51

Self-efficacy, Study Habits and Teaching Strategies and Its Influence on

Student Science Performance: A Cross-Sectional Study

Neil Brianne T. Digal

ORCID 0000-0002-8104-2186
Xavier University - Ateneo de Cagayan University

Angelo Mark T. Walag

ORCID 0000-0001-5828-5158
University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines

Abstract

The focus of this study was to determine the influence of self-

efficacy, study habits, and teaching strategies to student performance in
Science of the junior high school students. The study utilized the descriptive
research design examining the relationship of self-efficacy, study habits,
and teaching strategies to science performance across grade levels. The
results revealed that the overall science performance of the 323 sample
respondents from Grades 7 to 10 is satisfactory. Varied teaching strategies in
teaching science were experienced about half of the lessons by the students.
There was significant differences in student’s performance in science and
teaching strategies experienced among grade levels while no significant
difference was found in the students’ study habits and self-efficacy. The
overall rating on the study habits of the students was moderately good, and
among the three variables, only self-efficacy could significantly influence
the academic performance in science of the Junior High School students.
It is recommended that an in-depth study to qualitatively determine the
relationship of variables studied in this research be done.

Keywords: Cross-sectional, science education, science performance, self-

efficacy, study habits

Introduction

Science is frequently perceived Açşli & Turgut, 2011; Chin, 2005;

to be of great importance because of Ozdem, Cavas, Cavas, Cakiroglu, &
its links to technology and industry Ertepinar, 2010). Moreover, Science is
which, from a national perspective, included as a core subject in the school
may be areas of high priority for curricula in elementary and secondary
development. The main goal of science levels because of the need to achieve a
education is to have a scientifically degree of “scientific literacy” to enable
literate community (Altun-Yalçn, students to participate effectively as
52 Asia Pacific Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences Volume 16 2019

citizens in modern societies. Scientific to be highly influential to science

literacy refers to the understanding of performance (Imam, Mastura, Jamil,
science that allows a person to actively & Ismail, 2014b). Further, in China,
participate in socio-scientific topics positive attitudes towards science study
and to make informed and sound were found to be solely influential to
decisions on these issues, as well as performance in science (Linghong,
the appreciation of processes, values, 2001). This highlights the importance
and ethics related to science (Dawson of self-beliefs, positive attitude, and
& Venville, 2009). Studies indicate, self-efficacy towards performance in
however, that many of the Filipino science (Pisa, 2012; Rosen, 2008).
learners are not attaining functional
literacy without which they find it too Meanwhile, study habits were
difficult to meet the challenges posed also noted to affect performance of
by the rapidly changing world (DepEd, students. In the study in Nigeria, study
2002). This level of scientific literacy habits’ subscales of teacher consultation
could be difficult to achieve when was the most influential while time
the performance of Filipino students allocation was the least influential
in Science is poor. In 2003 results of to students’ academic performance.
Trends in International Mathematics This is supported by the Skills-deficit
and Science Study (TIMSS), the Model where it is believed that students
Philippines ranked second and third with ineffective study habits have
from the bottom (Gonzales et al., 2004). higher levels of test anxiety and poor
This highlights the need to understand performance in test (Numan & Hasan,
the factors that affect performance in 2017). Moreover, it has been argued
science and address it. that effective study habits are highly
essential in order to avoid academic
There are several factors that have failure and ensure success in academic
been identified to account for the performance (Gettinger & Seibert,
low performance in science of the 2002). These highlights the effect
Filipino students which include the of ineffective study habits towards
lack of science culture and deficiencies academic performance of students.
regarding the school curriculum,
the teaching-learning process, In addition, teaching strategies
instructional materials and teacher employed by teachers also affect
training (Batomalaque, 2003; Japos students’ performance in science. As
& Hinay, 2010). In a different study, shown in multiple studies, teachers have
pupils’ performance in science subjects profound effect on student learning and
was found to be significantly related to performance (Nye, Konstantopoulos,
many factors and one of which is on & Hedges, 2004; Rivkin, Hanushek,
students’ self-confidence in learning & Kain, 2005). Multiple studies have
science (Alivernini, Palmerio, Vinci, also shown that the type and quality
& Di Leo, 2010). In addition, students’ of teaching strategies employed by
positive attitudes toward science study teachers have differing effects towards
and class environments were found students’ performance in science.
Self-efficacy, Study Habits and Teaching Strategies and Its Influence on Student Science Performance 53

One of these is a study which found determine the influence of self-efficacy,

significant difference on science study habits, and teaching strategies
performance between students on science performance of the public
exposed to inquiry-based learning secondary students of Lapasan National
and traditional teaching (Abdi, 2014). High School.
In addition, teaching strategies that is
responsive to the multiple intelligences Conceptual Framework
significantly affects the academic
performance of students in science (Alí Self-efficacy is defined as people’s
Abdi, Laei, & Ahmadyan, 2013). beliefs about their capabilities to
produce selected levels of performance
The recent National Achievement that exhibit influence over events that
Test of the fourth year students of affect their lives (Bandura, 1977). It is
school year 2014-2015 results show the having an intrinsic interest and having
low performance of students in Science insightful immersion in activities that
in the Division of Cagayan de Oro City signify as to how the child perceives
with a mean percentage score of (MPS) himself/herself and how he/she
41.33 along with Mathematics 41.26 far perceives something. Self-efficacy is
below the 75% mastery level. Moreover, shaped by four different factors: mastery
in the comparative results for the past experience, vicarious experience, verbal
years of the National Achievement persuasion, and emotional arousal
Tests (2012-2013, 37.50; 2013-2014, (Bandura, 1977). Mastery experiences
40.49; 2014-2015, 41.33) Science has comprise the most powerful source
been the lowest in Mean Percentage because these experiences provide
Score (MPS) among other subjects and authentic and personal evidence that
among the schools in the City, with a person can accomplish the desired
Lapasan National High School as one task. Vicarious experiences are also
of the low-performing schools in the influential because they involve the
National Achievement Test for the past individual’s observation of another
three years. Moreover, students’ science person’s performance and gaining
performance has been the focus of this confidence from that experience.
study primarily because substantial Verbal persuasion, on the other hand,
data show the low performance of is provided by other individuals, which
students in Science in the National can influence a person’s confidence
Achievement Tests in the Philippines either positively or negatively. Finally,
for the past ten years (Maligalig & emotional arousal, stress, anxiety, or
Albert, 2008). In addition, NAT has general feelings about a given task can
been used to determine performance also influence one’s belief in one’s own
of both students and schools (Belizario, effectiveness.
Totañes, de Leon, & Matias, 2014) and
compare achievement gaps of public In education, self-efficacy means
and private schools students in the that the learners will be more likely to
Philippines (Bernardo, Ganotice, & try, persevere, and be successful to a
King, 2015). Thus, this study aims to task (Cherry, 2018). However, if they
54 Asia Pacific Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences Volume 16 2019

