sustainability

Article
The Influence of Academic Self-Efficacy on University Students’
Academic Performance: The Mediating Effect of
Academic Engagement
Qian Meng * and Qi Zhang

Department of Higher Education, College of Education, Bohai University, Jinzhou 121013, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-416-340-0230

Abstract: Challenges and competition are being faced in higher education. Students’ unsatisfactory
academic performance and dropouts are obvious problems worldwide. The “student-centered”
pedagogy requires universities to pay attention to the needs of students. Research has demonstrated
that academic self-efficacy is a positive psychological variable in the prevention of students becoming
academically burnt out and withdrawing from their studies. By increasing academic engagement and
improving academic performance, academic self-efficacy can reduce the dropout rates. This study
attempted to achieve an in-depth comprehension of the nexus between academic self-efficacy and
academic achievement among university students and the mediating role of academic engagement in
the association between the two. A total of 258 participants were included in the cross-sectional study.
The relationships among academic self-efficacy, academic engagement, and academic performance
were examined using Pearson correlation coefficients. In order to examine the intermediating role of
academic engagement in the relationship between academic self-efficacy and academic performance,
a mediation analysis was applied. A favorable and strong correlation among academic self-efficacy,
academic engagement, and academic performance was found in this study. Academic self-efficacy
can be a direct predictor of academic achievement and can also be an indirect predictor of academic
achievement via the intermediating effect of academic engagement. The findings of this study
provide theoretical and practical recommendations for university researchers and administrators.
Citation: Meng, Q.; Zhang, Q. The
The findings confirm the mediating role of academic engagement between academic self-efficacy
Influence of Academic Self-Efficacy
and academic performance. The results provide universities with evidence for use in the design
on University Students’ Academic
of projects and programs for the improvement of students’ academic performance. Increasing the
Performance: The Mediating Effect of
level of academic self-efficacy and enhancing academic engagement are of utmost importance for
Academic Engagement. Sustainability
2023, 15, 5767. https://doi.org/
university students to maintain and improve their academic performance.
10.3390/su15075767
Keywords: academic self-efficacy; academic engagement; academic performance
Academic Editors: Jesús-Nicasio
García-Sánchez and José M.
Aguilar-Parra

Received: 24 February 2023 1. Introduction

Revised: 23 March 2023 Academic failure and dropouts are serious problems faced by universities world-
Accepted: 24 March 2023 wide [1]. Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic [2], university students faced increas-
Published: 26 March 2023
ing financial difficulties, a lack of social connections and sense of belonging, and insecurity
regarding the future and access issues, all of which hampered their academic performance
and well-being. Previous studies have explored the various reasons for academic failure
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
and dropouts, including demographic (gender and age), individual (social background
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. and school performance), psychological (motivation and attitudes), and institutional (cur-
This article is an open access article riculum, teaching quality, and learning environment) reasons [3,4].
distributed under the terms and Social cognition theory (Bandura, 1977) [5] is one of the most influential of the various
conditions of the Creative Commons theories that seek to understand and explain the factors that motivate and coordinate
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// human behavior. Social cognition theory posits that human activity is determined by the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ interplay of two factors: the cognition of the individual and the external environment in
4.0/). which the individual lives. (Bandura, 2012) [6]. Of the individual cognitions, self-efficacy

Sustainability 2023, 15, 5767. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075767 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 5767 2 of 14

(SE) is an important component that influences and regulates behaviors. According to

Bandura [5], self-efficacy is the judgment of people’s ability to successfully complete tasks,
which involves goals, behaviors, and environmental conditions. Self-efficacy has been
widely studied in many areas, such as leader effectiveness [7], addiction relapse [8], medical
care [9], and academic performance [10]. In the field of education, self-efficacy is generally
called academic self-efficacy (ASE), which denotes confidence about one’s capability of
learning or behaving in a certain way [11]. Academic self-efficacy is the embodiment
of self-efficacy in the field of education. Academic self-efficacy has been identified as a
key factor in determining and predicting the academic performance of students in higher
education institutions [12]. Additionally, academic self-efficacy is one of the signs of
students’ psychological well-being.
Another important factor associated with the academic performance and achievement
of higher education students is their academic engagement. In the past two decades, the
question of how to guarantee and improve the quality of higher education quality has
become a focus of general concern in the field of international higher education. Researchers,
practitioners, and managers of higher education institutions have tried different programs,
the most representative of which is research into students’ engagement that emerged
in American universities and has been popular worldwide since 2000. It is generally
accepted that academic engagement is a major predictor of academic achievement in
higher education [13]. Extensive studies have revealed that academic engagement is
important for learning and academic performance. Academic engagement has been studied
in different learning environments, such as primary school [14], secondary school [15],
and university populations [13]. Additionally, Kahu’s study investigated the influence of
academic engagement across different disciplines and institutions [13].
Therefore, research on university students’ academic achievements must simultane-
ously examine the learning behavior and the learning psychological characteristics that
drive individual learning, represented by motivation and emotion. Academic self-efficacy
and academic engagement are impactful factors in the improvement of students’ academic
achievement in higher education. The existing research has laid a solid foundation for the
verification of the nexus between academic self-efficacy and academic achievement and has
discussed the complex relationship between them. Some studies showed the mechanism
by which ASE influences academic performance, which is through a variety of moderating
and mediating factors, such as academic self-concept [12], academic aspirations [16], and
personality [17]. However, most prior studies have discussed the direct relationship among
academic self-efficacy, academic engagement, and academic achievement [18–20] but has
ignored the possible mediating role of academic engagement in university populations.
However, it is plausible that academic self-efficacy is related to academic performance if
there is a mediating mechanism in place—academic engagement.
Studies have revealed that self-efficacy is an important contributor in the determina-
tion of how well students perform when studying, but its intermediary mechanism and
regulatory mechanism still need to be further explored. This study intends to determine the
influence of academic self-efficacy on the academic performance of university students and
the intermediating role of academic engagement in the academic self-efficacy and academic
performance relationship. This study contributes to research on the nexus between the
academic self-efficacy and academic performance of university students and attempts
to identify the mediating role of academic engagement that was ignored by previous re-
search. Moreover, this study highlights the importance of interweaving the concepts of
academic self-efficacy, academic engagement, and academic performance. The prior studies
rarely investigated the nexus between academic self-efficacy and academic performance,
whereas the mediating and moderating effect of academic engagement in a university
population was included. In addition, this study provides enlightenment on how the
rate of dropouts can be reduced and students’ academic performance can be improved by
increasing students’ academic self-efficacy.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5767 3 of 14

