|Year : 2015 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 43-47
Effectiveness of quality education based on Glasser's choice theory on the student's academic self-efficacy
Habibollah Naderi, Fereshteh Baezzat, Mahshad Motaghedifard
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
|Date of Web Publication||30-Nov-2015|
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Since academic self-efficacy is a cognitive process that has a strong impact on individuals' choices, quality education should be an effective strategy to help promote students' self-efficacy. The research reported in this paper investigates the effectiveness of quality education based on Glasser's choice theory on the student' self-efficacy. The research method was quasi-experimental with pre- and post-test design with the control group. The community of statistical consists of the whole students from the third grade of the primary school of Kashan city, Iran. The children's Perceived Academic Self-Efficacy subscale from the Morgan-Jinks Student Efficacy Scale was used. The inputs were analyzed by ANCOVA test. The outcomes indicated that training of Glasser's choice theory concepts in group sessions had a significant impact on increasing the self-efficacy of students. Data indicate the majority of the students involved in this study felt more confident about their disciplinary skills, attendance improved, and they felt more confident about their ability to develop their own proactive discipline program.
Keywords: Academic self-efficacy, Glasser's choice theory, quality education
|How to cite this article:|
Naderi H, Baezzat F, Motaghedifard M. Effectiveness of quality education based on Glasser's choice theory on the student's academic self-efficacy. Eur J Psychol Educ Studies 2015;2:43-7
|How to cite this URL:|
Naderi H, Baezzat F, Motaghedifard M. Effectiveness of quality education based on Glasser's choice theory on the student's academic self-efficacy. Eur J Psychol Educ Studies [serial online] 2015 [cited 2020 Apr 1];2:43-7. Available from: http://www.ejpes.org/text.asp?2015/2/2/43/170720
| Introduction|| |
Self-efficacy functions as the internal motivator for students to endure challenges and achieve goals. Clinkenbeard finds that “students are more likely to attribute success to their own ability and effort and attribute failure to bad luck or inappropriate strategy choice” (p. 626). Even when students experience failure, they do not relate the experience to a lack of intelligence or ability. Most likely, students will not allow the experience to affect their self-efficacy for future challenges. Taylor argued that the development of high abilities and high levels of achievement are all dependent on motivation in general but on intrinsic motivation in particular. Research indicates that intellectually gifted students portray greater levels of intrinsic motivation.
With respect to the theoretical basis of self-efficacy, it appears that one of the theories which presumably could affect it is the Glasser's choice theory. Glasser stated that: For having a better feeling about themselves and life in general, people should accept the responsibility. According to choice theory, each person can have a feeling of capability, confidence, and respect to him/herself, and ultimately feel happy provided that satisfies these needs efficiently and believes that his/her life is in his/her control and is able to provide a better situation for him/herself. One should identify the behavior which decides to correct, focus all of his/her attention to it and avoid from any pretexts or excuses. This relationship is mutual. Self-efficacy can influence the choice of activities. Students who have a low sense of efficacy for acquiring cognitive skills may attempt to avoid tasks, whereas those who judge themselves more efficacious should participate more eagerly.
Choice theory is an approach that allows us to understand our own behaviors' as well as the behaviors' of others. It is about internal control and personal responsibility. It maintains that all we do is behave and that our behavior is driven by our desire to satisfy one or more of our five basic needs. The basic needs are love and belonging, power, freedom, fun, and survival. The approach maintains that almost all behavior is chosen and purposeful and that total behavior is made up of four components: Acting, thinking, feeling, and physiology. Connecting habits bring us closer together in our relationships and, therefore, help solve problems. Disconnecting habits drive relationships further apart, and so the problem grows.,
| The Criteria “glasser's Quality School”|| |
The teacher's role is a lead manager and relies on cooperation, not authority, encouragement, not punishment. Relationships are based on trust and respect. The teacher's role is not boss-manager and is not controlling with rules designed to manipulate students and to punish them with forced direction, berating, detention, expulsion, and blacklists. He/she creates confidence, do not fear, enthusiasm, do not resentment. He/she says, “We,” not “I. Allows for quality decision-making on the part of the students with a definite positive effect on the creativity of the students.