fail, there are two possible reasons- indicates that learning is the result of
this may either be they lack the skills associations forming between stimuli
to succeed or because they have the and responses that can be strengthened
skills but lack the sense of efficacy or weakened by the nature and
to use these skills. These beliefs on frequency of the stimulus-response
their capabilities are determinants pairings which further supports
of how people think, behave, and the premise that study habits affect
feel (Bandura, 1977). Moreover, self- student performance (Donahoe, 1999;
efficacy takes a facilitator role in the Plunkett & Sinha, 1992; Thorndike,
process of cognitive engagement. By 1920). Furthermore, connections
increasing the academic self-efficacy become strengthened with practice
beliefs, the use of cognitive process and and weakened when the practice is
strategies also increase (Dunn, 2005). discontinued (Thorndike, 1927). Thus,
Several researches also indicated that a student who has regular and frequent
science self-efficacy has a positive study periods and follows certain
correlation to academic performance patterns and methods prove to have
(Liu, Cho, & Schallert, 2006; Pisa, 2012; a better performance as it is repeated
Rosen, 2008; Shen & Tam, 2008; Wang, forming “habits.” This idea is supported
Wu, & Huang, 2007). In other words, by a recent study that revealed a high
students will learn better if they believe correlation between study habits and
that they are good at it in a productive students’ academic performance by
way. examining the usefulness of imbibing
study habit to students as a means of
Another variable considered to enhancing their academic performance
affect academic performance in this suggesting that their academic
study is study habit. Study habit is the performance can only be improved
pattern of behavior taken by students upon when students take in or cultivate
for their study which serves as the proper study habits (Osa-Edoh &
vehicle for learning (Crede & Kuncel, Alutu, 2012).
2008). Study habit is also characterized
by appropriate studying routines such as The last factor considered in
frequency of studying sessions, review this study is the teaching strategies
of lessons and many others occurring employed by faculty members. There
in an environment that is conducive to are two theories (constructivism
learning depending on the degree to and behaviorism) that have a large
which the student engages in a regular influence to the development and
basis of studying (Mendezabal, 2013). creation of teaching strategies used
Moreover, a prescribed pattern of widely in education today. A teaching
steady behavior can result into learning strategy is one of the important
that then leads to the achievement of mechanisms that contribute to better
a learner’s goal (Owusu-Acheaw & academic performance of the students.
Larson, 2014). Thus, teachers need to develop a
repertoire of teaching strategies based
The theory on connectionism on the differences in students’ needs
Self-efficacy, Study Habits and Teaching Strategies and Its Influence on Student Science Performance 55

and learning styles (Grant, 2008; Gray, workshops in which they would
2009). demonstrate their knowledge
through creativity and collaboration
The behaviorist learning theory (Dewey, 1938). Furthermore, most
asserts that all students can learn the constructivist theorists agree on two
same information if provided with an main principles: learners take an active
appropriate environment. This places role in the construction of their own
emphasis on the effects of external knowledge; and social interactions are
environment such as rewards and a significant part in the construction of
punishments in determining future knowledge (Woolfolk, 2016). Students
behavior of students (Morrison, Ross, are provided with opportunities to
& Kemp, 2004). In addition, the theory think for themselves and articulate
gives attention on objectively observing their thoughts thus education becomes
behaviors which would consequently grounded in real experience. Moreover,
discount mental activities. As stipulated learning must be a process of discovery
in the operant conditioning, behavior where learners build their knowledge
of students is a result of the students’ with the active dialogue between
response to external stimuli. In school them and their teachers building
setting, teachers use varied forms of on the former’s existing knowledge
positive and negative reinforcements (Bruner, 1961; Weibell, 2014). Using
embedded in their teaching strategy the constructivism theory, the teacher’s
to improve interaction and learning role as a transmitter of knowledge
(Weegar & Pacis, 2012). Teachers who shifts to a facilitator, and there is an
practice this theory present their lesson open-ended evaluation of learning
objectives in a linear manner. This outcomes (Bransford, 2003; Bransford
presentation provides hints or cues to et al., 2005). Moreover, constructivist
guide students to a desired behavior, learning theorists use problem-solving
and then uses consequences to and hands-on activities that require
reinforce desired behavior. In addition, active participation that yields positive
the linear way of presentation of lesson results for teachers and students (Rolle,
begins with lower-level cognitive 2012). Teachers who use constructivist
skills then building up to higher- theory concentrate on showing
levels of cognitive skills. In terms of its students relevance and meaningfulness
impact on curriculum development, in what they are learning.
behaviorists view learning as a process
that results from the connections made The work on the social context of
from stimuli-response relationship, learning also supports the philosophy
and the desire to learn is assumed to of constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978).
be enforced by these relationships Learning happens through social
(Brandon & All, 2010). interaction since knowledge is
socially embedded. In the meantime,
In the constructivist learning every function in the child’s cultural
theory, the teacher would engage development appears twice: first,
the students in real-world, practical on the social level; and later, on the
56 Asia Pacific Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences Volume 16 2019

individual level; between people (inter- Academic performance in science

psychological) and then inside the was used in this present study to refer
child (intra-psychological) (Vygotsky, to the average grade of students in the
1962). The socio-cultural theory states two grading quarters (first and second
that adults and peers as well as cultural quarters). This practice of using average
beliefs and attitude influence or have grades to report academic performance
an impact on how learning takes place has been used in several literature
in a child (Cherry, 2018). Therefore, reviewed. In a study on Australian
teachers have a great role as to how students, self-efficacy was found to be
learning takes place and the “culture” correlated to the Grade Point Average
they create through the teaching (GPA) (McKenzie & Schweitzer,
strategies used. 2001) that supports the use of average
grades to correlational studies on self-
Piaget (1955) also supported the efficacy. In addition, GPA was also
philosophy of constructivism through used as part of measure of academic
his in-depth work on the concept of performance in a study on academic
discovery driven from his views on the stress and academic performance
psychological development of children. (Akgun & Ciarrochi, 2003). Moreover,
The developmental theories developed term grades were also used to represent
by Piaget gives another viewpoint of academic performance in the study
the goal of constructivist theory, and of self-efficacy and self-concept as
that is to provide an ideal learning predictors of academic performance
environment in which learners are (Choi, 2005).
given an opportunity to construct
knowledge that is meaningful for Given the conceptions of different
them. Therefore, Piaget believed scholars, experts and practitioners in
that to understand is to discover, or the field of education regarding the
reconstruct by rediscovery, and such various factors (student’s self-efficacy
conditions must be encouraged in the in science, study habits, and teacher’s
future if individuals who are capable teaching strategies), this study assumed
of production and creativity and not that these factors influence student
simply repetition, are to be formed. science performance in Lapasan
National High School.

Student’s Self-Efficacy

Teacher’s Teaching Strategy Student’s Science Performance

Student’s Study Habits

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the variables considered in the study.

Self-efficacy, Study Habits and Teaching Strategies and Its Influence on Student Science Performance 57

Research Objectives conditions, practices beliefs, processes,

relationships, or trends (Best & Kahn,
This study aimed to determine the 2016). Descriptive design provides
influence of various factors on student’s information useful to the solutions
science performance in Lapasan of local issues (problems), and the
National High School. Specifically, this survey research employs applications
study sought to: of the scientific method by critically
analyzing and examining the source
1. determine the students’ materials, analyzing and interpreting
performance in their science class data, and arriving at generalization and
during the first and second quarter prediction (Salaria, 2012). In addition,
of the current school year; a cross sectional research design was
also utilized with the aim to describe
2. determine how students assess the the study population with respect to an
strategies used by the teachers in outcome of interest. Furthermore, this
teaching science; method was also utilized to investigate
3. determine the study habits of associations between variables and the
students in science; outcome of interest with a limitation
that the study is carried out at one
4. assess students’ self-efficacy in time point (Levin, 2006). Conventional
science; questionnaire-based surveys were used
to gather quantitative data as well as the
5. determine whether there is application of statistical techniques of
difference in science performance, data analysis. In this study, factors such
teaching strategies, self-efficacy, as students’ self-efficacy, study habits,
and study habits of students when and teachers’ teaching strategies were
grouped by grade level; and determined.
6. determine whether there is
a relationship between the Respondents and Sampling Procedure
independent variables and science
performance. The target sample size was 323
junior high school students of Lapasan
Research Methodology National High School, Division of
Cagayan de Oro City for S.Y. 2016-
The study utilized the descriptive 2017 which has 1,460 total population.
survey design in determining the The sample size in each grade level
answers to the research problem. It was computed using Slovin’s formula
is considered the most appropriate and was represented using stratified
research design considering that the random sampling as shown in Table 1.
purpose is to establish the situation
of the research setting regarding
58 Asia Pacific Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences Volume 16 2019