The framework of this study is as follows: Section 2 systematically reviews the existing
research on academic self-efficacy, academic engagement, and academic achievement and
puts forward the hypotheses and conceptual model of this study on the basis of the existing
research. The statistical methods and data measurement methods of this study are depicted
in Section 3. In order to test direct and indirect effects between variables, this study uses
correlation analysis and intermediate analysis. Section 4 reports the results of this study.
The main findings of this study are discussed in Section 5. In Section 6, we present the
theoretical and practical contributions of this study. Then, Section 7 shows the limitations
of this study and future research that can be based on the study. Finally, the conclusions are
presented in Section 8.

2. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

2.1. Academic Self-Efficacy and Academic Performance
Previous studies have shown that studying is one of the main sources of stress for
students in higher education due to the requirement of examinations and graduation [21,22],
especially in Asian countries such as China, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and Hong
Kong, where the virtues of academic diligence and filial piety engrained by the Confucian
heritage culture are still very much alive [23]. The research on academic self-efficacy
reported that academic self-efficacy can enhance an individual’s health and performance
when coping with stressful situations [24,25]. Academic self-efficacy as an influential
factor in improving academic performance has received much attention in educational
psychology [26]. University students’ academic self-efficacy is crucial for their academic
achievement [27]. Previous studies have identified that learners’ academic self-efficacy is
strongly correlated with academic performance, that is, higher scores on academic self-
efficacy are more likely to be associated with higher scores on academic performance [28,29].
Self-efficacy, as defined by Bandura, is a conviction in one’s ability to organize and
implement the actions necessary to cope with an expected situation [30]. However, the first
application of self-efficacy to an educational setting was by Dale Schunk, who began to
explore students’ motivation and achievement in the early 1980s [31]. Schunk proposed
that self-efficacy is a self-assessment of one’s capability to accomplish an assignment. It
includes assessments about one’s capability to fulfill a task and one’s self-confidence in
one’s capability to perform an assignment [32]. In a meta-analysis of 241 published articles,
among the 50 educational research variables, including personality traits, self-regulatory
learning strategies, and motivations, self-efficacy was found to be the variable that most
strongly correlated with university students’ grade point average (GPA) [19]. On the basis
of these findings, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1: Academic self-efficacy is a positive predictor of academic performance among university students.

2.2. Academic Self-Efficacy and Academic Engagement

A review of the existing literature shows that student engagement is correlated with
various concepts, such as school identity, academic motivation, academic self-efficacy, and
academic performance [33]. Academic self-efficacy plays an important role in students’
academic engagement. If students have confidence in their ability to do a task, they
will be more engaged in the task. On the contrary, if they have little confidence in the
task, they will not spend time and energy on the task. Students who score higher in self-
efficacy measurement are more inclined to show positive social behavior and prefer deep
learning to superficial learning [34]. Previous studies proved that self-efficacy and student
engagement were highly related [35,36]. Self-efficacy theory posits that the development
of skills and self-efficacy can be improved through active engagement in learning [37]. In
the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, students were forced to move from a peer-supporting
environment to a state of social isolation, potentially decreasing their self-efficacy and
reducing their engagement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
undergraduate education in remote learning. One study found a significant decrease in
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5767 4 of 14

emotional engagement, and students reported a drastic decline in positive attitude toward
science [38].
According to social cognitive theory, the learning environment and students’ personal
factors both influence students’ engagement [30]. One of personal characteristic factors
that affects students’ engagement is self-efficacy. There is a strong relationship between
self-efficacy and students’ engagement. Students with a higher level of self-efficacy tend
to have a higher level of engagement in the learning process. Self-efficacious learners
are defined as learners who are improving their own skills and who are motivated to
participate in learning [39]. Higher levels of academic self-efficacy are associated with
higher levels of sustained academic engagement and attainment. On the basis of these
findings, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Academic self-efficacy is a positive predictor of academic engagement among university students.

