ID Gen Psych

8/4/2019 ID Gen Psych

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/id-gen-psych 1/22

Implicit Theories of Intelligence,

Academic Self-Regulation &

Academic Performance of First YearCollege Students

Ma. Joanna Tolentino-Anonuevo



Theoretical Framework Incremental Theory of Intelligence

(Dweck, 1999)

Social-Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation(Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986)



In Implicit Theories of Intelligence, Dweck

(1999) identified two assumptions regarding

intelligence: (a) entity theory posits that intelligence is

fixed though new things can be learned or

knowledge may still be acquired, and (b) incremental theory considers intelligence

as malleable which may be developed through

one’s effort (Dweck, 1986, 1999).





Students’ adaptation of an entity or

incremental belief about their intelligence

influences the type of achievement goals theyadapt and also determines utilization of

adaptive or maladaptive motivational patterns

(Dweck, 1986).



Entity theorists tend to be more oriented

toward performance goal, characterized by

high levels of competence so as to avoidothers’ negative judgments of their abilities.

They tend to engage in learning tasks that are

easy to accomplish and requires little effort.



Incremental theorists endorse mastery goals

to enhance and develop competence, thus

prefer novel, difficult or challenging tasks(Dweck, 1999).



Related Research Articles Ainley, M.D. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning:

Multidimensional assessment of their relationship with

strategy use and school achievement. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 85, 395-405.

Magno, C. (2009). Investigating the effect of

school ability on self-efficacy, learning

approaches, and metacognition. The

Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18,

233-244.

Kitsantas, A., Winsler, A., & Huie, F. (2008). Self-regulation

and ability predictors of academic success during college: A predictive

validity study. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 42-68



Research Questions1. Are there significant differences between students withentity & incremental theories of intelligence on theiracademic self-regulation, specifically:

a) Memory strategy

b) Goal settingc) Self-evaluation

d) Seeking assistance

e) Environmental structuring

f) Learning responsibility

g) Organizing2. Is there significant difference between students with entity

& incremental theories of intelligence on their academicperformance?



Hypothesis1. There are no significant differences between

students with entity & incremental theories of intelligence on their academic self-regulation,

specifically:a) Memory strategy

b) Goal setting

c) Self-evaluation

d) Seeking assistance

e) Environmental structuringf) Learning responsibility

g) Organizing



Hypothesis

1. There is no significant difference between

students with entity & incremental theories

of intelligence on their academicperformance.



Methodology

Participants

82 1st year college students enrolled in LSCA

for the 2nd semester 2010/11Sampling Technique

Convenience sample

Statistical Analysis

t-test for Independent groups



Instruments Academic Self-Regulation Learning Scale (Magno, 2010).

55 items with 7 categories are as follows:1. Memory strategy ( 14 items )

2. Goal setting ( 5 items )

3. Self-evaluation ( 12 items )

4. Seeking Assistance ( 8 items )

5. Environmental structuring ( 5 items )

6. Learning responsibility ( 5 items )

7. Organizing (6 items ) 4-point Likert scale response

4=Strongly Agree, 3=Agree, 2=Disagree & 1=StronglyDisagree



Instruments

Implicit Theories of Intelligence (Henderson, Dweck & Chiu, 1992)

It consists of three items mewasuring intelligence as a

“fixed” entity.

6-point Likert scale response

1= strongly agree to 6= strongly disagree

The higher the score, the more one believes thatintelligence is a malleable quality.



Sample Items of Academic Self-Regulation

Scale (Magno, 2010)

Memory Strategy

1. I write information that I need to remember.

Goal setting1. I make sure to accomplish the things I need

to do each day.

Self-Evaluation1. I evaluate my accomplishments at the end of

each study session.



Sample Items of Academic Self-Regulation

Scale (Magno, 2010)

Seeking Assistance

1. I enjoy group work because of the cooperation.

Environmental structuring

1. I avoid any distractions while doing school work. Learning responsibility

1. I recheck my homework if it is done properlybefore submitting.

Organizing1. I mark important concepts and information I find in

my readings.



Implicit Theories of Intelligence(Henderson, Dweck & Chiu, 1992)

1. I have certain amount of intelligence and I

cant really do much to change it.

2. My intelligence is something that I cannotchange very much.

3. I can learn new things but I cant really

change my intelligence.



Variable # of Items Cronbach’s Alpha

Memory Strategy 14 .78

Goal setting 5 .83

Self evaluation 12 .83

Seeking Assistance

8 .45Environmental structuring 5 .74

Learning Responsibility 5 .75

Organizing 5 .67

Incremental Theories of

Intelligence3 .81



ResultsGroup 1 Group 2 T value

Incremental

Theories of

Intelligence

2.42708 4.29333 -12.9951 Significant

Grade 82.21875 80.88000 1.0791

Memory

Strategy 3.13616 2.84143 3.3954 Significant

Goal setting 3.20625 3.00000 1.5070

Self evaluation 3.27604 3.05000 2.5452

SeekingAssistance 3.10547 2.99250 1.4492

Environmental

structuring3.22500 3.15200 0.5807

Learning

Responsibility3.15000 2.92800 1.9781 Significant

Organizing 3.27500 3.16000 1.0886



Findings

Students with entity theory of intelligencehave significantly higher academic self-regulation, particularly in memory strategy,self-evaluation, and learning responsibilitythan those with incremental theory of intelligence.

There is no significant difference betweenstudents with entity incremental theory interms of their academic performance.



Kiosseoglou & Leondari (2006)

Implicit theories are outcome of prior school

achievement and mediated by perceivedcompetence.



Thank You

Documents

ID Gen Psych