Table 1 to frame statements depicting good

Sample Size Computation and as well as bad study habits. There was
Representation no time limit for giving answers. The
Grade Popula- Sample Number Sample reliability of the questionnaire was 0.72
Level tion Size Size of Sec- size per
tions section signified to be an acceptable reliability
7 396 88 7 13 coefficient which was tested using
8 363 80 7 12 Cronbach Alpha Reliability formula.
9 361 80 7 12
Questionnaire for Teaching Strategies
was adapted from Martins, Vieira,
10 340 75 6 13
Gaspar, and Santos (2014).
Total 1460 323 27

Scoring Guidelines
Research Instrument
Scoring guideline for the student’s
The questionnaire was divided science performance is shown below
into four parts: the brief profile of the (average grade in Science first and
students which includes gender, grade second quarter).
level and the average grade in Science
in three quarters/grading period (1st Table 2
grading—3rd grading); questionnaire Grade Range and Descriptive Rating
for self-efficacy; questionnaire for study Grade Range Descriptive Rating
habits; and questionnaire for teaching 96-100 Excellent
strategies as perceived by the students 91-95 Outstanding
of their teachers. 86-90 Very Satisfactory
81-85 Satisfactory
Questionnaire for self-efficacy for
76-80 Fair
the students’ view regarding science
71-75 Poor
was adapted from the science Attitude
Scale (Fennema & Sherman, 1976)
Table 3
where only the personal confidence
Self-efficacy Scoring Guideline
keys were used. The questionnaire was
Self-Efficacy Scale Code
adapted and modified from Demata Highly Positive 4.51-5.00 5
(1999) and Banuag et al. (2011), while Positive 3.51-4.50 4
the Study Skills Questionnaire was Fairly Positive 2.51-3.50 3
adapted from Didarloo and Khalkhali Negative 1.51-2.50 2
(2014) in addition to educational Highly Negative 1.00-1.50 1
quality, student’ intelligence, and
their affective characteristics. There Table 4
are 28 statements in this inventory Study Habits Scoring Guideline
and four alternatives, always, usually, Response Code Scale Description
sometimes, and never in which the Always 4 3.51-4.00 Excellent
students choose and put a check mark Usually 3 2.51-3.50
Moderately
on only one that best describes them Good

and how they study. All these are used

Self-efficacy, Study Habits and Teaching Strategies and Its Influence on Student Science Performance 59

Sometimes 2 1.51-2.50 Fair second quarter grades for the S.Y. 2016-
Never 1 1.00-1.50 Very Poor 2017. Overall, the students performed
“satisfactory” in Science with a mean of
Table 5 82.95 in their first quarter and second
Teaching Strategies in Science Scoring quarter grade average. This result is
Guideline contrary to the results in a recent study
conducted among high school students
Descriptive
Responses Code Scale
Rating in the Philippines where the majority
Every or most Very Satis- of the students recorded low mastery
4 3.51-4.00
every lesson factory (49% and below) (Imam, Mastura,
About half of the
lessons
3 2.51-3.50 Satisfactory Jamil, & Ismail, 2014a). Although the
Some lessons 2 1.51-2.50 Fair
two ratings may be far from each other,
Never 1 1.00-1.50 Poor the grading system utilized in this
study was transmuted, which might
Data Gathering Procedure and explain the extreme range. Moreover,
Statistical Analysis low performance in science was also
noted in a study conducted in different
Permission and informed consent provinces in the Philippines that might
were secured from concerned be due to different teacher’s pedagogies
authorities before the study was (Bernardo, Limjap, Prudente, & Roleda,
conducted. Random students from 2008). Furthermore, the performance
Grade 7 to Grade 10 were taken as of Filipino students in science is also
respondents from their respective class reflective of the results in various
sections. Descriptive statistical tools international competitions (Carido &
were used such as the mean and the Bautista, 2000).
frequency distribution of the original
data to describe the students’ science Table 6
performance, the response of the Frequency and Percentage Distribution
students regarding their study habits, of Students’ Science Performance for 1st
self-efficacy, and teacher’s teaching and 2nd Quarter (Average Grade) of
strategies. Statistical measure using the S.Y. 2016-2017
multiple linear regressions was used Range Frequen- Percentage
to quantify the strength as well as the (%)
Description
cy (%)

relationship between variables. 96-100 Excellent 1 0.3

91-95 Outstanding 21 6.5
Results and Discussion Very Satisfac-
86-90 83 25.7
tory
81-85 Satisfactory 116 35.9
Student Performance
76-80 Fair 84 26.0
71-75 Poor 18 5.6
The frequency and percentage
Total 323 100.0
distribution of performances in science
Mean Score 82.95%
of the selected students are summarized
in Table 6 as the average of first and
60 Asia Pacific Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences Volume 16 2019

Teaching Strategies Used by Science Table 7

Teachers Students’ Assessment in the Strategies
Used by Their Teachers in Teaching
The most effective teaching strategy Science
is the combination of strategies
Responses Range Frequency Percent
anchored on both behaviorism and
constructivism. Moreover, effective Every or almost 3.51-4.00 56 17.3
every lesson
teachers select varied instructional About half of the 2.51-3.50 231 71.5
strategies that accomplish different lesson
learner outcomes both behavioral Some lessons 1.51-2.50 36 11.1

and cognitive. Particular strategies Never 1.00-1.50 0 0

have been designed to achieve
Total 323 100
specific learning outcomes, but no
single strategy can address them all
(Japos & Hinay, 2010). Majority of Further data as shown in Table 8
the respondents claimed that they summarize the responses for teaching
had experienced varied teaching strategies used by their science
strategies used by their teachers in teachers. The statement “We watch the
teaching science about half of the teacher demonstrate an experiment or
lessons (71.5%), which is a satisfactory investigation,” which is a constructivist
indicator while 11.1% or 36 respondents approach gets the highest mean of
claimed that they experienced varied 3.49 and with only a 0.04 difference.
teaching strategies on some lessons Close to it is “We listen to the teacher
only as shown in Table 7. Similar and giving a lecture-style of presentation”
consistent results were also found receiving a 3.45, an indication of
in the study Hurlburt, Kroeker, and a behaviorist teaching approach.
Gade (1991) where students were While the questionnaire item “We
found to have less positive opinions begin our homework in class” gets the
regarding their teachers’ classroom lowest mean of 2.63. This belongs to
behavior. The overall mean of 3.09 a constructivist approach. The overall
implies that teachers satisfactorily used mean of the strategies used by teachers
varied teaching strategies in teaching in teaching science is 3.09, which is a
science. This is a good practice in satisfactory rating, meaning that the
teaching science since varied teaching teachers used both constructivist and
strategies can promote better learning behaviorist approaches and strategies
(Sulaiman, Abdurahman, & Rahim, in teaching science about half of
2010). Moreover, the teaching of their lessons. The implementation of
science is considered to be not easy inquiry-based lessons is influenced
(Guzey, Roehrig, Guzey, & Roehrig, by many factors (Roehrig & Luft,
2009). Teachers experience various 2004). Several researchers suggested
limitations stemming from lack of that the implementation of inquiry-
time, equipment, and pedagogical based learning by science teachers is
content knowledge, and pedagogical dependent on their understanding
skills (Roehrig & Luft, 2004). of science concepts (Carlsen, 1993;
Self-efficacy, Study Habits and Teaching Strategies and Its Influence on Student Science Performance 61

Hashweh, 1996). Teachers use a variety 12. We listen to the 3.45 ±0.78 About half of the
teacher giving a lessons
of discourse strategies to constrain lecture-style of
student talk to a narrowly circumscribed presentation.

topic domain. Beginning teachers are 13. We work

problems on our
2.83 ±0.88 About half of the
lessons
more found to possess limited practical own.