2.3. Academic Engagement and Academic Performance

In the past few years, engagement originating from the workplace has become in-
creasingly important within research related to students’ academic performance [40,41].
At present, Schaufeli’s view on student engagement is generally accepted. Schaufeli et al.
defined engagement as a satisfying and work-focused positive state of mind that is charac-
terized by dedication, vigor, and absorption. Dedication means that students have strong
involvement in their learning. It is accompanied by feelings of enthusiasm and significance,
as well as a sense of pride, inspiration, and challenge. Vigor refers to a high level of vitality
and resistance, the tendency to make an effort in one’s work, not to tire easily, and to
persevere when faced with difficulties. Absorption is a pleasant state of being completely
immersed in one’s work, characterized by the rapid passage of time and an inability to
disengage from work [42].
Bae and Han’s study at an American research university showed that academic engage-
ment is one of the key variables that explain students’ academic performance [43]. Krause
and Coates associated student engagement with high-quality learning outcomes [44]. The
engagement of students is seen as a glue or a mediator that can create a link between the
different contexts of students’ learning [45]. The more the students are engaged with their
academic work, the greater the level of academic performance. Henning elaborated and
demonstrated how student engagement is important to the learning of students and the
success of an institution [46]. However, Johnson and Stage’s research showed that high-
impact practices, particularly student engagement, do not necessarily boost the graduation
rates at public universities [47]. In the existing literature, there is no consistent conclusion
on the relationship between student engagement and academic performance. Based on this
argument, we propose the following hypothesis:
H3: Academic engagement will be a positive mediator of the relationship between academic self-
efficacy and academic performance.

2.4. Conceptual Framework

The research framework aims to analyze and clarify the key variables and the relation-
ships between them, rather than claiming to represent all influences and relationships [15].
This framework aims to clarify how academic self-efficacy, as well as academic engagement,
is related to academic performance in university students. This research framework can
guide further research and, ultimately, be a usable tool for comprehensive intervention
programs with the aim of improving students’ academic performance. Contemporary
studies have emphasized the values that are important when students are faced academic
stresses [33,34]. Meanwhile, student engagement has been regarded as one of the predictors
of academic performance [33]. Nevertheless, most of the existing research only separately
examined the direct relationships among academic self-efficacy, academic engagement,
and academic performance. The possible intermediary role of academic engagement has
been ignored.
 intervention programs with the aim of improving students’ academic performance. Con-
temporary studies have emphasized the values that are important when students are
faced academic stresses [33,34]. Meanwhile, student engagement has been regarded as
one of the predictors of academic performance [33]. Nevertheless, most of the existing
research only separately examined the direct relationships among academic self-efficacy,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5767 5 of 14
academic engagement, and academic performance. The possible intermediary role of ac-
ademic engagement has been ignored.
This study is an attempt at an in-depth understanding of the nexus between academic
This study is an attempt at an in-depth understanding of the nexus between academic
self-efficacy and academic achievement among university students. In the meantime, ac-
self-efficacy and academic achievement among university students. In the meantime,
ademic engagement as a potential intermediary variable was tested to explain how aca-
academic engagement as a potential intermediary variable was tested to explain how
demic self-efficacy influences academic performance. (See Figure 1) The intermediating
academic self-efficacy influences academic performance. (See Figure 1) The intermedi-
role was substantiated by the presupposition that students with higher levels of academic
ating role was substantiated by the presupposition that students with higher levels of
self-efficacy may trigger more academic engagement when compared with other learners
academic self-efficacy may trigger more academic engagement when compared with other
[48], as they believe they can finish an academic task successfully, which, in turn, affects
learners [48], as they believe they can finish an academic task successfully, which, in turn,
their academic performance [28]. To determine the correlational and mediational model
affects their academic performance [28]. To determine the correlational and mediational
among academic self-efficacy, academic engagement, and academic achievement, corre-
model among academic self-efficacy, academic engagement, and academic achievement,
lation analysis and mediation analysis were used.
correlation analysis and mediation analysis were used.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of academic self-efficacy
on undergraduate students’ academic performance and the mediating role of academic
The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of academic self-efficacy on
engagement in the Chinese context. The learning behavior and learning psychology charac-
undergraduate students’ academic performance and the mediating role of academic en-
teristics of university students should be discussed under specific socio-cultural concepts.
gagement in the Chinese context. The learning behavior and learning psychology charac-
In different social and cultural situations, people have different understandings about
teristics of university students should be discussed under specific socio-cultural concepts.
learning behavior and learning psychological characteristics, so the research results may be
In different social and cultural situations, people have different understandings about
quite different. Therefore, this study focuses on the study of university students’ learning
learning behavior and learning psychological characteristics, so the research results may
psychology characteristics and learning behavior in the context of Chinese culture. Chinese
be quite different. Therefore,
universities this being
are also study confronted
focuses on the study
with of university
common students’
trends and learn-in higher ed-
challenges
ing psychology characteristics and learning behavior in the context of Chinese
ucation worldwide, such as the expansion and diversification of the student population,culture.
Chinese universities are also being
financial pressure, and the confronted with common
market-oriented trends
requirement forand challenges
greater in
accountability, quality,
higher education worldwide, such as the expansion and diversification of the student pop-
and efficiency [49]. In particular, in 2015, the Chinese State Council released the “Double
ulation, financial pressure,
First-class and thetomarket-oriented
Initiative” improve the global requirement for greater
competitiveness of accountabil-
higher education. Now,
ity, quality, Chinese
and efficiency [49]. In particular, in 2015, the Chinese State Council
universities are focusing on improving teaching quality and students’ released satisfaction.
the “DoubleInitiatives
First-class need
Initiative” to improve the global competitiveness
to be taken to improve the academic engagement and of higher educa-
performance of
tion. Now, Chinese universities are focusing on improving teaching quality and students’
university students. In this study, all the participants came from a Chinese public uni-
satisfaction. versity
Initiatives
thatneed to be taken
is seeking to improve
to improve the academic
the quality engagement
of education and perfor-ranking. All
and university
mance of university students.were
the participants In thisChinese
study, all thestudied
and participants cameinfrom
full-time a Chinese
university. public who were
Students
university that is seeking
studying abroadto improve
and thosethe onquality
part-timeof education
programs were and university ranking.
excluded from All
this study. This was
the participants
due towere
the Chinese and study
fact that this studied full-time
probed in university.
the nexus Students engagement,
among academic who were academic
studying abroad and those
engagement, and onacademic
part-timeachievement
programs were in theexcluded
Chinese from this study. This
context.
was due to the fact A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed in the study, and 258aca-
that this study probed the nexus among academic engagement, questionnaires
demic engagement,
were filledandout,
academic achievement
accounting for 86% inof the
the Chinese context.
total questionnaires distributed. Among them,
47.3% were male, and 52.7% were female. Out of 258 questionnaires, 22.1% were freshmen,
25.6% were sophomores, 24.4% were juniors, and 27.9% were seniors. Regarding the
program participants were studying, 43.8% majored in social science, 35.3% majored in
natural science, and 20.9% majored in arts. The demographic breakdown of the categorical
variables (gender, grades, and majors) is presented in Table 1. All the participants agreed
to take part in the study and to comply with the ethical standards of the study by signing a
written consent form (according to the Declaration of Helsinki and later amendments).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5767 6 of 14

