elementary School Journal, 101(3),303-329.
Gabelko, N. H. (1997). Age and gender differences in global, academic, social and athletic self-concepts in academically talented students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association: Chicago.
Georgiou, S. (1999). Achievement attributions of sixth grade children and their parents. Educational Psychology, 19, 399-412.
Gomez, R. (1998). Locus of control and avoidant coping: Direct, interactional and meditational effects on maladjustment in adolescents.
Personality and Individual Differences, 24, pp. 325–334.
Gomez, R. (1997). Locus of control and type a behavior pattern as predictors of coping styles among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, pp. 391–398.
Gurney, P. (1988). Self-Esteem in Children with Special Educational Needs. London: Routledge. Hilke, E. V., & Conway, G. C. (1994). Gender equity in education. Indiana: Reports-Descriptive.
Lightbody, P., Siann, G., Stocks, R., & Walsh, D. (1996). Motivation and attribution at secondary school: the role of gender. Educational Studies, 22, 13-25.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson Model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(I),35-42. Miller, B.R., Behrens, J.T., Green, B.A., & Newman, D. (1993). Goals and perceived ability: Impact on student valuing, self-regulation and
persistence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 2-14.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The differential impact of extrinsic and mastery goal orientations on males' and females' self-regulated learning. Learning and individual differences, 11, 153-171.
Peterson, C., Maier, S.F. & Seligman, M. E. P. (1993). Learned helplessness: A theory for the age of personal control. Oxford University Press, New York.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.R Pintrich & M. Zeidner (eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Theory, research and applications (p. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33 40.
Reyes, L. H. (1984). Affective Variables and Mathematics Education. Elementary School Journal, 84, 558-581.
Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R. & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 1, pp. 5–37.
Rotter, J. B. (1966a). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, pp. 1–28. Rotter, J. B. (1966b). Internal - External Locus of Control Scale (I.E.). Assess locus of control dimension of personality: Internal or external. Ruohotie, P. (2002). Motivation and self-regulation in learning. In H. Niemi, & P. Ruohotie (Eds.), Theoretical Understandings for Learning in
the Virtual University. Saarijärvi, Finland: .Saarijärven Offset Oy.
Skinner, E. A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Connell, J. P. (1998). Individual differences and the development of perceived control. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development Serial # 254, 64, pp. 1–231.
Strein, W. (1993). Advances in research on academic self-concept: Implications for school psychology. School Psychology Review, 22, 273-284. Shute, G. E., Howard, M. M. & Steyaert, J. P. (1984). The relationships among cognitive development, locus of control, and gender. Journal of
Research in Personality, 18, pp. 335–341.
Tessmer, M., & Jonassen, D. (1988). Learning strategies: a new instructional technology. In D. Harris (Ed.). World yearbook of education 1988: Education for the new technologies. London: Kogan Page.
Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2005). Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, Pintrich, P. R., & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of Self-Regulation. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Weinstein, C. E. (1994) “Strategic Learning/Strategic Teaching: Flip Sides of a Coin”, In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, and C. E. Weinstein (Eds.)
Student motivation, cognition, and learning: Essays in honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie, (pp. 257-273). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Weinstein, C. E. (1987). LASSI (Learning and Study Strategies Inventory). Clearwater, FL: H&H Publishing Company.
Weisz, J. R., & Stipek, D. J. (1982). Competence, contingency, and the development of perceived control. Human Development 25, pp. 250–281. Zimmerman, B. J. (2005). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, Pintrich, P. R., & M. Zeidner (Eds.).
Handbook of Self-Regulation. Burlington, MA, USA, Elsevier Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B.J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676.
