Science Education International

32(4), 302-307
https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v32.i4.4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Senior High School Students’ Self-Efficacy and its Relation to

Engagement in Online Class Setting in a Private University in
the South of Metro Manila
Dionafer Bangga*
Department of Science Education, Br. Andrew Gonzalez FSC College of Education, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
This study explored the self-efficacy of senior high school Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) students (n = 134)
in an online physics class in terms of gender and its relationship to engagement. The study employed a descriptive correlation research
design. Adapted instruments namely “Sources of Self-Efficacy in Science Course – Physics” (SSSCP) and “Engagement in Physics
Scale” (EPS) were used to collect the data from the students. SSSCP was correlated with the scores of “Self-Efficacy for Academic
Milestone-Strength” scale for its validity. Reliability and validity of EPS was examined through Cronbach alpha and confirmatory factor
analysis with acceptable results. Mean and standard deviation were used to answer the research questions while independent samples
t-test, Cohen’s d, and Pearson r correlation were used to test the hypotheses. It was revealed that both male and female students have a
high level of self-efficacy in the following: overall, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and performance accomplishment with an
average level for the emotional arousal (EA). Furthermore, a significant difference across gender was found only on the EA sub-level
with a small effect size of 0.32. Moreover, positive correlation was found between overall self-efficacy and overall engagement as
well as on cognitive engagement. On the other hand, a negative correlation was revealed between overall self-efficacy and emotional
engagement. Focusing on increasing the self-efficacy of students in an online physics class should be practiced by teachers in order to
increase engagement.

KEY WORDS: engagement; gender difference; online physics class; self-efficacy

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW 2. Vicarious experience –The observer would believe that
if others can do it, he can also do it and will result to

I
n March of 2020, the World Health Organization
increased self-efficacy. Seeing others fail in a certain task
proclaimed COVID-19 as a pandemic. This led to many
will likewise decrease the self-efficacy of the observer
countries going into a lockdown which forced their
3. Verbal persuasion – influenced by verbally encouraging
education sectors to halt face-to-face classes and shift to an
online delivery of classes. Given the said mode of learning, it or discouraging a person in connection to performing a
is valuable to investigate the learning process of the students certain task
during synchronous and asynchronous classes. Studies on the 4. Emotional arousal (EA) –The more at ease an individual
learning process of the students in the said mode of learning is in doing a certain task, the more he would believe that
are scarce (Aguilera-Hermida, 2020). This study investigated he is competent in doing that task.
the self-efficacy of students in the said context across gender These sources of self-efficacy are the same whether the
and their relationship to engagement which is an intrinsic part students are in a traditional or online class setting as reported
of the learning process (Boekaerts, 2016). in the study conducted by Lin et al. (2013).
Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) is the belief of an individual It was confirmed through separate investigations done by
that they can succeed in any given situation and that effort will Britner and Pajares (2005) and Kiran and Sungur (2011) that
be exerted to achieve the desired result. It comes from both each of these sources correlated significantly particularly with
personal experience and social interactions. The following are middle school students’ self-efficacy in the science domain.
the sources of self-efficacy: This indicates that it is valid to analyze self-efficacy of
1. Performance accomplishment (PA) –Repeated success can students through its sources. Although, it was emphasized by
improve self-efficacy, whereas repeated disappointment Zimmerman (2000) and Stewart et al. (2020) that self-efficacy
can reduce it is multidimensional and should be examined on a domain

302 Science Education International ¦ Volume 32 ¦ Issue 4

 Science Education International
32(4), 302-307
https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v32.i4.4
Bangga: Self-efficacy and its relation to engagement