knowledge of classrooms and students 14. We begin our

homework in
2.63 ±0.99 About half of the
lessons
thus are also limited with the teaching class.
pedagogies they employ (Grimmett & Overall Mean
3.09 ±0.84 About half of the
lessons
Mackinnon, 1992).
Study Habits of Students in Science
Table 8
Students’ General Perception on the
Study habit is the pattern of
Teaching Strategies Used by Their
behavior taken by students that serves
Teachers
as the vehicle for learning (Crede &
Questionnaire Items Mean Description Kuncel, 2008). As shown in Table 9, the
1. We make ob- 3.26 ±0.79 About half of the overall mean is 2.67, an indication of a
servations and lessons
describe what we moderately good rating and the overall
see. standard deviation is 0.86 indicating
2. We watch
the teacher
3.49 ±0.70 About half of the
lessons
that the data do not differ much from
demonstrate an each other. The students’ study habits
experiment or
investigation. is a great factor in attaining excellent
3. We design 3.14 ±0.80 About half of the academic performance; however,
or plan an lessons
experiment or an teachers perceive students nowadays
investigation.
to have poor study habits (Descargar
4. We conduct
experiment or
3.04 ±0.83 About half of the
lessons
& Cardona, 2016). Similar results were
investigation. also found in the study of Mendezabal
5. We work in small
groups on an
3.26 ±0.83 About half of the
lessons
(2013) where students were not found
experiment or to have favorable study habits.
investigation.
6. We read 3.13 ±0.86 About half of the The highest mean among the items
our science lessons
textbooks and in the questionnaire is item 24 “I focus
other resource
materials. on the major points while reading” with
7. We memorize 2.66 ±0.87 About half of the 2.91 and a qualitative description of
science facts and
principles.
lessons
usually and a moderately good rating
8. We use scientific 3.08 ±0.85 About half of the as shown in Table 9. It is followed by
formulas and
laws to solve
lessons item “I try to imagine possible test
problems. questions during my preparation for an
9. We give explana- 3.15 ±0.84 About half of the exam” with a mean of 2.86. Similarly
tions about we lessons
are studying. with item “I organize my notes on my
10. We relate what 3.13 ±0.81 About half of the lessons”; next is item “I am comfortable
we are learning lessons
in science to our with my reading rate” with a mean of
daily lives. 2.85. Last is the item “I devote sufficient
11. We review our
homework.
2.95 ±0.91 About half of the
lessons
time to each of my subjects” with a
62 Asia Pacific Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences Volume 16 2019

mean of 2.84. These statements receive because study time is often associated
the top five highest means while items with better performance (Nonis &
3, 10, 11, 26 and 27 have a qualitative Hudson, 2010). Moreover, the result
description of sometimes with a mean in the scheduling of students’ planned
of 2.33, 2.45, 2.42, 2.41 and 2.42, activities is consistent with the results
respectively. These results are in of Nonis and Hudson (2010) where
congruence with the results of Aquino some students were noted to have a
(2011) and Hassanbeigi et al. (2011) poor job scheduling their activities
where high achievers were found to but performed well in the short term.
have better study habits compared to Students were also noted to have poor
low achieving students. Furthermore, (sometimes) study habits in terms of
students who possessed better study organizing their notes as shown in
habits and skills score better in their Table 10 (items 26 and 27). Although
academic achievement compared notes seemed to be a very important
to students with lower academic tool for students, it was found out that
achievement (Fazal, Hussain, Majoka, it influenced academic performance.
& Masood, 2012; Mendezabal, 2013). Effective note taking is dependent on
Moreover, effective studying among how the study time is efficiently utilized
students is not only dependent on their (Nonis & Hudson, 2010).
knowledge of studying techniques but
also in terms of their sustained and Table 9
deliberate effort, ability to concentrate, Study Habits in Science
and sense of responsibility and valuing Respons- Range Frequen- Percent Rating
of their own learning (Hurlburt et es cy

al., 1991). Furthermore, learning Always 3.51-4.00 9 2.8 Excel-

lent
institutions may consider exerting Usually 2.51-3.50 198 61.3 Mod-
tremendous effort and strategies that erately
Good
will help develop good study habits and
Some- 1.51-2.50 116 35.9 Fair
a generally positive attitude towards times
learning in students (Aquino, 2011). Never 1.00-1.50 0 0 Very
Poor

In terms of availability of time, Total 323 100.0

students rated usually for items 1 and Mean 2.67

±0.86
2. This result is similar to the study of
Mendezabal (2013) which revealed that
students did not have efficient time Table 10
management skill and lack planning Students’ General Perception on Their
and concentration in their studies. Study Habits in Science
Reading ability (8, 12, 17, 22, 23, and Questionnaire Items Mean Description
24) were also rated usually similar to
1. I devote sufficient time to
the findings of the previous author each of my subjects.
2.84 ±0.85 Usually

mentioned where students were noted 2. I schedule definite times

and outline specific Usually
to have poor reading skills. Having goals for my study time.
2.61 ±0.81

enough time to study is very important

Self-efficacy, Study Habits and Teaching Strategies and Its Influence on Student Science Performance 63

3. I avoid activities which 23. I am satisfied with my

2.79 ±0.86 Usually
tend to interfere with my 2.33 ±0.85 Sometimes reading ability.
planned activity.
24. I focus on the main
2.91 ±0.86 Usually
4. I begin major subjects’ points while reading.
assignments well in 2.58 ±0.86 Usually
advance. 25. I find that I am able to
express my thoughts 2.73 ±0.82 Usually
5. I have an accurate well in writing.
understanding of the
2.76 ±0.80 Usually 26. I write rough drafts
material I wish to
remember. quickly and sponta- 2.41 ±0.79 Sometimes
neously from notes
6. I study in a place free
from noise and distrac- 2.61 ±1.05 Usually 27. I am comfortable
tions. using library sources for 2.42 ±0.93 Sometimes
research.
7. I learn with the intention
2.74 ±0.82 Usually 28. I allow sufficient time
of remembering.
to collect information,
2.81 ±0.88 Usually
8. I recall readily those organize material and
things which I have 2.66 ±0.80 Usually write the assignment.
studied.
Overall Mean 2.67 ±0.86 Usually
9. I organize my notes on
2.86 ±0.86 Usually
my lessons.
10. I have a system in
marking my textbooks 2.45 ±0.91 Sometimes Self-efficacy in Science
as I read them.
11. I organize my notes Self-efficacy is defined as people’s
in some meaningful
2.42 ±0.86 Sometimes
manner (such as outline beliefs about their capabilities to
format).
produce selected levels of performance
12. When reading, I mark
or underline parts I think 2.82 ±1.00 Usually that exhibit influence over events
are important.
that affect their lives (Bandura, 1977,
13. I try to find out what
the exam will cover and 1986). It refers to how positively or
2.73 ±0.85 Usually
how the exam is to be
graded.
negatively confident the students
14. I try to imagine possible
are in the subject matter. According
test questions during my 2.86 ±0.88 Usually to Alfassi (2003), self-efficacy is
preparation for an exam.
15. I usually get a good
students’ belief in their capabilities to
night’s rest prior to a 2.65 ±0.89 Usually master academic activities and how
scheduled exam.
it affects their aspirations, level of
16. I am calmly able to re-
call what I know during 2.65 ±0.83 Usually interest in intellectual pursuits, and
the exam.
their academic performance. The self-
17. When reading, I can
distinguish readily efficacy of students has emerged to be a
2.57 ±0.84 Usually
between important and
unimportant points.
crucial construct in various educational
18. I maintain a critical
researches over several decades (Van
attitude during my
2.59 ±0.85 Usually Dinther, Dochy, & Segers, 2011).
study-thinking before
accepting or rejecting.
19. I try to organize facts in
As shown in Table 11, the overall
2.59 ±0.80 Usually
a systematic way. mean is 3.43 which is interpreted
20. I use questions to as fairly positive. It shows that most
better organize and
2.70 ±0.87 Usually of the students had a fairly positive
understand the material
I am studying.
confidence in themselves in learning
21. I survey each chapter
before I begin reading.
2.70 ±0.90 Usually science. Table 12 presents data on
22. I am comfortable with students’ general perception per item
2.85 ±0.84 Usually
my reading rate.
in the questionnaire. “I am sure that
64 Asia Pacific Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences Volume 16 2019