Table 1. The demographic breakdown of categorical variables.

Variable n %
Gender
Male 122 47.3
Female 136 52.7
Grades
Freshman 57 22.1
Sophomore 66 25.6
Junior 63 24.4
Senior 72 27.9
Majors
Social Science 113 43.8
Natural Science 91 35.3
Arts 54 20.9

3.2. Measures
Two self-reported scales with adequate reliability and validity were completed by all
respondents: the academic self-efficacy scale (ASE) and The Utrecht work engagement
scale student (UWES-S). Liang revised and designed the Chinese version of the ASE
questionnaire designed by Pinrich and DeGroot in 1990 [50,51]. The ASE questionnaire
was divided into two sub-scales: the learning ability self-efficacy scale (11 items, e.g., I
think I’m a good student in comparison with others in my class) and the learning behavior
self-efficacy scale (11 items, e.g., when I prepare for the examination, I am capable of
achieving mastery through a comprehensive study of the subject). All participants were
guided to complete the items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree)
to 5 (totally agree). High levels of academic self-efficacy were indicated by high scores
on the scale. The internal consistency coefficient of the total scale was 0.92, which is an
indication that the scale had good reliability. The internal consistency coefficients for the
learning ability self-efficacy sub-scale and learning behavior self-efficacy sub-scale were
0.83 and 0.86, respectively. The average variance extracted (AVE) was 0.68 and 0.63 for
the learning ability self-efficacy sub-scale and learning behavior self-efficacy sub-scale,
respectively, and the composite reliability (CR) for learning ability self-efficacy and learning
behavior self-efficacy was 0.88 and 0.86, respectively. The value of AVE above the suggested
threshold value of 0.50 shows it had good convergent validity, and the value of CR above
0.70 shows it had good internal consistency reliability [52]. This confirms that the academic
self-efficacy scale has good structure validity in China.
The Utrecht work engagement scale student (UWES-S) is a scale with 17 items designed
to evaluate students’ academic engagement in relation to academic success [53]. Li revised
and formed the Chinese version of the UWES-S [54]. It included three dimensions: vigor
(6 items, e.g., studying makes me feel strong and energetic), dedication (5 items, e.g., I’m
passionate about what I’m studying) and absorption (6 items, e.g., I find it difficult to
disengage from my studies). The higher the score, the more academically engaged the
student is. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the UWES-S scale was 0.93, and for the vigor,
dedication, and absorption subscales, it was 0.88, 0.81, and 0.86, respectively. The scale
was also based on a 5-point Likert scale, with strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree,
and strongly agree corresponding to 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The convergent validity (AVE) was
0.75, 0.77, and 0.73 for vigor, dedication, and absorption, respectively, and the composite
reliability (CR) was 0.89, 0.82, and 0.87 for vigor, dedication, and absorption, respectively.
The model fitting was tested using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fitting indexes met
the requirements (χ2 /df = 1.43, RMSEA = 0.04, NFI = 0.92, RFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97,
CFI = 0.97, GFI = 0.84, and AGFI = 0.82). This is in line with the requirement of good
validity of the structure.
Finally, the cumulative grade point average (GPA) over the course of their studies
to date was used to measure university students’ academic performance. The score was
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5767 7 of 14

self-reported by the students. Consistent with the credit system used in China’s higher
education system, the GPA value ranged from 1 (low) to 5 (high).

3.3. Data Analyses

The relationships among academic self-efficacy, academic engagement, and academic
achievement were examined using Pearson correlation coefficients. Next, to evaluate
the intermediating role of academic engagement in the association between academic
self-efficacy and academic performance, a bootstrap medication analysis was performed.