It is a successful teaching approach in which small teams, each with students of different levels of ability, use a variety of learning accomplishments to increase their understanding of a matter. Each member of a team is responsible not only for learning what is taught but also for helping coworkers learn, thus creating acclimate of learning. Students work through the task until all group members successfully understand and complete it.,
This concept was developed by Frank Meder in 1982. The philosophy behind the concept is based on the psychological principles of Alfred Alder (1870–1937). Glasser discussed three types of classroom meetings: (I) The social-problem-solving, for examples: How can we make new pupils feel more welcome in our classroom? What rules do we need in our classroom? How can we stop teasing in class? (II) The educational diagnostic, for examples: If you could invite anyone in the world to your birthday party, who would it be and why? How can we solve the problems of graffiti in our streets? (III) The open-ended, for examples: What have you learned during this week which you will be able to use later in life, and in what way?
From the time students start schools, lead-managers will guide the process of helping them learn to continually evaluate their work. Then, based on this ongoing self-evaluation, lead-managers will encourage them to improve the quality of what they do. “Students are always asked to do the best they can do” (p. 23). Quality work takes time and effort. Teachers will provide time for students, and students will be full of effort. Today, many students travel too fast or too slow through their academics. “Students are asked to evaluate their own work and improve it” (p. 24). Quality work, good as it may be, is never static. “As Deming says, quality can almost always be improved.”
An issue for teachers is that many students do not spontaneously self-evaluate their capabilities, or the use of effective classroom meetings is a technique that few teachers have been prepared for but experience indicates that most teachers who persist with the technique become enthusiasts, claiming enjoyment, as well as managerial, behavioral, and academic benefits for their pupils. As most research has studied these constructs separately, we tried that discussing quality education and its components in small group sessions would benefit the students by helping them reflect on themselves and helping them to better understand their own inner nature or character and to increase academic self-efficacy specially. We hoped that this process would help them grow both personally and academically. Thus, our hypothesis is: Quality education based on Glasser's choice theory (included four components: Lead management, cooperative learning, classroom meetings, and self-evaluation) has a significant impact on students' academic self-efficacy.
| Methods|| |
Participants and research method
The statistical society at this research is including whole students who were educated at school in Kashan, Iran at 2014–2015 education years. The community of statistical consists of the whole students from the third grade of the primary school of Kashan city, Iran. The whole number of statistical society was 100 persons that 30 persons were selected by random sampling method (their average age was 12 years). According to this point, the kind of research was quasi-experimental design (pre- and post-test control and experimental group) that 30 students were divided into two parts. The counting of both experimental (15 people) and control (15 people) groups have been done by random sampling method. Students at the experimental group were asked to participate in a training course that covered the quality education (included four components: Lead management, collaborative learning, classroom meetings, and self-evaluation) based on Glasser's choice theory in eight sessions which each session was 60 min. Eight sessions were provided over a 1-month time-frame.
The children's Perceived Academic self-efficacy subscale from the Morgan-Jinks Student Efficacy Scale (MJSES) was used for the study. Morgan and Jinks created the MJSES in 1999 to calculate the correlation between students' self-efficacy and their self-ported grades, especially in the subject area of science. The four-point Likert scale was designed to provide answer choices using informal words that mirror the style of language which student use. The scale, which included subcategory questions concerning students' talents, efforts, context, and subject difficulty, was administered to 570 students from two different schools. The correlation between the students' science grade and the overall scale was 0.4, which portrays a significant relationship.
A description of the eight training sessions is provided in [Table 1].
| Results|| |
The descriptive outcomes related to academic self-efficacy variable for control and experimental group and in pre-post can be seen in [Table 2].
|Table 2: Results of descriptive outcomes related to academic self-efficacy variable for control and experimental group in pre, post|
Click here to view
As can be seen, the mean of academic self-efficacy in post-test in the experimental group has increased compared to the control group.