I can learn science” has the highest Table 12

mean of 4.09 which is rated as positive, Student’s General Perception on Their
which means students had confidence Self-efficacy in Science
in learning science by themselves.
The second is the item “I know I can Questionnaire Items Mean Description

do well in science” with 3.72 with a 1. I am sure that I

can learn science.
4.09 ±0.70 Positive
qualitative rating of fairly positive. The 2. I don’t think I could
2.97 ±0.97 Fairly Positive
lowest mean, 2.97 with a qualitative excel in science

rating of fairly positive, is in item “I 3. Science is hard

for me
3.14 ±0.99 Fairly Positive
don’t think I could excel in science.” 4. I am sure of myself
3.70 ±0.89 Positive
The overall rating of fairly positive on when I do science

positive self-efficacy is good because 5. I am not the type

to do well in 3.32 ±0.94 Fairly Positive
this can be translated into academic science
achievement. This follows the social- 6. Science has been my worst
subject Positive
cognitive framework where stronger 3.62 ±1.02
academic self-efficacy implies better 7. I think I could han-
dle more difficult Fairly Positive
cognitive and metacognitive strategies science
3.24 ±0.92

of students (Komarraju & Nadler, 8. Most of the sub-

2013). Moreover, students with strong jects I can handle
OK, but I just can’t 3.06 ±1.09 Fairly Positive
academic self-efficacy are expected to do a good job in
Science
be able to successfully manage their
9. I know I can do
time and resources, pursue mastery well in science
3.72 ±0.92 Positive

goals, and believe on the malleability 10. I am sure I could

do advance do
of intelligence. Although the rating in advanced work in
3.39 ±0.88 Fairly Positive

the perceived self-efficacy was positive, science

11. I’m no good in
this could be expected to fluctuate all science
3.50 ±0.96 Fairly Positive
throughout the school year as reported Overall Mean 3.34 ±0.93 Fairly Positive
by Zusho, Pintrich, and Coppola
(2003). This complexity of the construct
Performance in Science, Teaching
of self-efficacy makes it more a strong
Strategies, Self-efficacy, and Study
predictor of academic achievement
Habits among Different Grade Levels
(Komarraju & Nadler, 2013).
Table 11 The performance in science, the
Student’s Self-efficacy in Science different teaching strategies employed
by teachers, and self-efficacy levels of
Responses Range Frequency Percent students were also compared according
Highly Positive 4.51-5.00 3 0.9
to different grade levels. Across the
Positive 3.51-4.50 141 43.7
four grade levels covered in this study,
Fairly Positive 2.51-3.50 170 52.6
only Grade 8 level has a fair description
Negative 1.51-2.50 9 2.8
regarding science performance which
Highly Negative 1.00-1.50 0 0
has a mean of 79.35, while other
Total 323 100.0
grade levels have a satisfactory rating
thus showing a significant difference
Self-efficacy, Study Habits and Teaching Strategies and Its Influence on Student Science Performance 65

in their mean performance as shown Effective teaching is considered

in Table 13. Although students in to be a complex activity that requires
Grades 7, 9, and 10 scored satisfactory various forms of knowledge including
in their performance, much attention pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
might be given to Grade 8 students. and curricular knowledge (Schroeder,
Interpretation of their performance in Scott, Toison, Huang, & Lee, 2007).
science class is more important than Moreover, the knowledge of teachers
actual acquisition of skills especially of their profession can be divided into
on the perceived failure (Pajares, 2006). three ways, knowledge in context,
This highlights the importance that knowledge in content, and knowledge
students must understand why their in person (Kagan, 1992). These three
grades are like that so that they can situations of knowledge grow richer
develop the necessary confidence to and more coherent and become a
attain mastery. Moreover, differences personalized pedagogy or belief system
in academic achievement and which actually, in one way or another,
performance can be attributed to controls the perception, judgment, and
age, ethnicity, gender, geographical behavior of teachers.
belongingness, and socioeconomic
status; thus differences in academic Table 14
performance in different grade levels Test for Difference in Teaching
can be expected (Farooq et al., 2011). Strategies across Grade Levels
Teaching
Table 13 Grade
level
Strategies Description
F-
value
Signifi-
cance
Mean
Test for Difference in Science
About half of the
Performance across Grade Levels Grade 7 3.22
lessons

About half of the

Grade 8 2.95
Science lessons
5.524 0.001
Grade Perfor- Signifi- About half of the
Description F-value Grade 9 3.03
level mance cance lessons
Mean
Grade About half of the
Grade 7 83.20 Satisfactory 10
3.13
lessons
Grade 8 79.35 Fair
26.188 0.000
Grade 9 84.99 Satisfactory
Study habits or strategies students
Grade 10 84.33 Satisfactory
utilize to learn include coming to class
on time, and paying attention, taking
In terms of teaching strategies
good notes, completing homework on
used by science teachers, a significant
time, and reading the study material in
difference was found across the grade
advance. These strategies are known
levels as shown in Table 14. All grade
to improve student’s performance in
levels from Grade 7 to Grade 10 have
class (Nonis & Hudson, 2010). Across
about half of the lessons description, and
grade levels, there is no significant
only Grade 8 level has the lowest mean
difference regarding study habits
of 2.95. The utilization of different
with a description of usually (Table
teaching strategies is also related to
15). Students need to develop strong
the intention of teachers (Trigwell &
study habits as suggested by Nonis
Prosser, 1996).
and Hudson (2010). The quantity of
66 Asia Pacific Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences Volume 16 2019

time spent studying has an effect on Table 16

the performance but this influence is Test for Difference in Self-efficacy across
moderated by the study habits students Grade Levels
use.
Grade Self-Efficacy Descrip- F-value Signifi-
level Mean tion cance

Table 15 Grade 7 3.47 Fairly

Positive
Test for Difference in Study Habits Grade 8 3.31 Fairly
across Grade Levels Positive
2.542 0.056
Grade 9 3.48 Fairly
Positive
Grade Study Habits Descrip- F-value Signifi-
level Mean tion cance Grade 10 3.47 Fairly
Positive
Grade 7 2.75 Usually

Grade 8 2.59 Usually

2.392 0.069
Grade 9 2.65 Usually Science Performance and Its Relationship
Grade 10 2.68 Usually to Self-efficacy, Study Habits, and
Teaching Strategies
On self-efficacy, that there is no
significant difference across grade The correlation between
levels as shown in Table 16. All have science performance and the rest
a fairly positive description and the of the independent variables were
self-efficacy mean in each grade level determined using Pearson correlation
does not differ much from each other. as summarized in Table 17. From the
Several researchers suggested that the three variables only self-efficacy is
learning environment has meaningful found to be statistically significant
and detectable effects towards self- on three grade levels (Grade 7, 9, 10)
efficacy (Schunk & Hanson, 1985). while the rest are not significantly
This suggests that the changes in correlated. The positive correlation
the environment of learners affect between self-efficacy is consistent with
their self-efficacy and that learners literature (Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990;
are expected to have similar levels Komarraju & Nadler, 2013; Pajares,
of self-efficacy as a result of constant 2006; Pajares & Graham, 1999).
environment. Although the results Moreover, Zimmerman, Bandura,
showed similar levels of self-efficacy, and Martinez-Pons (1992) suggested
a learning environment is believed that high performing students have
not to give a common experience for better self-efficacy and are more
all learners, and that this experience accurately calibrated. Although a
is subject to the relative interpretation not significant correlation is found
and their response towards it as argued between self-efficacy and science
by Ames (1992). Moreover, the levels of performance among Grade 8 students
self-efficacy is also dependent on how as further shown in the table, Collins
students perceive relevant information (1984) suggested that underachieving
thus a student might perceive a students cannot be expected to possess
discouraging teacher as an indication requisite skills when utilizing perceived
that the they lack ability (Fast et al., self-efficacy to explain poor academic
2010). performance. This goes to show that it
Self-efficacy, Study Habits and Teaching Strategies and Its Influence on Student Science Performance 67