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) according to Schmidt et al. (2017). They also stated that
specific; meaning a gauge of science self-efficacy could be engagement just like self-efficacy is also domain-specific. With
different with physics self-efficacy. this, it should also be examined specifically in the domain of
physics to determine if it will also have the same result as the
Science self-efficacy across gender was found to not have a
science domain.
significant difference in middle school students (Britner and
Pajares, 2005; Kiran and Sungur, 2011). However, broader The ultimate goal of education is for learners to be successful
studies conducted by several researchers with university in a given learning domain which will be indicated through
students revealed a significant difference across gender when a positive learning outcome or achievement. Self-efficacy
examined in a specific domain which is physics (Whitcomb and engagement are under the learning process which affects
et al., 2019; Stewart et al., 2020). learning outcomes (Boekaerts, 2016). It was found out that
self-efficacy and engagement individually contributed to a
Bandura (1977) described self-efficacy to be related to
positive learning outcome (Lavasani et al., 2009; Ucar and
engagement. He argued that learners with high self-efficacy
have higher engagement during the learning process. This Sungur, 2017; Nese, 2019). This shows how important it is to
concept was reinforced by Ouweneel et al. (2011) and Chang investigate these aspects of learning process.
(2015) who described the correlation between self-efficacy and Taking into consideration these previous studies which were
engagement as positive. Aside from these, there were also other done in a traditional class setting, the researcher used these as
investigations that concluded the same (Guneri and Guvenc, a benchmark to develop the present study in the context of an
2013; Birgin et al., 2017; Grant, 2017; Wang et al., 2017). online class specifically in physics domain.
Research on students’ engagement has greatly increased over Statement of the Problem
the last two decades because of the fact that it was found to The objective of this study was to determine the levels of
be a factor of desired student outcome (Pavlin-Bernardić sources of self-efficacy of the students as well as its implication,
et al., 2017). Student engagement is defined by Trowler (2010) if there were significant differences in the self-efficacy of the
as being: students across gender, and if self-efficacy was significantly
Concerned with the interaction between the time, effort, and related to engagement.
other relevant resources invested by both students and their Specifically, it sought to address the question:
institutions intended to optimize the students experience and 1. What are the levels of sources of self-efficacy and what
enhance their learning outcomes and development of students does it imply?
and the performance, and reputation of the institution. (p. 2) And tested the following hypotheses in the context of
Engagement is a multidimensional construct (Trowler, 2010; general physics 1 subject:
Axelson and Flick, 2011; Reeve, 2012; Pavlin-Bernardić 1. There is no significant difference between the sources
et al., 2017). It is composed of three dimensions, namely: of self-efficacy of male and female senior high school
1. Cognitive – is how invested a student is to learning or students
seeking information, as well as storing and using it. 2. There is no significant relationship between students’
Students who are cognitively engaged will seek more self-efficacy and engagement.
than what is required and enjoys information challenge
2. Behavioral – is following behavioral norms such as but METHODS
not limited to non-disruptive behaviors during classes, The study was quantitative and employed the correlation
high task attention, and persistence design. Purposive sampling was used in determining the
3. Emotional – is the manifestation of task-related positive research participants which was the Grade12 STEM (n = 200)
emotions when engaged such as enjoyment and interest students from a private university who took online General
and negative emotions such as anxiety and anger when Physics 1 class. Out of the initial responses, the valid responses
not engaged. which contained answers for both surveys were n = 134 which
These components of engagement are said to be unique but not was comprised of 68 male and 66 female students.
purely independent from one another (Schmidt et al., 2017).
The data collection tools comprised the “Sources of
An example is a student who is behaviorally engaged (with
Self-Efficacy in Science Course-Physics” and the “Engagement
proper behavior norms) may not be emotionally or cognitively
in Physics Scale.” The “Sources of Self-Efficacy in Science
engaged. It was reported that self-efficacy is positively
Course” is a 33-item Likert-type scale instrument which was
related to cognitive, behavioral, and emotional components
developed by Fencl and Scheel (2005) to investigate the
of engagement (Linnenbrink and Pintrich, 2003; Kanaparan
sources of self-efficacy specifically in the context of Physics.
et al., 2019).
The total internal consistency reliability was established
Research in engagement specifically for the science domain through the use of Cronbach alpha which was 0.94 and for
is limited but has noted that students have low science the subscale ranging from 0.68 to 0.88. As for the validity,
engagement which tends to decline at the end of the year it was correlated with the scores on the “Self- Efficacy for

