Self-Esteem and Student Achievement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SELF-ESTEEM AND PERCEIVED CONTROL 309that the impacts of perceived control and self-esteem within a particularcontext (e.g., academics) may differ.Many empricial studies have examined the association between selfesteemand perceived control (or locus of control). In a meta-analysis,Judge et al. (2002) identified 47 studies containing a correlation betweenself-esteem and locus of control and found that the average correlation wasr = .52 (95% CI = .44–.59). However, only a few studies compared theimpact of self-esteem and perceived control on academic outcomes. A fewexceptions include Ross and Broh’s (2000) longitudinal study that examinedperceived control and self-esteem among a sample of Grade 10 studentsand found that only perceived control positively predicted students’course grades in Grade 12. Similarly, Cappella and Weinstein (2001) examinedstudents with a low Grade 8 reading proficiency and found studentswho reported a high internal locus of control were more likely to improvetheir reading proficiency by Grade 12 than students who had an externallocus of control; alternatively, self-esteem was found to have no significanteffect on the students’ reading proficiency. Finally, a study by Mooney,Sherman, and Lo Presto (1991) found that, for first-year college students’,academic locus of control and self-esteem were each positively correlatedwith college adjustment; however, the relationship between locus of controland college adjustment was much stronger. It should be noted that noneof these studies used a scale specifically designed to measure perceived control,a limitation that the current study will overcome. Nonetheless, previousresearch suggests that perceived control is a more powerful predictor ofvarious academic outcomes than self-esteem, however, self-esteem and perceivedcontrol have yet to be directly compared as predictors of college students’academic achievement (e.g., GPA).In brief, a review of the self-esteem and perceived control literaturerevealed three substantial issues to be addressed in the current study:(1) the relationship between self-esteem and academic achievement isinconsistent, yet programs designed to improve college students’ academicperformance have tended to focus on enhancing self-esteem; (2) the relationshipbetween perceived control and academic achievement is strongerand more consistent than that of self-esteem, yet perceived control has notbeen embraced to the same degree as self-esteem in attempting to improvecollege students’ academic performance; and (3) although students’ levelsof perceived control and self-esteem appear to be related, few studies havecompared their influence on the academic achievement of college studentsto test which construct is the most relevant to their academic success.To address these issues, our study compared self-esteem and perceivedcontrol as predictors of first-year college students’ academic performance.The key methodological strengths of this study include: (1) longitudinaldata collected over three points in time spanning from high school to theend of students’ first year of college; (2) employing structural equation
310 ROBERT H. STUPNISKY ET AL.modeling to test causal paths while statistically controlling for students’incoming ability (high school grades), gender, and age; (3) the use of establishedmulti-item scales for measuring self-esteem and perceived controlto create latent variables; and (4) utilizing objective measures of academicachievement (high school grades and college GPAs) obtained from institutionalrecords.2. Method2.1. PARTICIPANTSParticipants were 802 first-year students (498 females, 304 males; age 17–22)from a large, mid-western research-1 university who were enrolled in atwo-semester introductory psychology course. The students were recruitedat the start of the academic year and volunteered for the study to obtaincredits in their introductory psychology course. 12.2. MEASURES2.2.1. High School GradesStudents’ final average percentage in their core college entrance courses(Math, English, Chemistry, Physics) from their last year of high schoolwere obtained from institutional records at the end of the academic year(M = 77.63%, SD = 8.01, range = 56.00–99.00). High school performancewas included in the analyses to control for potential differences in students’aptitude when they entered college (Perry et al., 2001; Perry, Hladkyi et al.,2005; Ruthig, Haynes et al., 2007), which may affect self-esteem, perceivedcontrol, and/or GPA.2.2.2. DemographicsAge (M = 18.23, SD = 0.57) was included in the analysis because it positivelycorrelates with self-esteem: older students have higher self-esteemthan younger students (Twenge & Campbell, 2001; Woodard & Suddick,1992). Age has also been found to correlate with academic achievement, asolder students have more academic success (Clifton, Perry, Adams-Stubbs,& Roberts, 2004). Gender was included because female college studentstend to report lower self-esteem than male students (Demo & Parker,1988).2.2.3. Self-esteemStudents’ self-esteem was measured using the Rosenberg (1965) Self-esteemScale (RSES). The RSES is a well-established measure with high reliabilityand construct validity (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewki, 2001). Thescale contains five positively-worded items, such as “I feel that I have a
Page 3: develop through effort and educatio
Page 9 and 10: is simply a fixed trait. They have
Page 12 and 13: AS EDUCATORS, ALMOST EVERYTHING WE
Page 14 and 15: This is precisely why many "gifted"
Page 16: form new connections every time the
Page 19 and 20: cover storythis firsthand during hi
Page 21 and 22: protect students from failure," say
Page 23 and 24: Work Hardwith a growth mindset meet
Page 25 and 26: they get for it, but what they beco
Page 27 and 28: Copyright of Educational Leadership
Page 29 and 30: A recent, widely publicized study d
Page 31 and 32: The picture is one of a self-center
Page 33 and 34: failure. Thus, the thoughts and act
Page 35 and 36: Unfortunately, a school system that
Page 37 and 38: the self-control of individual stud
Page 39 and 40: 304 ROBERT H. STUPNISKY ET AL.Kings
Page 41 and 42: 306 ROBERT H. STUPNISKY ET AL.highe
Page 43: 308 ROBERT H. STUPNISKY ET AL.contr
Page 47 and 48: 312 ROBERT H. STUPNISKY ET AL.relat
Page 49 and 50: 314 ROBERT H. STUPNISKY ET AL.Figur
Page 51 and 52: 316 ROBERT H. STUPNISKY ET AL.Table
Page 53 and 54: 318 ROBERT H. STUPNISKY ET AL.to Ro
Page 55 and 56: 320 ROBERT H. STUPNISKY ET AL.chose
Page 57 and 58: 322 ROBERT H. STUPNISKY ET AL.grade
Page 59 and 60: 324 ROBERT H. STUPNISKY ET AL.test
Page 61 and 62: 326 ROBERT H. STUPNISKY ET AL.Appen
Page 63 and 64: 328 ROBERT H. STUPNISKY ET AL.Hu, L
Page 65 and 66: 330 ROBERT H. STUPNISKY ET AL.Biogr
Page 67 and 68: PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC
Page 95 and 96:
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109:
show all

Self-Esteem and Student Achievement

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?