Table 17
Relationship Between Science Performance and other Variables across Grade Levels
Science Self-efficacy Study Habits Teaching Strategies
Performance Pearson r p-values Mean Pearson r p-values Mean Pearson r p-values Mean
Grade 7 Level
0.340 .001* 3.47 0.103 0.340N 2.75 -0.011 0.917N 3.22
Mean= 83.20
Grade 8 Level
0.150 0.184N 3.31 0.209 0.062N 2.59 0.106 0.347N 2.95
Mean= 79.35
Grade 9 Level
0.476 0.000* 3.48 0.183 0.104N 2.65 0.202 0.072N 3.03
Mean= 84.99
Grade 10
Level
0.498 0.000* 3.47 0.248 0.032N 2.68 -0.021 0.857N 3.13
Mean= 84.33

*correlation is significant at α = 0.01, Ncorrelation not significant at α = 0.01

is expected that students’ self-efficacy habits, and self-efficacy all showed

cannot be correlated with their low association in one way or the other
performance. Moreover, students to student science performance. This
with high self-efficacy are more task- indicates that these variables should be
oriented thus will be expected to taken into consideration when deciding
perform more (Bouffard-Bouchard, changes and modifications of the
1990). Further, Bouffard-Bouchard existing curriculum to address science
also pointed out that the perceived performance. However, only self-
self-efficacy is correlated with both efficacy showed significant influence
task persistence and the ability to to science performance. Thus, the
determine and evaluate the correctness influence of the teacher in motivating
of responses which may explain why the students to do more on science and
better performance can be expected to encourage and inspire them to be
from students with high self-efficacy. confident in learning science is vital
and crucial as well as reinforcing the
Conclusion other variables. Self-efficacy is the key
basis for motivation, well-being, and
The student science performance personal accomplishments. Motivation
of the junior high school of Lapasan is influenced by self-efficacy when
National High School is satisfactory students with high self-efficacy persist
which may imply that the science longer than those with low self-efficacy.
teaching-learning process in the school It was also highlighted that due to the
is sufficient. However, data show that nature of the study, it is impossible to
there is still a need to improve students’ infer causality. In addition, this study
science performance especially on the only provides a snapshot of the current
Grade 8 level. Teaching strategies, study situation of science performance, self-
68 Asia Pacific Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences Volume 16 2019

efficacy, and study habits of students Achievement) International

and teaching strategies employed by Research Conference.
teachers and may provide a different Gothenburg.
result if another time frame had been Altun-Yalçn, S., Açşli, S., & Turgut,
chosen. Ü. (2011). Determining the
levels of pre-service science
teachers’ scientific literacy and
References investigating effectuality of
the education faculties about
Abdi, A. (2014). The effect of inquiry- developing scientific literacy.
based learning method on Procedia - Social and Behavioral
students’ academic achievement Sciences, 15, 783–787. Retrieved
in science course. Universal from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Journal of Educational Research, sbspro.2011.03.185
2(1), 37–41. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms:
Abdi Laei, S., & Ahmadyan, H. (2013). Goals, structures, and
The effect of teaching strategy student motivation. Journal
based on multiple intelligences on of Educational Psychology.
students’ academic achievement Retrieved from https://doi.
in science course. Universal org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
Journal of Educational Research, Aquino, L. B. (2011). Study habits and
1(4), 281–284. attitudes of Freshmen students:
Akgun, S., & Ciarrochi, J. (2003). Implications for academic
Learned resourcefulness intervention programs. Journal of
moderates the relationship Language Teaching and Research,
between academic stress 2(5), 1116–1121. Retrieved
and academic performance. from https://doi.org/10.4304/
Educational Psychology, 23(3), jltr.2.5.1116-1121
287–294. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy:
Alfassi, M. (2003). Promoting the Toward a unifying theory of
will and skill of students at behavioral change. Psychological
academic risk : An evaluation of Review, 84(2), 191–215.
an instructional design geared Retrieved from https://doi.
to foster achievement, self- org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191
efficacy and motivation. Journal Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory
of Instructional Psychology, 30(1), and predictive scope of self-
28–40. efficacy theory. Journal of
Alivernini, F., Palmerio, L., Vinci, E., Social and Clinical Psychology.
& Di Leo, I. (2010). An analysis Retreieved from https://doi.
of factors affecting pupils’ science org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359
Achievement in Italy. Fourth IEA Banuag, P. ., Carumba, K. ., de la Rosa,
(International Association for R. R., Hontiveros, A. R., Racina,
the Evaluation of Educational K. R., Torres, R. M., & Yamba,
Self-efficacy, Study Habits and Teaching Strategies and Its Influence on Student Science Performance 69

K. (2011). Internet and electronic Research in education. Pearson

gadget usage, lifestyle, study Education India.
habits, and grades of selected level Borg, M. O., Mason, P. M., & Shapiro,
4 Bachelor of Science in Nursing S. L. (1989). The case of effort
students of Xavier University for variables in student performance.
S.Y 2010-2011. Xavier University. The Journal of Economic
Batomalaque, A. E. (2003). Basic Education, 20(3), 308–313.
science development program of Retrieved from https://doi.
the Philippines for International org/10.2307/1182307
Cooperation. University of San Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1990).
Carlos. Influence of self-efficacy on
Becker, W. E. (1997). Teaching performance in a cognitive task.
economics to undergraduates. Journal of Social Psychology,
Journal of Economic Literature, 130(3), 353–363. Retrieved from
35, 1347–1373. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2729980 1990.9924591
Belizario, V. Y., Totañes, F. I. G., de Brandon, A. F., & All, A. C. (2010).
Leon, W. U., & Matias, K. M. H. Constructivism theory analysis
(2014). School-based control of and application to curricula.
soil-transmitted helminthiasis Nursing Education Perspectives,
in Western Visayas, Philippines. 31(2), 89–92.
The Southeast Asian Journal of Bransford, J. D. (2003). How people
Tropical Medicine and Public learn: Brain, mind, experience,
Health, 45(3), 556–567. Retrieved and school.
from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. Bransford, J. D., Vye, N., Stevens, R.,
gov/pubmed/24974639 Kuhl, P., Schwartz, D., Bell, P.,
Bernardo, A. B. I., Ganotice, F. A., & & Reeves, B. (2005). Learning
King, R. B. (2015). Motivation theories and education: Toward a
gap and achievement gap decade of synergy. Mahwah, NJ:
between public and private high Erlbaum.
schools in the Philippines. The Bruner, J. (1961). The act of discovery.
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, Harvard Educational Review.
24(4), 657–667. Retrieved from Retrieved from https://
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299- doi.org/10.1016/S0040-
014-0213-2 4039(02)00317-9
Bernardo, A. B. I., Limjap, A. A., Carido, C., & Bautista, J. (2000).
Prudente, M. S., & Roleda, L. S. Correlation analysis of admission
(2008). Students’ perceptions of test and academic performance
science classes in the Philippines. in mathematics of freshmen
Asia Pacific Education Review. students in Notre Dame
Retrieved from https://doi. University. NDU Faculty Journal,
org/10.1007/BF03026717 1.
Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2016). Carlsen, W. S. (1993). Teacher
70 Asia Pacific Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences Volume 16 2019