Science Education International ¦ Volume 32 ¦ Issue 4 303

 Science Education International
32(4), 302-307
https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v32.i4.4
Bangga: Self-efficacy and its relation to engagement

Academic Milestones-Strength” scale (Brown et al., 1989) Data Analysis

which was a recognized global self-efficacy scale for science Mean and standard deviation were used to describe the levels
and engineering. The instrument was altered to some degree of self-efficacy of the students while inferential statistics
so that it would suite the context of the participants. For such as independent samples t-test, Cohen’s d, and Pearson
example, the word “course” was changed to “subject,” as in r correlation were used to test for the significant difference
General Physics 1. across gender and relationship of self-efficacy and engagement.
The study adapted the “Engagement in Physics Scale” which Assumptions for using the said inferential statistics were
was constructed by Pavlin‐Bernardić et al. (2017) guided by examined before conducting the test. Test of normality and
the three-component conception of engagement (Fredricks the appropriate type of data were all met.
et al., 2004). It is an 18 – item Likert-type scale with 1 as The mean scores of the sources of self-efficacy of male
Strongly Disagree and 5 as Strongly Agree. It is divided into and female students were used to conduct an independent
three components, namely cognitive, behavioral, and emotional samples t-test. Assumptions of the t-test were checked first
engagement. Behavioral and emotional engagement on the before proceeding the computation. The normality of each
survey portray negative statements, meaning the higher the of the sources of self-efficacy and the overall were assessed
mean of any of this equate to higher disagreement of the students
through conducting histogram on IBM SPSS version 20. The
to these negative statements (five pertains to Strongly Disagree
results showed approximately normal distribution for each
and one pertains to Strongly Agree). Validity and reliability
of the variables. For the level of measurement, it obeys the
of the instrument were tested through confirmatory factor
independent categorical variable and dependent continuous
analysis and Cronbach alpha which revealed acceptable values.
variable. In this study, the results from the Likert scale were
Statement number 6 of the “Engagement in Physics Scale” was
treated as a continuous data since mean score were computed
slightly modified to fit into the context of online class. Instead
for each.
of the statement “chat with a neighboring classmate,” it was
changed to “exchange messages with classmates.” Pearson r-correlation was used to establish if there is a
Data collection comprised three stages: pre-administration of significant relationship between overall self-efficacy and
questionnaires, administration of questionnaires, and results components of engagement as well as the overall. To
collection and analysis. The researcher secured a permit from technically apply this statistical tool, normality of the variables
the principal of the senior high school department and informed should be established. Histogram results for each of the said
consent from the students. After which was the administration variables from SPSS showed that each of the variable are
of the questionnaires. When the permission was obtained, approximately normally distributed.
the researcher proceeded to orient the students about the aim
of the study and data collection. Then, two online survey FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
questionnaires namely “Sources of Self-Efficacy in Science Students’ self-efficacy during General Physics 1 online class
Course – Physics” and “Engagement in Physics Scale” were from different sources as well as the overall were compared
given to the participants through google form which included across gender as reflected in Table 1.
the consent form. This was given and collected after the end of
the subject, General Physics 1, 1st semester of the 2020-2021 Each of the means was given its verbal equivalence as presented
school year. Results collection and analysis followed after the in Table 2. Vicarious learning, verbal encouragement, PAs,
participants answered the google forms, the data were retrieved and overall self-efficacy were all described as high level of
into an excel file. Data of participants who only answered one sources of self-efficacy on both gender while the only source
survey were removed, only those who were able to respond to of self-efficacy which revealed to be average in level is the
both were used for the analysis. EA on gender as well.