4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analyses
In order to analyze the relationships among academic self-efficacy, academic engage-
ment, and academic performance and how academic self-efficacy and academic engagement
influence academic achievement, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated. The
scores for academic self-efficacy and academic engagement all exceeded the central value
of ASE and UWES-S scales. The level of academic self-efficacy was at the middle level
(M = 3.25, SD = 1.05). Meanwhile, the score for academic engagement (M = 3.35, SD = 0.91)
was slightly higher than academic self-efficacy, but it was still at the middle level. Descrip-
tive analyses and correlation coefficients analyses are shown in Table 2. The results showed
that academic self-efficacy and academic engagement were substantially associated with
academic performance. The correlation coefficients among academic self-efficacy, academic
engagement, and academic performance were 0.85 and 0.76, respectively. In addition, the
correlation coefficient between academic engagement and academic achievement was 0.79.
The results revealed that three variables were significantly associated with each other
(Table 2). The correlation analysis showed that two dimensions of academic self-efficacy
(learning behavior self-efficacy and learning ability self-efficacy) and three dimensions
of academic engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption) had positive relationships
with academic performance. Additionally, each dimension of academic self-efficacy was
positively related to each dimension of academic engagement (p < 0.01). It is reasonable
to further determine the intermediary effect of academic engagement between academic
self-efficacy and academic performance to reveal the relationship between them.

Table 2. Correlation analyses among academic self-efficacy, academic engagement, and academic
performance.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Predictor Variable
1 Academic Self-efficacy 3.25 1.05 1
2 Learning Ability Self-efficacy 3.33 1.10 0.883 ** 1
3 Learning Behavior
3.41 1.00 0.893 ** 0.943 ** 1
Self-efficacy
Mediator Variable
4 Academic Engagement 3.35 0.91 0.853 ** 0.904 ** 0.916 ** 1
5 Vigor 3.39 1.03 0.822 ** 0.881 ** 0.896 ** 0.962 ** 1
6 Dedication 3.31 0.88 0.788 ** 0.839 ** 0.845 ** 0.959 ** 0.893 ** 1
7 Absorption 3.34 0.93 0.837 ** 0.873 ** 0.887 ** 0.955 ** 0.862 ** 0.888 ** 1
Target Variable
8 Academic Performance 3.00 1.01 0.756 ** 0.889 ** 0.844 ** 0.792 ** 0.767 ** 0.722 ** 0.780 ** 1
Note. ** p < 0.01.

4.2. Mediation Analyses

Our proposal is that academic self-efficacy and academic engagement directly and
indirectly influence academic performance. To determine the intermediating effect of aca-
demic engagement in the nexus between academic self-efficacy and academic achievement,
a PROCESSOR macro developed by Hayes was used [55]. When controlling gender, class
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5767 8 of 14

standing, and program, the results of this study verified that academic self-efficacy was a
strong indicator of academic performance (β = 0.69; t = 18.02; p < 0.001), supporting H1.
Additionally, the direct predictive effect of academic self-efficacy on academic achievement
remained significant when the intermediate variable (academic engagement) was included
in the equation (β = 0.28; t = 4.39; p < 0.001). In addition, there was a positive association
between academic self-efficacy and academic engagement (β = 0.73; t = 24.84; p < 0.001),
supporting H2. Moreover, there was also a significant positive predictive effect of academic
engagement on academic performance (β = 0.56; t = 7.53; p < 0.001).
In order to test the mediating effect of academic engagement, a non-parametric bias-
corrected bootstrap was carried out [56]. For each of the data sets, a and b were calculated
in each of the bootstrap samples. This process was repeated a total of 5000 times for each
dataset, and 5000 bootstrap estimates of a and b were thus obtained. The two bootstrapped
estimates of a and b in the 5000 samples, defining the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles of the distri-
bution, respectively, were used to construct 95% percentile confidence intervals for a and
b [57]. After controlling the demographic variables (gender, class standing, and program),
the importance of direct, indirect, and overall effects in the intermediary model was de-
termined (Table 3). The bootstrap 95% confidence interval of the direct effect of academic
self-efficacy on academic performance was (0.145, 0.453). The direct effect of academic
self-efficacy on academic performance was 0.28, which accounted for 40.91% of total effect.
Simultaneously, the significance of the indirect effect of academic self-efficacy through
academic engagement was confirmed by the results of the non-parametric bootstrapping
method (95% bootstrap CI = 0.271, 0.517). The indirect effect of academic self-efficacy had
an impact of 0.41 that was generated by academic engagement as an intermediator on
academic performance, which accounted for 59.08 of the total effect. The direct, indirect,
and total effects were statistically significant, indicating that psychological self-efficacy can
directly anticipate academic performance and indirectly predict academic performance
via the intermediating effect of academic engagement, supporting H3. The direct and
indirect effects of academic self-efficacy on academic performance are presented in Table 4,
which indicate that academic engagement significantly and positively intermediated the
effect of academic self-efficacy on academic performance. The mediating test confirmed
that academic self-efficacy directly predicts academic performance and indirectly predicts
academic performance through the mediation of academic engagement.

Table 3. Intermediary effect test of academic engagement between academic self-efficacy and aca-
demic performance.