Quality education based on Glasser's choice theory (included four components: Lead management, cooperative learning, classroom meetings, and self-evaluation) has a significant impact on students' academic self-efficacy.
For testing the above hypothesis the univariate covariance analysis was used. For doing this, at first, to examine the presuppositions of covariance analysis, regression homogeneity test was conducted, and Levene's test was also done to test the homogeneity of variances. The results are represented in [Table 3] and [Table 4].
|Table 3: The results of homogeneity of gradient of regressions between covariate (pretest) and dependent variable (posttest) in factor levels (control and experimental groups)|
Click here to view
As can be seen in [Table 3], the interaction between helping and independent variables is not significant in factor levels; therefore, the hypothesis of homogeneity of regression is obeyed.
With respect to the insignificance of F amount, we can conclude that there is homogeneity between variances.
Regarding the homogeneity of regressions and homogeneity of variances, it is possible to do covariance analysis. The results of ANCOVA could be seen in [Table 5].
|Table 5: The ANCOVA results on control and experimental groups' scores (pre- and post-test)|
Click here to view
As can be seen in [Table 5], after the training program, there is a significant difference between the averages of academic self-efficacy in the control and experimental groups (P < 001, F = 92.51, Df =1). It means that experimental group compared with control group has more increase in academic self-efficacy in post-test. In addition, the amount of intervention effect of independent variable (group training of Glasser's choice theory) was 0.84.
| Discussion|| |
About the explanation of the results, it can be said that, it was expected that the group training of choice theory, by changing the people's cognition about their needs, making them aware about their own responsibility in choosing behaviors in order to fulfill their needs and achieving their wants and arranging a realistic plan for reaching the determined goals based on a true evaluation of personal abilities, could have led to peoples' rising awareness about themselves, their needs, capabilities and limitations, current behavior, and ultimately to plan properly and changes subsequently will modify person's view about her abilities and what she must do. The outcomes approved the expectations and confirmed the hypothesis that choice theory concepts could influence academic self-efficacy. Hwang et al. and Shahrebabak et al. concluded that Glasser's choice theory and reality therapy has a significant impact on the students' self-efficacy which is in conformity with the results of this study. Lead-management promotes high self-efficacy in students, who are much more likely to accept management decisions because they feel a sense of mutual involvement and ownership. Through positive relationships, creativity, and problem-solving skills and quality become everyone's focus, rather than attempts to meet the expectations of a boss-manager or create one's own environment in the laissez-faire management style. Performance feedback that students are making progress (e.g., “that's correct” and, “you're doing much better”) informs them that they are acquiring skills and knowledge, which can sustain motivation and enhance learning self-efficacy. Moreover, when students select goals (goal setting), they are apt to feel motivated and experience a sense of self-efficacy for attaining it., Ormrod indicates to the evidence showing cooperative learning technique improves the relationship between the students of different races in different classes. In addition, this method increases self-esteem and other emotional features of the students. The cooperative technique creates an appropriate relationship between the students, motivates them to learn, and enhance their self-esteem. The positive effect of cooperative learning have been consistently found on such diverse outcomes as self-efficacy, intergroup relations, acceptance of academically physically challenged students, attitudes toward school, and ability to work cooperatively.
Holding class meetings can be an effective way to promote a safe and caring learning environment. The goal of class meetings is to work on minor incidents of misbehavior in the classroom before they become major, full-scale discipline problems. Class meetings are a democratic problem-solving strategy, in which students are given the autonomy to become self-disciplined, responsible individuals. Through the process of encouragement and the use of logical consequences, class meetings develop self-esteem, self-confidence, and feelings of worth within each student.,
Self-evaluation is also positively and significantly related to self-efficacy. Research finds that self-evaluation encompasses the common and overlapping portions of personal variables such as self-efficacy. Feelings of competence and autonomy are important for intrinsic motivation, which refers to the individual performance of an activity because he or she finds the activity interesting and derives satisfaction from performing that activity itself. One way that teachers can highlight progress is to have students periodically assess their progress in skill acquisition. When performance improvements become salient, students will feel efficacious and motivated to learn and thereby learn better.
