scholarly journals Goal Setting and Self-Efficacy Among Delinquent, At-Risk and Not At-Risk Adolescents

2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 431-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemaree Carroll ◽  
Kellie Gordon ◽  
Michele Haynes ◽  
Stephen Houghton
2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemaree Carroll ◽  
John Hattie ◽  
Kevin Durkin ◽  
Stephen Houghton

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 667-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amparo Escartí ◽  
Melchor Gutiérrez ◽  
Carmina Pascual ◽  
Diana Marín

This study evaluated improvement in self-efficacy and personal and social responsibility among at-risk of dropping-out of school adolescents participating in a program in which Hellison's Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Model was applied in physical education classes during the course of an academic year. Thirty at-risk adolescents aged 13-14 years old (23 boys, 7 girls) were assigned to an intervention group (12 boys and 3 girls) or a comparison group (11 boys, 4 girls), the latter of which did not participate in the program. Quantitative results showed a significant improvement in the students' self-efficacy for enlisting social resources and in self-efficacy for self-regulated learning. Qualitative results showed an improvement in responsibility behaviors of participants in the intervention group. This suggests that the model could be effective for improving psychological and social development in at-risk adolescents, and that physical education classes may be an appropriate arena for working with these young people.


2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Rodríguez-Rodríguez ◽  
◽  
Remedios Guzmán ◽  

Introduction: The relationship that socio-familial and non-cognitive variables have on students in regards to their academic performance is a very important element for success in Secondary Education. In this study the influence of non-cognitive variables (academic self-concept, self-efficacy and perceived family affective support) and socio-familial variables (educational level and expectations of each parent) on the academic performance of secondary school students were analysed. Method: Students were grouped according to their accumulated socio-familial risk index (at-risk students, n = 305; not-at-risk students, n = 991). To measure the variables, the scales What do you think of yourself, General Self-Efficacy and Perceived Family Support were used. Socio-family variables were measured with an ad hoc questionnaire, and academic performance with the end-of-course evaluation scores. Results: The receiver operating characteristic curve showed a decrease in students’ academic performance from three or more accumulated risks. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was performed for each group. The results showed that for at-risk students, academic performance was mainly determined by two variables: academic self-concept and self-concept; in contrast to the not-at-risk students in which self-efficacy was the one that had the greatest effect on performance. In both groups, the parents’ expectations were the family variable with the highest incidence being performance, although, for the at-risk group, the effect was greater. Conclusions: The relevance of the identification of non-cognitive and socio-familial variables on the academic performance of at-risk students in regards to secondary education due to socio-familial factors is discussed.


2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Ernst ◽  
Bradley D. Bowen ◽  
Thomas O. Williams

Students identified as at-risk of non-academic continuation have a propensity toward lower academic self-efficacy than their peers (Lent, 2005). Within engineering, self-efficacy and confidence are major markers of university continuation and success (Lourens, 2014 Raelin, et al., 2014).  This study explored academic learning self-efficacy specific to first-year engineering students with at-risk indicators.  The at-risk determination was made through trajectory to matriculate, classified by cumulative grade point average of academic studies. An adapted version of the Self-efficacy for Learning (SEL) scale, modified by Klobas, Renzi and Nigrelli (2007), was administered to freshman engineering students identified at-risk and not at-risk of matriculation. Internal consistency of the SEL was analyzed and once deemed satisfactory (Cronbach alpha = .94), item-level outcome comparisons between student subgroups were made for each of the 22 instrument items.


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 575-589
Author(s):  
Ashley A. Boat ◽  
Lindsey M. Weiler ◽  
Molly Bailey ◽  
Shelley Haddock ◽  
Kimberly Henry

2000 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tania Marie Bianco ◽  
Stephen Houghton ◽  
Davina French ◽  
Miguel Fernandez

This exploratory study sought to differentiate 24 delinquent, 30 at-risk and 30 not at-risk adolescent males according to a multidimensional model of self-concept. Participants completed the Song and Hattie Test of Self-Concept (1992), which consists of seven dimensions of self-concept; namely, achievement self-concept, ability self-concept, classroom self-concept, family self-concept, peer self-concept, physical self-concept and confidence in self.Significant differences between the not at-risk, at-risk and delinquent groups were found across six of the seven dimensions of self-concept. Implications of these findings suggest an effective procedure for differentiating between not at-risk and at-risk youth within the school context, prior to involvement with the Juvenile Justice system. The implications for intervention are discussed.


2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-159
Author(s):  
Robert Weinberg ◽  
Robert Neff ◽  
Michael Garza

Since psychology professionals have a moral and ethical responsibility to evaluate the effectiveness of different products and services aimed at improving psychological/physical well-being, development, and/or performance, the purpose of the present investigation was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Winners for Life book (and accompanying Parent Instructor Guide) on improving a variety of psychological factors for at-risk adolescents. Participants were 96 pairs from the Big Brothers/Little Brothers, Big Sisters/Little Sisters program. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: Winners for Life book, Winners for Life book plus instructor guide, or control group. Each group participated in a 12-week intervention program. Results revealed that both Winners for Life book conditions resulted in greater increases in self-esteem, self-perceived goal setting ability, optimism, and hope than the control condition, with the Winners for Life book plus instructor guide condition achieving the greatest improvements.


2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise Azar ◽  
Kylie Ball ◽  
Jo Salmon ◽  
Verity Cleland

Background:A number of factors have been identified as important correlates of physical activity (PA) among young women. Young women at risk of depression have a greater likelihood of being physically inactive and it is unknown whether correlates differ for women at risk and not at risk of depression.Methods:A sample of 451 women aged 18 to 35 years self-reported leisure-time PA, enjoyment of and self-efficacy for walking and vigorous PA, barriers, social support, access to sporting/leisure facilities, and access to sporting equipment in the home. Depression risk was assessed using the General Health Questionnaire (cut point ≥5). Logistic regression analyses examined differences in PA correlates among women at risk and not at risk of depression.Results:Self-efficacy for vigorous PA was statistically different between groups in predicting odds for meeting PA recommendations but odds ratios were similar across groups. No other significant interactions between correlates and depressive symptoms were identified.Conclusions:The findings suggest few differences in the individual, social, and physical environmental correlates of PA among young women who are and are not at risk of depression. Further research is needed to confirm the existence of any PA correlates specific to this high-risk target group.


1997 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemaree Carroll ◽  
Kevin Durkin ◽  
John Hattie ◽  
Stephen Houghton

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document