Regression Equation Fit Indices Significance

Target Predictor
R R2 F β t
Variable Variable
0.794 0.631 108.205 ***
Gender 0.212 2.580 *
Academic Performance Class Standing 0.173 4.831 ***
Program 0.075 1.497
Academic Self-efficacy 0.688 18.022 ***
0.856 0.732 172.861 ***
Gender 0.128 2.033 *
Academic Engagement Class Standing 0.006 0.217
Program 0.017 0.442
Academic Self-efficacy 0.726 24.847 ***
0.836 0.699 116.962 ***
Gender 0.141 1.872
Class Standing 0.170 5.233 ***
Academic Performance
Program 0.066 1.444
Academic Self-efficacy 0.281 4.391 ***
Academic Engagement 0.560 7.530 ***
Note. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5767 9 of 14

Table 4. The test of total effect, direct effect, and indirect effect.

Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI Indirect Effect

Total Effect 0.688 0.039 0.610 0.763
Direct Effect 0.281 0.077 0.145 0.453 40.91%
Indirect Effect 0.406 0.062 0.271 0.517 59.08%

5. Discussion
This study attempts to probe the nexus between academic self-efficacy and academic
performance and further explore the mediating effect of academic engagement on this
association among university students. The correlation analysis showed a significant
positive association among academic self-efficacy, academic engagement, and academic
performance. The mediation effect analysis showed that academic self-efficacy could have
a direct effect on the academic performance of university students and an indirect effect on
the academic performance of university students when academic engagement was used as
an intermediate variable. The findings supported H1, H2 and H3.
Firstly, academic self-efficacy can be a direct and significant predictor of the academic
performance of university students, supporting H1, which is in line with previous stud-
ies [24–26]. The students who scored higher in academic self-efficacy were more proactive
in taking on academic challenges, persevered for longer, and put forth more effort in
academic endeavors [58]. A study from Debre Markos College of Teacher Education, City
University of Hong Kong, and City University of New York demonstrated that self-efficacy
strongly correlated with academic performance [18,59,60]. Academic self-efficacy directly
predicts academic performance by influencing cognition, motivation, and behavior [59].
Academic self-efficacy affects university students’ learning goals and the selection of learn-
ing assignments. The study confirmed that academic self-efficacy is a predictive factor of
university students’ academic performance [12]. Students with high levels of academic
self-efficacy feel that they are more capable of accomplishing academic tasks and tend to
choose assignments which are difficult and challenging, and therefore, they achieve a high
level of academic performance.
Secondly, academic self-efficacy has a positive predictive effect on academic engage-
ment, supporting H2. In a meta-analysis, engagement was reported to be strongly corre-
lated with self-efficacy [61]. If students have confidence in their ability to do a task, they
will have a higher level of engagement with the task. On the contrary, if students have
little confidence in completing a task, they will not spend time or make an effort with
it, and consequently, they will not engage in the task. Academic self-efficacy will affect
students’ learning processes. Students with a high sense of academic self-efficacy will
conduct self-monitoring and self-management in the learning process and discover and
adopt effective strategies to solve problems in a timely manner, so as to achieve learning
objectives. An intervention program with 77 university students from various years and
degree programs, with the aim of enhancing students’ self-efficacy, reported significant
effects on students’ engagement [62]. The enhancement of academic self-efficacy may be a
prerequisite for the improvement of students’ academic engagement.
Finally, it was found that academic engagement is an important mediator between
academic self-efficacy and academic performance, supporting H3. The higher the level
of academic self-efficacy, the higher the level of students’ academic engagement, which,
in turn, will have a positive influence on students’ academic performance. Academic
self-efficacy has a positive and significant influence on academic achievement through
the intermediary role of academic engagement. Individuals with a high sense of learning
efficiency have more confidence in their learning ability. This positive emotional experience
will encourage individuals to spend more time and use more experience to achieve their
goals and will focus more on a boring learning process.
The findings of this study showed some parallels to previous research, in which self-
efficacy was shown to be a mediating factor between personal characteristics and perceived
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5767 10 of 14

autonomy support to predict academic performance [63,64]. As a personality trait, academic

self-efficacy can improve academic performance by increasing academic engagement.
Students’ core beliefs, alongside their ability to achieve personal goals through their own
actions, determine all external and internal factors that affect their academic success [65].
Efficacious students have greater willingness to expand extra energy on completing a task
or an assignment, thus improving academic engagement and performance. Meanwhile,
excellent academic performance will also improve students’ sense of self-efficacy. The
virtuous circle of academic self-efficacy increases academic engagement, thus improving
academic performance, which produces a higher sense of academic self-efficacy. Therefore,
it can be concluded that the enhancement of academic self-efficacy among university
students is a useful strategy for the improvement of academic performance in order to
reduce attrition rates.