In summary, the influences of the choice theory are students feel safe and happy and want to be at school “significant students” are no longer identified as “problem students.” Students and teachers use a common language. Students can express their feelings adequately and are resilient and better able to manage themselves and have a better understanding of themselves and who they want to be.
Quality education based on Glasser's choice theory attempts to help students to recognize their goals, to evaluate the ways of reaching these goals, and finally to experience more positive feelings about themselves. Teachers must pay more attention to practical approaches such as cooperative learning and apply these methods in classrooms to improve cognitive and affective outputs of students. Educators can monitor the classroom for low achieving students. If a student's grades begin to decline, the educator or another person of guidance and authority could assess the student's self-efficacy to see if the issue is related. Reminding students of how they have progressed throughout the year may prove to be a motivating and empowering method to increase students' self-efficacy levels. The student should be proactive and takes the initiative in learning, in other word, passively wait not to be directed in the learning process. Choice theory is affecting change in outlook from external to internal control within persons.
| Implications for Research and Practice|| |
The student-tutor interactions stimulated student self-efficacy. Further research is required on student desire to collaborate, evaluative, responsive, and the effect of these dispositions on learning and persistence. Finding ways to facilitate these dispositions while resolving logistical difficulties remains a worthwhile challenge from both a practical and a research perspective. Current research suggests training of the criteria “Glasser's Quality School” to student-teachers.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Clinkenbeard PR. Motivation and gifted students: Implications of theory and research. Psychol Sch 2012;49:622-30.
Taylor E. The Correlation Between Self-Efficacy and the Academic Success of Students. A Senior Thesis in the Honors Program Liberty University; 2014. p. 44-50.
Glasser W, Glasser C. Eight Lessons for a Happier Marriage. New York: Harper Paperbacks; 2008. p. 25-40.
Glasser W. The Quality School: Managing Students without Coercion. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers; 1998. p. 15-25.
Glasser W. Schools Without Failure. New York: Harper and Row, 1969. p. 78-86.
Glasser W. The Quality School. New York: Harper-Collins; 1992. p. 24-8.
Slavin RE. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2nd
ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1995. p. 15-7.
The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Cooperative Learning. Retrieved April 12, 2010, from to learn. Thousand Oaks, CA, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall, Corwin Press; 1998.
Glasser W. The Quality School Teacher. New York: Harper-Collins; 1993. p. 125-31.
Hwang K, Baik SH, Huan F. Discusion of Glasser's “basic needs” among medical students pertaining to their self-understanding and self-awareness. Int J Choice Theory Real Ther 2012;5:42-7.
Shahrebabak FM, Abadi BG, Sherbaf HA. Examine the effectiveness of reality therapy in a group on increasing self-esteem of students of Ferdowsi university of Mashhad. Educ Psychol Stud 2011;11:227-38.
Ormrod JE. Human Learning. 4th
ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2004. p. 201-8.
Araban SH, Zainalipour H, Saadi RH, Javdan M, Sezide KH, Sajjadi S. Study of cooperative learning effects on self-efficacy and academic achievement in English lesson of high school students. J Basic Appl Sci Res 2012;2:8524-6.
Meder FJ. Why class meetings? Individ Psychol 1982;38:173-82.
Siddiqui MH. Classroom meeting of model: A way of solving a social problem. Indian J Appl 2013;3:201-3.
Judge TA, Erez A, Bono JE, Thoresen CJ. The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Pers Psychol 2003;56:303-31.
Chiang YH, Hsu CC, Hung KP. Core self-evaluation and workplace creativity. J Bus Res 2014;67:1405-13.
Grose J. Sabbatical Report: Developing a Positive Quality School. New Zealand Ministry of Education; 2009. p. 1-17.
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]