Implicit Theories of Intelligence, Academic Self-Regulation & Academic Performance of First Year College Students

Ma. Joanna Tolentino-Anonuevo

Theoretical Framework

Incremental Theory of Intelligence

(Dweck, 1999)

Social-Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation

(Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986)

In Implicit Theories of Intelligence, Dweck (1999) identified two assumptions regarding intelligence: (a) entity theory posits that intelligence is fixed though new things can be learned or knowledge may still be acquired, and (b) incremental theory considers intelligence as malleable which may be developed through ones effort (Dweck, 1986, 1999).

The two perspectives differ on how ability and effort are valued.

Entity theorists give more weight on ability while incremental theorists consider effort as more important (Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999).

Students adaptation of an entity or incremental belief about their intelligence influences the type of achievement goals they adapt and also determines utilization of adaptive or maladaptive motivational patterns (Dweck, 1986).

Entity theorists tend to be more oriented toward performance goal, characterized by high levels of competence so as to avoid others negative judgments of their abilities. They tend to engage in learning tasks that are easy to accomplish and requires little effort.

Incremental theorists endorse mastery goals to enhance and develop competence, thus prefer novel, difficult or challenging tasks (Dweck, 1999).

Related Research Articles

Ainley, M.D. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional assessment of their relationship with strategy use and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 395-405. Magno, C. (2009). Investigating the effect of school ability on self-efficacy, learning approaches, and metacognition. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18, 233-244. Kitsantas, A., Winsler, A., & Huie, F. (2008). Self-regulation and ability predictors of academic success during college: A predictive validity study. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 42-68

Research Questions
1.

Are there significant differences between students with entity & incremental theories of intelligence on their academic self-regulation, specifically:
a) b) c) d) e) f) g)

Memory strategy Goal setting Self-evaluation Seeking assistance Environmental structuring Learning responsibility Organizing

2.

Is there significant difference between students with entity & incremental theories of intelligence on their academic performance?

Hypothesis
1.

There are no significant differences between students with entity & incremental theories of intelligence on their academic self-regulation, specifically:
a) b) c) d) e) f) g)

Memory strategy Goal setting Self-evaluation Seeking assistance Environmental structuring Learning responsibility Organizing

Hypothesis
1.

There is no significant difference between students with entity & incremental theories of intelligence on their academic performance.

Methodology
Participants 82 1st year college students enrolled in LSCA for the 2nd semester 2010/11 Sampling Technique Convenience sample Statistical Analysis t-test for Independent groups

Instruments

Academic Self-Regulation Learning Scale (Magno, 2010). 55 items with 7 categories are as follows:
1. 2. 3.

4.
5. 6. 7.

Memory strategy ( 14 items ) Goal setting ( 5 items ) Self-evaluation ( 12 items ) Seeking Assistance ( 8 items ) Environmental structuring ( 5 items ) Learning responsibility ( 5 items ) Organizing (6 items )

4-point Likert scale response 4=Strongly Agree, 3=Agree, 2=Disagree & 1=Strongly Disagree

Instruments

Implicit Theories of Intelligence

(Henderson, Dweck & Chiu, 1992)

It consists of three items mewasuring intelligence as a fixed entity. 6-point Likert scale response 1= strongly agree to 6= strongly disagree The higher the score, the more one believes that intelligence is a malleable quality.

Sample Items of Academic Self-Regulation Scale (Magno, 2010)

1.

1.

1.

Memory Strategy I write information that I need to remember. Goal setting I make sure to accomplish the things I need to do each day. Self-Evaluation I evaluate my accomplishments at the end of each study session.

Sample Items of Academic Self-Regulation Scale (Magno, 2010)

1. 1.

1. 1.

Seeking Assistance I enjoy group work because of the cooperation. Environmental structuring I avoid any distractions while doing school work. Learning responsibility I recheck my homework if it is done properly before submitting. Organizing I mark important concepts and information I find in my readings.

Implicit Theories of Intelligence

(Henderson, Dweck & Chiu, 1992)
1.

2.

3.

I have certain amount of intelligence and I cant really do much to change it. My intelligence is something that I cannot change very much. I can learn new things but I cant really change my intelligence.

Variable
Memory Strategy Goal setting
Self evaluation Seeking Assistance Environmental structuring Learning Responsibility Organizing Incremental Theories of Intelligence

# of Items

Cronbachs Alpha

14 5
12 8 5 5 5 3

.78 .83
.83 .45 .74 .75 .67 .81

Results
Group 1 Incremental Theories of Intelligence Grade Memory Strategy Group 2

T value -12.9951 1.0791 3.3954 Significant Significant

2.42708 82.21875 3.13616

4.29333 80.88000 2.84143

Goal setting
Self evaluation Seeking Assistance Environmental structuring Learning Responsibility

3.20625
3.27604 3.10547 3.22500 3.15000

3.00000
3.05000 2.99250 3.15200 2.92800

1.5070
2.5452 1.4492 0.5807 1.9781 Significant

Organizing

3.27500

3.16000

1.0886

Findings

Students with entity theory of intelligence have significantly higher academic selfregulation, particularly in memory strategy, self-evaluation, and learning responsibility than those with incremental theory of intelligence. There is no significant difference between students with entity incremental theory in terms of their academic performance.

Kiosseoglou & Leondari (2006)

Implicit theories are outcome of prior school achievement and mediated by perceived competence.

Thank You