6. Implications
The findings of this study contribute by providing theoretical and practical enlighten-
ment for university researchers and administrators. Learning is an active self-construction
process, and every learner is an active learner. Compared with their counterparts with
lower self-efficacy, students with higher self-efficacy reported greater engagement [66]. In
addition, academic engagement is a predictor for academic performance [33]. Students who
engage more in studies have a greater probability of achieving a higher level of academic
performance. Academic engagement is an important factor which affects the learning
process and learning results of students, and enhancing students’ learning engagement
is the common goal of higher education. Specifically, the role of academic engagement
as a mediator between academic self-efficacy and academic performance has not been
clearly established and is, therefore, in need of investigation [67]. Furthermore, it has been
confirmed that academic engagement mediates the nexus between academic self-efficacy
and academic achievement. In other words, it is important for university students to feel
capable of coping with and engaging in academic challenges.
Practically, the findings of this study offer further support for universities in the
design of projects and programs to enhance students’ academic achievements and social
skills. In the higher education market, the competition has been aggravated between
academic institutions as a result of the paradigm shifts from a supplier market (in which
supply is less than demand and the suppliers dictate quality) to a customer market (in
which supply is more than demand and the customers dictate quality) [68]. Academic
institutions should take into account and respond to the needs and expectations of students
they serve and provide appropriate programs and courses to meet the needs of students.
Students’ academic achievements are the combination of their active participation in
learning and the influences of various scaffolds created by universities on students. The
quality and achieved level of university students’ learning are determined mainly by their
own behavior and their state of engagement. Other external factors can be used only as
scaffolding to assist students’ learning. Academic self-efficacy, as a positive psychological
state, should attract the attention of universities and teachers. Self-efficacy can be improved
when particular teaching strategies are employed. Students in a project-based learning
program showed a positive attitude for English learning [69]. A comparative study of
Tsinghua University and the top research universities in the United States showed that
Tsinghua University is superior to its peers in terms of the campus environment support
and extracurricular extended learning opportunities it provides; however, senior students
are inferior to their peers in other universities in terms of academic challenges, active
cooperative learning, and teacher–student interaction [70]. Universities should cultivate
students’ sense of supporting and belonging (i.e., academic guidance, career planning,
and professional development), which have been shown to be positively associated with
academic self-efficacy and academic performance [71]. In particular, studying online
became the “new normal” during the COVID-19 pandemic, and unsatisfactory student
academic performance was determined to be the main issue [72]. For university students, it
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5767 11 of 14

is important to increase their academic self-efficacy and enhance their academic engagement
to maintain and improve their academic performance.

7. Limitations and Future Directions

Given the limitations of the study, the findings of this study are suggestive, not
decisive. First, the research sample of this study was recruited from a university. This does
not have a substantive influence on the research result; however, it perhaps impedes the
feasibility of extending the research findings to other populations. Hence, we encourage
further studies to be carried out to compare the results with other populations and other
nations to make the results more representative and comprehensive. Second, a cross-
section design was used to obtain the evidence in this study that corroborated the causal
nexus among academic self-efficacy, academic engagement, and academic performance.
The main limitation of this cross-sectional study design is that it was difficult to present
the continuous process of individual psychology, and the inter-group differences may
not have been caused by psychological development [73]. Thus, future studies need to
implement a longitudinal research design to establish the true cause and effect nexus among
academic self-efficacy, academic engagement, and academic performance. In addition, we
considered only the direct effect of academic self-efficacy and the indirect effect of academic
engagement on academic performance and did not consider other educational elements,
such as curriculum, leaning support, teacher guidance, peer effect, and so on. Further
research could discuss the variables deeply and comprehensively discuss these variables.

8. Conclusions
This study aimed to investigate the nexus between academic self-efficacy and aca-
demic performance and the mediating role of academic engagement. Academic self-efficacy
and academic engagement are important indicators of university students’ academic per-
formance [12,15]. The results show that academic self-efficacy, academic engagement, and
academic achievement are positively associated. Additionally, the results confirm that
academic self-efficacy improves academic performance by increasing academic engage-
ment. The results highlight that academic self-efficacy is beneficial to improving academic
performance, which, in turn, achieves the goal of reducing dropout rates. Students with a
high sense of self-efficacy are more confident in learning and can more effectively solve
problems and engage more in learning, while students with a low sense of self-efficacy
choose to avoid challenges, thereby reducing their academic performance [27]. In addi-
tion to attaching importance to the individual psychological characteristics of university
students, the improvement of higher education needs to facilitate supportive external
environments, such as curriculum, teaching, and cultural atmosphere, which can promote
students’ self-efficacy and engagement. Universities should provide a supportive learning
environment to enable students to face academic challenges with confidence, improving
their academic performance, which is conducive to increasing student retention rates. The
findings offer further and valuable evidence which can aid university superintendents in
the creation of consulting or training programs as components of the university curricu-
lum system which will be oriented to enhance students’ achievement. The results also
broaden the research on the nexus between academic self-efficacy, academic engagement,
and academic performance and provide theoretical and practical guidance for university
administrators and students.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization and writing, Q.M.; formal analysis and data curation,
Q.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the project “Research on the promoting effect of education
exchange on bilateral investments between China and ‘One belt, one road’ countries” (No. BIA210185)
sponsored by National Office for Education Sciences Planning.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and approved by Ethical Review Committees of Bohai University (No. BHU-2022-122).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5767 12 of 14