Table 1: Sources of self‑efficacy across gender

Sources of self‑efficacy Gender Mean SD Level of sources of self‑efficacy gained
Emotional arousal Male 3.35 0.60 Average
Female 3.08 0.61 Average
Vicarious learning Male 3.56 0.53 High
Female 3.46 0.59 High
Verbal encouragement Male 3.78 0.51 High
Female 3.88 0.52 High
Performance accomplishments Male 3.56 0.57 High
Female 3.50 0.58 High
Overall self‑efficacy Male 3.56 0.47 High
Female 3.49 0.48 High

304 Science Education International ¦ Volume 32 ¦ Issue 4

 Science Education International
32(4), 302-307
https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v32.i4.4
Bangga: Self-efficacy and its relation to engagement

students. This shows that the students had negative and positive
Table 2: Reference table for self‑efficacy level
emotions during the conduct of online class.
interpretation
Verbal Interpretation Score interval Gender Difference in Sources of Self-Efficacy
Very low 1.00–1.79
Table 3 reveals that only the EA source of self-efficacy differs
Low 1.80–2.59 significantly for male (M = 3.35, SD = 0.60) and female
Average 2.60–3.39 (M = 3.08, SD = 0.61) participants; t (132), p = 0.01. The
High 3.40–4.19 effect size was 0.32 as calculated using Cohen’s d which is
Very high 4.20–5.00 described to be a small effect. Furthermore, vicarious learning
did not differ significantly for male (M = 3.56, SD = 0.53)
and female (M = 3.46, SD = 0.59) participants, t (132) = 2.63,
The level of the sources of self-efficacy of male and female
p = 0.33; verbal encouragement did not differ significantly for
participants was found to be equal in all the five variables,
male (M = 3.78, SD = 0.51) and female (M = 3.88, SD = 0.52)
where vicarious learning, verbal encouragement, PAs, and
participants, t (132) = −1.16, p = 0.25; PAs did not differ
overall self-efficacy had high levels while EA was a medium
significantly for male (M = 3.56, SD = 0.57) and female
level. These results imply that the students were given equal
(M = 3.50, SD = 0.58) participants, t (132) = 0.60, p = 0.55;
opportunity to acquire and develop their self-efficacy in the
and overall self-efficacy did not differ significantly between
said different sources even in an online setting which was also
males (M = 3.56, SD = 0.47) and females (M = 3.49, SD= 0.48)
in agreement with the study of Britner and Pajares (2005), and
despite gaining high level for each.
Kiran and Sungur (2011). Furthermore, according to Bandura
(1997), high level in vicarious learning means that the students The conduct of independent samples t-test presented that
view the accomplishments of their classmates as a positive vicarious learning, verbal encouragement, PAs, and overall
thing and that they could later also do which will result to self-efficacy were not significantly different across the
higher self-efficacy. This is a good thing, especially in a physics genders. However, a significant difference was found across
class which is perceived to be a difficult subject by most of the gender on the EA source of self-efficacy. The insignificant
students. Having a good source of vicarious learning aspect difference across gender on the said variables is contrary to
of self-efficacy also implies that there are students who were what most of the literature on similar studies reveal while
still able to succeed in a physics class given the challenges in the significant difference across gender on EA revealed
an online setting. On the high level of verbal encouragement, similar results (Lindstrøm and Sharma, 2006; Vashti, 2011;
this result suggests that the physics online class had a kind Espinosa et al., 2019; Nissen, 2019; Whitcomb et al., 2019;
of environment where students were given compliments and Kalender et al., 2020; Stewart et al., 2020). The significant
encouragement which made them to develop this aspect of difference between male and female students on physics
self-efficacy. For the high level of PA, it reveals a positive self-efficacy which was explained through several studies was
implication that students experience higher level of success in primarily because of stereotyping, where physics is perceived
physics class even in an online setting instead of experiencing to be a subject for male students. If the idea of stereotyping
failure. With these, it was also found out that the high level exists in a physics class environment, there would be a prior
of overall self-efficacy was developed by the students which thought on the mind of the students that they have greater or
gives a general idea that the conduct of the online physics less capability than each other. The result of this study uncovers
class fostered a good source of self-efficacy. However, it was the idea that in a physics online class setting on most of the
also noted that the medium level of EA was gained by the sources of self-efficacy the perceived idea of stereotyping