knowledge and discourse Psychological Science, 3(6),

control: Quantitative evidence 425–453. Retrieved from
from novice biology teachers’ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
classrooms. Journal of Research 6924.2008.00089.x
in Science Teaching. Retrieved Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009).
from https://doi.org/10.1002/ High-school students’ informal
tea.3660300506 reasoning and argumentation
Chetty, L. R. (2012). The role of about biotechnology: An
science and technology in the indicator of scientific literacy?
developing world in the 21st International Journal of Science
century. Retrieved on 17th Education, 31(11), 1421–1445.
August from http://Ieet. Org/ Retrieved from https://doi.
Index. Php/IEET/Category C, org/10.1080/09500690801992870
243. Demata, E. U. (1999). The effect of
Chin, C. C. (2005). First-year pre- study habits on the academic
service teachers in Taiwan—do performance of the high school
they enter the teacher program students of Emmanuel Mission
with satisfactory scientific literacy School, Cagayan de Oro City,
and attitudes toward science? S.Y 1998-1999. Xavier University
International Journal of Science Higher Education Research.
Education, 27(13), 1549–1570. DepEd. (2002). Basic Education
Retrieved from https://doi. Curriculum Handbook in Science
org/10.1080/09585190500186401 and Health (Elementary).
Choi, N. (2005). Self‐efficacy and self‐ Manila, Philippines: Bureau of
concept as predictors of college Elementary Education.
students’ academic performance. Descargar, A. E., & Cardona, R. S.
Psychology in the Schools, 42(2), (2016). Revisiting the study
197–205. habits and performance in math
Cole, D., & Espinoza, A. (2008). of Grade 7 students: A basis for a
Examining the academic success proposed enhancement program.
of Latino students in Science Researchers World, 7(2), 77.
Technology Engineering and Dewey, J. (1938). Experience
Mathematics (STEM) majors. and Education. Education,
Journal of College Student 50(3), 96. Retrieved from
Development, 49(4), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.101 7/
Retrieved from https://doi. CBO9781107415324.004
org/10.1353/csd.0.0018 Didarloo, A., & Khalkhali, H. R.
Collins, J. L. (1984). Self efficacy and (2014). Assessing study skills
ability in achievement behavior. among university students:
Stanford University. An Iranian survey. Journal
Crede, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). of Educational Evaluation for
Study habits , skills , and Health Professions. Retrieved
attitudes. Perspectives on from https://doi.org/10.3352/
Self-efficacy, Study Habits and Teaching Strategies and Its Influence on Student Science Performance 71

jeehp.2014.11.8 Fast, L. A., Lewis, J. L., Bryant, M.

Didia, D., & Hasnat, B. (1998). The J., Bocian, K. A., Cardullo, R.
determinants of performance A., Rettig, M., & Hammond,
in the university introductory K. A. (2010). Does math self-
finance course. Financial Practice efficacy mediate the effect
and Education, 1(1), 102–107. of the perceived classroom
Donahoe, J. (1999). Edward L. environment on standardized
Thorndike: The selectionist math test performance? Journal
connectionist. Journal of of Educational Psychology, 102(3),
the Experimental Analysis of 729–740. Retrieved from https://
Behavior. Retrieved from https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0018863
doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1999.72-451 Fazal, S., Hussain, S., Majoka, M.
Douglas, S., & Sulock, J. (1995). I., & Masood, S. (2012). The
Estimating educational role of study skills in academic
production functions with achievement of students: A closer
correction for drops. Journal focus on gender. Pakistan Journal
of Economic Education, 26, of Psychological Research, 27(1),
101–112. Retrieved from 37.
https://doi.org/10.1080 Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A.
/00220485.1995.10844862 (1976). Fennema-Sherman
Dunn, D. A. (2005). The relationship mathematics attitudes scales:
of students’ self-efficacy, attitudes Instruments designed to measure
toward science, perceptions of attitudes toward the learning
the laboratory environment, and of mathematics by females and
achievement with respect to the males. Journal for Research
secondary science laboratory. in Mathematics Education.
University of Southern Retrieved from https://doi.
California. org/10.2307/748467
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational Gettinger, M., & Seibert, J. K. (2002).
processes affecting learning. Contributions of study skills to
American Psychologist, 41, academic competence. School
1040–1048. Retrieved from Psychology Review, 31(3), 350–
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003- 365.
066X.41.10.1040 Gonzales, P., Guzmán, J. C., Partelow,
Farooq, M. S., Chaudhry, A. H., L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L.,
Shafiq, M., & Berhanu, G. (2011). Kastberg, D., & Williams,
Factors affecting students’ quality T. (2004). Highlights from
of academic performance: A the Trends in International
case of secondary school level. Mathematics and Science Study
Journal of Quality and Technology (TIMSS), 2003. NCES 2005-005.
Management. Retrieved from US Department of Education.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j. Grant, R. M. (2008). Why strategy
issn.2095-4344.2012.48.016 teaching should be theory based.
72 Asia Pacific Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences Volume 16 2019

Journal of Management Inquiry. Social and Behavioral Sciences.

Retrieved from https://doi. Retrieved from https://doi.
org/10.1177/1056492608318791 org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.276
Gray, C. S. (2009). Schools for strategy: Hurlburt, G., Kroeker, R., & Gade,
Teaching strategy for 21st century E. (1991). Study orientation,
conflict. In Strategic Studies persistence and retention of
Institute United States Army War native students: Implications
College. Retrieved from https:// for confluent education. Journal
doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.051 of American Indian Education,
Grimmett, P. P., & Mackinnon, A. 30(3), 16–23. Retrieved
M. (1992). Chapter 9: Craft from http://www.jstor.org/
knowledge and the education stable/24397981
of teachers. Review of Research Imam, O. A., Mastura, M. A., Jamil,
in Education, 18(1), 385–456. H., & Ismail, Z. (2014a). Reading
Retrieved from https://doi. comprehension skills and
org/10.3102/0091732X018001385 performance in science among
Guzey, S. S., Roehrig, G. H., high school. Asia Pacific Journal
Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. of Educators and Education, 29,
(2009). Teaching science with 81–94.
technology: Case studies of Japos, G., & Hinay, J. C. (2010).
science teachers’ development Teacher characteristics and
of technological pedagogical pupil performance in science
content knowledge (TPCK). and health in the national
Contemporary Issues in achievement test of Iligan City
Technology and Teacher Division. JPAIR Multidisciplinary
Education. Retrieved from Journal, 4(1), 1.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956- Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications
008-9140-4 of research on teacher belief.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of Educational Psychologist, 27(1),
science teachers’ epistemological 65–90. Retrieved from https://doi.
beliefs in teaching. Journal of org/10.1207/s15326985ep2701_6
Research in Science Teaching. Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013).
Retrieved from https://doi. Self-efficacy and academic
org/10.1002/(SICI)1098- achievement: Why do implicit
2736(199601)33:1<47::AID- beliefs, goals, and effort
TEA3>3.0.CO;2-P regulation matter? Learning and
Hassanbeigi, A., Askari, J., Nakhjavani, Individual Differences. Retrieved
M., Shirkhoda, S., Barzegar, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
K., Mozayyan, M. R., & lindif.2013.01.005
Fallahzadeh, H. (2011). The Krohn, G. A., & O’Connor, C. M.
relationship between study skills (2005). Student effort and
and academic performance of performance over the semester.
university students. Procedia - Journal of Economic Education,
Self-efficacy, Study Habits and Teaching Strategies and Its Influence on Student Science Performance 73

