| Literature DB >> 32183804 |
Ali Asghar Hayat1, Karim Shateri2, Mitra Amini1, Nasrin Shokrpour3.
Abstract
Recognition of the factors affecting the medical students' academic success is one of the most important challenges and concerns in medical schools. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the mediating effects of metacognitive learning strategies and learning-related emotions in the relationship between academic self-efficacy with academic performance in medical students.Entities:
Keywords: Academic performance; Academic self-efficacy; Learning-related emotions; Medical students; Metacognitive strategies
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32183804 PMCID: PMC7079530 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-020-01995-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Fig. 1The conceptual model
Relationship between academic performance, self-efficacy, metacognitive learning strategies, and positive emotions
| Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1- Academic performance | 16.95 | 1.433 | 1 | |||
| 2- Self-efficacy | 2.68 | 1.041 | 0.46** | 1 | ||
| 3- Metacognitive learning strategies | 2.89 | 0.990 | 0.45** | 0.59** | 1 | |
| 4- Positive learning -related emotions | 2.97 | 0.945 | 0.48** | 0.65** | 0.55** | 1 |
*p < .05 **p < .01
The results of confirmatory factor Analysis: Factor loadings, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE)
| Construct | items | loadings | CR | AVE | Convergent Validity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enjoyment | q1 | 0.94 | 0.97 | 0.82 | Yes |
| q2 | 0.93 | ||||
| q3 | 0.91 | ||||
| q4 | 0.89 | ||||
| q5 | 0.95 | ||||
| q6 | 0.94 | ||||
| q7 | 0.87 | ||||
| q8 | 0.83 | ||||
| q9 | 0.82 | ||||
| q10 | 0.97 | ||||
| Hope | q11 | 0.94 | 0.98 | 0.89 | Yes |
| q12 | 0.93 | ||||
| q13 | 0.96 | ||||
| q14 | 0.92 | ||||
| q15 | 0.97 | ||||
| q16 | 0.93 | ||||
| Pride | q17 | 0.95 | 0.97 | 0.88 | Yes |
| q18 | 0.94 | ||||
| q19 | 0.92 | ||||
| q20 | 0.93 | ||||
| q21 | 0.96 | ||||
| q22 | 0.93 | ||||
| Self-efficacy | q23 | 0.94 | 0.98 | 0.88 | Yes |
| q24 | 0.90 | ||||
| q25 | 0.95 | ||||
| q26 | 0.93 | ||||
| q27 | 0.96 | ||||
| q28 | 0.91 | ||||
| q29 | 0.97 | ||||
| q30 | 0.94 | ||||
| Metacognitive learning strategies | q31 | 0.90 | 0.98 | 0.87 | Yes |
| q32 | 0.95 | ||||
| q33 | 0.98 | ||||
| q34 | 0.70 | ||||
| q35 | 0.96 | ||||
| q36 | 0.95 | ||||
| q37 | 0.93 | ||||
| q38 | 0.98 | ||||
| q39 | 0.92 | ||||
| q40 | 0.95 | ||||
| q41 | 0.98 | ||||
| q42 | 0.97 |
Discriminant validity coefficients of the research constructs
| construct | Positive emotions | Self-efficacy | Metacognition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive learning-related emotions | |||
| Self-efficacy | 0.55 | ||
| Metacognitive learning strategies | 0.65 | 0.59 |
Fig. 2SEM depicting relationships between metacognitive learning strategies, positive learning-related emotions and academic self-efficacy with academic performance. ** indicates statistically significant at p < 0. 01 level and * shows statistically significant at p < 0. 05 level. Values for each arrow indicate the standardized path coefficients
Path coefficients for hypothesis testing
| H | Path | t | Decision | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | self-efficacy→academic performance | 0.166 | 2.29 | 0.014 | Supported |
| H2 | positive emotions→academic performance | 0.256 | 4.44 | < 0.001 | Supported |
| H3 | metacognition→academic performance | 0.217 | 3.90 | < 0.001 | Supported |
| H4 | self-efficacy→positive emotions→ | 0.657 | 12.91 | < 0.001 | Supported |
| H5 | self-efficacy→metacognition | 0.400 | 11.59 | < 0.001 | Supported |
| H6 | positive emotions→metacognition | 0.293 | 6.04 | 0.001 | Supported |
| H7 | self-efficacy→metacognition→academic performance | 0.09 | 3.21 | < 0.001 | Supported |
| H8 | positive emotions→metacognition→academic performance | 0.063 | 3.62 | < 0.001 | Supported |
| H9 | self-efficacy→positive emotions→academic performance | 0.168 | 3.75 | < 0.001 | Supported |
Fig. 3Path analysis of bootstrapping shows T-test scores related to path coefficients depicted in Fig. 2. T-test scores that are higher than 1.96 are significant at 0.05 level, and T-test scores that are higher than 2.58 are significant at 0.01 level