Table 3: t‑test values for sources of self‑efficacy and gender

Sources of self‑efficacy Levene’s test T test for equality of means
for equality of
variances
F Sig. t df Sig. (2‑tailed) 95% confidence
interval of the
difference
Lower Upper
Emotional arousal 1.16 0.28 2.63 132 0.01* 0.07 0.47
Vicarious learning 1.88 0.17 0.98 132 0.33 −0.10 0.59
Verbal encouragement 0.21 0.65 −1.16 132 0.25 −0.28 0.07
Performance 0.25 0.62 0.60 132 0.55 −0.14 0.26
accomplishments
Overall self‑efficacy 0.59 0.44 0.88 132 0.38 −0.09 0.23
*ρ<0.05, two‑tailed

Science Education International ¦ Volume 32 ¦ Issue 4 305

 Science Education International
32(4), 302-307
https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v32.i4.4
Bangga: Self-efficacy and its relation to engagement

which is present in a traditional physics class setting is low to the further cognitive engaged the students would be. They tend
none. The significant difference across gender on EA is similar to persist and give extra effort on learning the physics lessons.
to the result found by Kiran and Sungur (2011), although, in The negative relationship between overall self-efficacy and
their study, the female students had a higher source of EA emotional engagement denotes the other way around. Meaning
compared to male students which is opposite to the result of the higher results of emotional engagement means that they
this study. With this, it can be concluded that male students in a did not agree to have such negative emotions during online
physics online class have a stronger EA source of self-efficacy. physics class which is what the result revealed. Moreover,
Meaning that they tend to have more positive emotion as the physics online class environment can also be described to
feedback to challenges in a physics online class setting. They have a positive environment, emotion wise, since the students
also manage their negative emotions well compared to female were at ease during class, tends to enjoy it, and do not feel
students. However, this difference had a small effect size as anxious. Finally, there is no significant relationship between
presented by the result of computing Cohen’s d. the self-efficacy and behavioral engagement. This may be
attributed to the kind of learning environment that the students
Relationship of Self-efficacy and Components of had which was online, where there was less supervision and
Engagement higher risk of not listening intently during discussion.
The result of the correlation is presented in Table 4.
To describe the strength of association between self-efficacy CONCLUSION
and engagement, the guidelines as shown in Table 5 were used.
These students’ level of sources of self-efficacy in an online
The results revealed that the overall self-efficacy was positively general physics 1 class was found to be medium to high level.
related with cognitive, r = 0.53, n = 134, ρ = 0.000; and overall And a significant difference across gender was found only on
engagement, r = 0.20, ρ = 0.018 while overall self-efficacy the EA component of self-efficacy. Furthermore, it was also
was negatively related with emotional engagement, r = −0.19, revealed that overall self-efficacy is positively related to both
ρ = 0.027. However, there was no correlation found between overall engagement and cognitive engagement while a negative
self-efficacy and behavioral engagement, r = 0.04, ρ = 0.661. relationship exists with behavioral engagement.
Results showed that there was a positive correlation
between overall self-efficacy and cognitive and overall RECOMMENDATIONS
engagement, a negative correlation with emotional Based on the findings of the study, the following
engagement, and no significant relationship with behavioral recommendations were made:
engagement. These results were aligned to existing
literature on similar studies (Bandura, 1977; Linnenbrink 1. Since there is a limited number of studies on physics
and Pintrich, 2003; Ouweneel et al., 2011; Guneri and self-efficacy and engagement in an online class setting,
Guvenc, 2013; Chang, 2015; Birgin et al., 2017; Grant, 2017; it is encouraged that research on similar samples locally
Wang et al., 2017; Kanaparan et al., 2019). Specifically, the should be conducted to verify the results of the study
results suggest that the higher the self-efficacy of the students, 2. Consider the interaction of sources of self-efficacy and
components of engagement. Doing this could reveal more
interesting implications
Table 4: Correlation values of self‑efficacy and 3. The study measured only the sources of the physics self-
engagement efficacy and engagement of the students at the end of the
Description Engagement general physics 1 class. Future researchers can consider
getting these before and after the conduct of the course
Cognitive Behavioral Emotional Overall
to determine if there is a significant difference on the
Overall self‑efficacy
variables on the said periods.
Pearson correlation 0.53* 0.04 −0.19* 0.20*
Sig. (2‑tailed) 0.000 0.661 0.027 0.018
Strength of association Large None Small Small ACKNOWLEDGMENT
*ρ<0.05, two‑tailed This study was made possible because of the scholarship
grant of the Department of Science and Technology – Science
Education Institute.
Table 5: Reference table for strength of association of
self‑efficacy and engagement
Strength of association Coefficient, r
REFERENCES
Aguilera-Hermida, P.A. (2020). College students’ use and acceptance of
Positive Negative emergency online learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of
Small 0.1–0.3 −0.1–−0.3 Educational Research Open, 1, 100011.
Axelson, R., & Flick, R. (2011). Defining student engagement. Change: The
Medium 0.3–0.5 −0.3–−0.5
Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(1), 38-43.
Large 0.5–1.0 −0.5–−1.0 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral

306 Science Education International ¦ Volume 32 ¦ Issue 4

 Science Education International
32(4), 302-307
https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v32.i4.4
Bangga: Self-efficacy and its relation to engagement

change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. Lindstrøm, C., & Sharma, M. (2006). Self-efficacy of first year university
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. United physics students: Do gender and prior formal instruction in physics
States: W.H. Freeman. matter? International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics
Birgin, O., Mazman-Akar, S.G., Uzun, K., Goksu, B., Peker, E.S., & Gumus, Education, 19(2), 1-19.
B. (2017). Investigation of factors affected to Mathematics engagement Linnenbrink, E., & Pintrich, P. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in
of middle school students. International Online Journal of Educational student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing
Sciences, 9(4), 1093-1110. Quarterly, 19(2), 119-137.
Boekaerts, M. (2016). Engagement as an inherent aspect of the learning Nese, O. (2019). Relationships between self-efficacy beliefs, engagement and
process. Learning and Instruction, 43, 76-83. academic performance in math lessons. Cypriot Journal of Educational
Britner, S., & Pajares, F. (2005). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of Sciences, 14(2), 190-200.
middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), Nissen, J. (2019). Gender differences in self-efficacy states in high school
485-499. physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1), 013102.
Brown, S.D., Lent, R.W., & Larkin, K.C. (1989). Self-efficacy as a moderator Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P.M., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2011). Flourishing
of scholastic aptitude-academic performance relationships. Journal of students: A longitudinal study on positive emotions, personal resources,
Vocational Behavior, 35(1), 64-75. and study engagement. Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(2), 142-153.
Chang, D. (2015). Determining the Relationship Between Academic Self- Pavlin-Bernardić, N., Putarek, V., Rovan, D., Petričević, E., & Vlahović-
efficacy and Student Engagement by Metaanalysis. Conference Session.
Štetić, V. (2017). Students’ engagement in learning physics: A subject-
Hong Kong: 2nd International Conference on Education Reform and
Modern Management. specific approach. In: Burić, I., (Ed.), 20th Psychology Days in Zadar:
Espinosa, T., Miller, K., Araujo, I., & Eric, M. (2019). Reducing the Book of Selected Proceedings. Croatia: University of Zadar. pp. 193-203.
gender gap in students’ physics self-efficacy in a team- and project- Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student
based introductory physics class. Physical Review Physics Education engagement. In: Christenson, S.L., Reschly, A.L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.),
Research, 15(1), 010132. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Germany: Springer.
Fencl, H., & Scheel, K. (2005). Engaging students: An examination of the pp. 149-172.
effects of teaching strategies on self-efficacy and course climate in a Schmidt, J., Rosenberg, J., & Berner, P. (2017). A person-in-context approach
Nonmajors physics course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(1), to student engagement in science: Examining learning activities and
20-24. choice. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 55(1), 19-43.
Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Stewart, J., Henderson, R., Michaluk, L., Deschler, J., Fuller, E., & Rambo-
Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Hernandez, K. (2020). Using the social cognitive theory framework
Research, 74(1), 59-109. to chart gender differences in the developmental trajectory of STEM
Grant, T.G. (2017). The Roles of Motivation and Engagement in Students’ self-efficacy in science and engineering students. Journal of Science
Academic Achievement at Jamaican Schools. Sydney, Australia: Education and Technology, 29: 758-773.
Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, School of Education Faculty of Arts and Trowler, V. (2010). Student Engagement Literature Review. England:
Social Sciences, The University of New South Wales. University of Huddersfield. Available from: https://www.pure.hud.
Guneri, E., & Guvenc, H. (2013). Ilkogretim II. Kademe ogrencilerinin ac.uk/en/publications/student-engagement-literature-review
Fen ve Teknoloji dersi oz yeterlik algilari veetkin katılımlari. In: The Ucar, M., & Sungur, S. (2017). The role of perceived classroom goal
Secondary School Students’ Self-efficacy Perceptions and Engagement structures, self-efficacy, and engagement in student science achievement.
and Disaffection in Science and Technology Course. Edirne, Turkey: Research in Science and Technological Education, 35(2), 149-168.
Unpublished Master Thesis, Trakya University, Institute of Educational Vashti, S. (2011). A Gender Study Investigating Physics Self-efficacy. United
Sciences. States: FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Number 512. Available
Kalender, Y., Marshman, E., Schunn, C., Nokes-Malach, T., & Singh, C. from: https://www.digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/512
(2020). Damage caused by women’s lower self-efficacy on physics Wang, Y.L., Lin, C.Y., & Tsai, C.C. (2017). Identifying Taiwanese junior-
learning. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(1), 010118. high school students’ mathematics learning profiles and their roles
Kanaparan, G., Cullen, R., & Mason, D. (2019). Effect of self-efficacy in Mathematics learning self-efficacy and academic performance.
and emotional engagement on introductory programming students. Learning and Individual Differences, 54, 92-101.
Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 23, 1825. Whitcomb, K., Kalender, Y., Nokers-Malach, T., Schunn, C., & Singh, C.
Kiran, D., & Sungur, S. (2011). Middle school students’ science self-efficacy (2019). Inconsistent gender differences in self-efficacy and performance
and its sources: Examination of gender difference. Journal of Science for engineering majors in physics. Physics Education Research
Education and Technology, 21(5), 619-630. Conference Proceedings, 17, 639-644.
Lavasani, M., Ejei, J., & Afshari, M. (2009). The relationship between World Health Organization. (2020). WHO announces COVID-19 Outbreak A
academic self-efficacy and academic engagement with academic Pandemic. Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/
achievement. Journal of Psychology, 13(3), 289-305. health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/news/news/2020/3/who-
Lin, Y.C., Liang, J.C., Yang, C.J., & Tsai, C.C. (2013). Exploring middle- announces-covid-19-outbreak-a-pandemic
aged and older adults’ sources of Internet self-efficacy: A case study. Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn.
Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2733-2743. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.

Science Education International ¦ Volume 32 ¦ Issue 4 307