36, 3–29. Retrieved from https:// & Santos, S. (2014). Marketed

doi.org/10.3200/JECE.36.1.3-28 marine natural products
Levin, K. A. (2006). Study design III: in the pharmaceutical and
Cross-sectional studies. Evidence- cosmeceutical industries: Tips
Based Dentistry, 7(1), 24–25. for success. Marine Drugs,
Retrieved from https://doi. 12(2), 1066–1101. Retrieved
org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400375 from https://doi.org/10.3390/
Linghong, M. (2001). Comparative md12021066
study on elementary science McKenzie, K., & Schweitzer, R. (2001).
education in China and Japan: Who succeeds at university?
An analysis on structure of factors Factors predicting academic
affecting achievement. performance in first year
Liu, M., Cho, Y., & Schallert, D. Australian university students.
(2006). Middle school students’ Higher Education Research &
self-efficacy, attitudes, and Development, 20(1), 21–33.
achievement in a computer- Mendezabal, M. J. N. (2013). Study
enhanced problem-based habits and attitudes: The road to
learning environment. Journal academic success. Open Science
of Interactive Learning Research, Repository Education, (open-
17(3), 225–242. access), e70081928.
Lumpe, A., Czerniak, C., Haney, J., Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp,
& Beltyukova, S. (2012). Beliefs J. E. (2004). Identifying the need
about teaching science: The for instruction. In Design Effective
relationship between elementary Instruction (p. 34). New Jersey:
teachers’ participation in John Wiley & Sons.
professional development Nonis, S. A., & Hudson, G. I. (2010).
and student achievement. Performance of college students:
International Journal of Science Impact of study time and study
Education, 34(2), 153–166. habits. Journal of Education
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10. for Business, 85(4), 229–238.
1080/09500693.2010.551222 Retrieved from https://doi.
Maehr, M. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1980). org/10.1080/08832320903449550
Culture and achievement Numan, A., & Hasan, S. S. (2017).
motivation: A second look. Effect of study habits on
In Studies in cross-cultural test anxiety and academic
psychology, 2. Retrieved from achievement of undergraduate
https://doi.org/10.1016/j. students. Journal of Research &
ejpb.2013 .11.009 Reflections in Education (JRRE),
Maligalig, D. S., & Albert, J. R. G. 11(1), 1–14.
(2008). Measures for assessing Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., &
basic education in the Philippines. Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large
PIDS Discussion Paper Series. are teacher effects? Educational
Martins, A., Vieira, H., Gaspar, H., Evaluation and Policy Analysis.
74 Asia Pacific Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences Volume 16 2019

Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1037/11168-000

org/10.3102/016237 37026003237 Pisa, D. (2012). Middle school science
Osa-Edoh, G. I., & Alutu, A. N. G. teachers’ teaching self-efficacy
(2012). A survey of students and students’ science self-efficacy.
study habits in selected secondary California State University,
schools: Implication for Fullerton.
counselling. Current Research Plunkett, K., & Sinha, C. (1992).
Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), Connectionism and
228–234. developmental theory. British
Owusu-Acheaw, M., & Larson, Journal of Developmental
A. G. (2014). Reading habits Psychology. Retrieved from
among students and its effect https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
on academic performance: A 835X.1992.tb00575.x
study of students of Koforidua Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., &
Polytechnic. Library Philosophy Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers,
and Practice, 6(5), 1–22. schools, and academic
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10. achievement. Econometrica,
1080/10556699.1993.10616359 73(2), 417–458. Retrieved from
Ozdem, Y., Cavas, P., Cavas, B., https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
Cakiroglu, J., & Ertepinar, H. 0262.2005.00584.x
(2010). An investigation of Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004).
elementary students’ scientific Constraints experienced by
literacy levels. Journal of Baltic beginning secondary science
Science Education, 9(1), 6–19. teachers in implementing
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during scientific inquiry lessons.
childhood and adolescence: International Journal of Science
Implications for teachers and Education. Retrieved from
parents. In Self-Efficacy Beliefs https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
of Adolescents. Retrieved from 0262.2005.00584.x
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749- Rolle, J. D. (2012). The impact of
3797(99)00075-6 teachers integrating constructivist
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self- strategies on students’
efficacy, motivation constructs, mathematics problem solving skills
and mathematics performance of in elementary schools. Walden
entering middle school students. University.
Contemporary Educational Rosen, A. (2008). Self-efficacy for
Psychology, 24(2), 124–139. science: An investigation of middle
Retrieved from https://doi. school students’ self-efficacy and
org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0991 science achievement. Southern
Piaget, J. (1955). The child’s Connecticut State University.
construction of reality. In Salaria, N. (2012). Meaning of the
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 112. term descriptive survey research
Retrieved from https://doi. method. International Journal
Self-efficacy, Study Habits and Teaching Strategies and Its Influence on Student Science Performance 75

of Transformations in Business secondary school teachers.

Management, 1(6), 1–7. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Toison, Sciences, 8, 512–518. Retrieved
H., Huang, T. Y., & Lee, Y. H. from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(2007). A meta-analysis of sbspro.2010.12.070
national research: Effects of Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant
teaching strategies on student error in psychological ratings.
achievement in science in the Journal of Applied Psychology.
United States. Journal of Research Retrieved from https://doi.
in Science Teaching. Retrieved org/10.1037/h0071663
from https://doi.org/10.1002/ Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The law of
tea.20212 effect. The American Journal
Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. of Psychology, 39(1/4), 212.
(1985). Peer models: Influence Retrieved from https://doi.
on children’s self-efficacy org/10.2307/1415413
and achievement. Journal of Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996).
Educational Psychology, 77(3), Congruence between intention
313. and strategy in university science
Shen, C., & Tam, H. P. (2008). The teachers’ approaches to teaching.
paradoxical relationship between Higher Education, 44(10), 1436–
student achievement and self- 1460. Retrieved from https://doi.
perception: A cross-national org/10.1007/BF00139219
analysis based on three waves Turner, E. A., Chandler, M., & Heffer,
of TIMSS data. Educational R. W. (2009). The influence of
Research and Evaluation. parenting styles, achievement
Retrieved from https://doi. motivation, and self-efficacy on
org/10.1080/13803610801896653 academic performance in college
Simons, J., Dewitte, S., & Lens, W. students. Journal of College
(2004). The role of different Student Development. Retrieved
types of instrumentality in from https://doi.org/10.1353/
motivation, study strategies, csd.0.0073
and performances: Know Van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers,
why you learn, so you’ll M. (2011). Factors affecting
know what you learn! British students’ self-efficacy in higher
Journal of Educational education. Educational Research
Psychology, 74(3), 343–360. Review. Retrieved from https://
Retrieved from https://doi. doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.
org/10.1348/0007099041552314 2010.10.003
Sulaiman, T., Abdurahman, A. Vygotsky, L. (1962). 1. The problem
R., & Rahim, S. S. A. (2010). and the approach. In Thought and
Teaching strategies based on Language. Retrieved from https://
multiple intelligences theory doi.org/10.1038/NCHEM.255
among science and mathematics Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction
76 Asia Pacific Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences Volume 16 2019

between learning and Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A.,

development. In Mind in & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992).
Society: The Development of Self-motivation for academic
Higher Psychological Processes attainment: The role of self-
(pp. 29–36). Retrieved from efficacy beliefs and personal goal
https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0006- setting. American Educational
3495(96)79572-3 Research Journal, 29, 663–676.
Walag, A. M. P., Gadian, D. C. C., Retrieved from https://doi.
Walag, I. P., Merlas, M. A. G., org/10.3102/00028312029003663
Larosa, L. V., Lumantas, S. P., Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., & Coppola,
& Salugsugan-Joaquin, M. C. B. (2003). Skill and will:
(2018). Adolescent pregnancy The role of motivation and
and family history of adolescent cognition in the learning of
pregnancy in El Salvador City, college chemistry. International
Philippines. Canadian Journal Journal of Science Education.
of Family and Youth / Le Journal Retrieved from https://doi.org/1
Canadien de Famille et de La 0.1080/0950069032000052207o
Jeunesse, 10(1), 259. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.29173/
cjfy29351
Wang, M. N. M., Wu, K. C., &
Huang, T. C. I. (2007). A
study on the factors affecting
biological concept learning of
junior high school students.
International Journal of Science
Education, 29(4), 453–464.
Retrieved from https://doi.
org/10.1080/09500690601073152
Weegar, M. A., & Pacis, D. (2012).
A comparison of two theories
of learning-behaviorism and
constructivism as applied
to face-to-face and online
learning. Proceedings E-Leader
Conference, Manila.
Weibell, C. J. (2014). Discovery
learning (Jerome Bruner – 1961).
Retrieved from https://doi.org/
https:// doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
323-35868-2.00050-5
Woolfolk, A. H. (2016). Educational
Psychology (13th Ed.)., 720.