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: We would like to show our great appreciation to the participants for their
support and assistance in data collection.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Najimi, A.; Sharifirad, G.; Amini, M.M.; Meftagh, S.D. Academic failure and students’ viewpoint: The influence of individual,
internal and external organizational factors. J. Educ. Health Promot. 2013, 2, 22. [CrossRef]
2. Lederer, A.M.; Hoban, M.T.; Lipson, S.K.; Zhou, S.; Eisenberg, D. More than inconvenienced: The unique needs of US college
students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Educ. Behav. 2021, 48, 14–19. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Kelly, D.R.; Matthews, M.D.; Bartone, P.T. Grit and hardiness as predictors of performance among West Point cadets. Mil. Psychol.
2014, 26, 327–342. [CrossRef]
4. Samuel, R.; Burger, K. Negative life events, self-efficacy, and social support: Risk and protective factors for school dropout
intentions and dropout. J. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 112, 973–986. [CrossRef]
5. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1997.
6. Bandura, A. Social Cognitive Theory. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology; Van Lange, P.M., Kruglanski, A.W., Higgins, E.,
Eds.; Sage Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012; Volume 1, pp. 349–373.
7. Caldwell, C.; Hayes, L.A. Self-efficacy and self-awareness: Moral insights to increased leader effectiveness. J. Manag. Dev. 2016,
35, 1163–1173. [CrossRef]
8. Nikmanesh, Z.; Baluchi, M.H.; Pirasteh Motlagh, A.A. The role of self-efficacy beliefs and social support on prediction of addiction
relapse. Int. J. High Risk Behav. Addict. 2017, 6, e21209. [CrossRef]
9. Foster, C.; Breckons, M.; Cotterell, P.; Barbosa, D.; Calman, L.; Corner, J.; Fenlon, D.; Foster, R.; Grimmett, C.; Richardson, A.; et al.
Cancer survivors’ self-efficacy to self-manage in the year following primary treatment. J. Cancer Surviv. 2015, 9, 11–19. [CrossRef]
10. Honicke, T.; Broadbent, J. The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educ. Res. Rev.
2016, 17, 63–84. [CrossRef]
11. Pajares, F.; Schunk, D.H. The Development of Academic Self-Efficacy. In Development of Achievement Motivation; Academic Press:
San Diego, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 15–31.
12. Choi, N. Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college students’ academic performance. Psychol. Sch. 2005, 42, 197–205.
[CrossRef]
13. Skinner, E.; Furrer, C.; Marchand, G.; Kindermann, T. Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational
dynamic? J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 100, 765–781. [CrossRef]
14. Van Rooij, E.C.; Jansen, E.P.; Van de Grift, W.J. Secondary school students’ engagement profiles and their relationship with
academic adjustment and achievement in university. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2017, 54, 9–19. [CrossRef]
15. Kahu, E.R. Framing student engagement in higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 2013, 38, 758–773. [CrossRef]
16. Carroll, A.; Houghton, S.; Wood, R.; Unsworth, K.; Hattie, J.; Gordon, L.; Bower, J. Self-efficacy and academic achievement in
Australian high school students: The mediating effects of academic aspirations and delinquency. J. Adolesc. 2009, 32, 797–817.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Caprara, G.V.; Vecchione, M.; Alessandri, G.; Gerbino, M.; Barbaranelli, C. The contribution of personality traits and self-efficacy
beliefs to academic achievement: A longitudinal study. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2011, 81, 78–96. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Zajacova, A.; Lynch, S.M.; Espenshade, T.J. Self-efficacy, stress, and academic success in college. Res. High. Educ. 2005, 46, 677–706.
[CrossRef]
19. Richardson, M.; Abraham, C.; Bond, R. Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 2012, 138, 353–387. [CrossRef]
20. Coates, H. The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance. Qual. High. Educ. 2005, 11, 25–36. [CrossRef]
21. Brougham, R.R.; Zail, C.M.; Mendoza, C.M.; Miller, J.R. Stress, sex differences, and coping strategies among college students.
Curr. Psychol. 2009, 28, 85–97. [CrossRef]
22. Robotham, D.; Julian, C. Stress and higher education student: A critical review of the literature. J. Furth. High. Educ. 2006, 30,
107–117. [CrossRef]
23. Tan, J.B.; Yates, S. Academic expectations as sources of stress in Asian students. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2011, 14, 389–407. [CrossRef]
24. Artino, A.R. Academic self-efficacy: From educational theory to instructional practice. Perspect. Med. Educ. 2012, 1, 76–85.
[CrossRef]
25. Cassidy, S. Resilience Building in Students: The Role of Academic Self-Efficacy. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 1781. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Yokoyama, S. Academic Self-Efficacy and Academic Performance in Online Learning: A Mini Review. Front. Psychol. 2019, 9,
2794. [CrossRef]
27. Zimmerman, B.J. Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2000, 25, 82–91. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5767 13 of 14

28. Linnenbrink, E.A.; Pintrich, P.R. The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Read. Writ.
Q. 2003, 19, 119–137. [CrossRef]
29. Carway, K.; Tucker, C.M.; Reinke, W.M.; Hall, C. Self-efficacy, goal orientation, and fear of failure as predictors of school
engagement in high school students. Psychol. Sch. 2003, 40, 417–427. [CrossRef]
30. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986.
31. Schunk, D.H. Modeling and Attributional Effects on Children’s Achievement: A Self-efficacy Analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 1981, 73,
93–105. [CrossRef]
32. Pintrich, P.R.; Smith, D.A.F.; Garcia, T.; Mckeachie, W.J. Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning
questionnaire (MSLQ). Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1993, 53, 801–813. [CrossRef]
33. Dogan, U. Student Engagement, Academic Self-Efficacy, and Academic Motivation as Predictors of Academic Performance.
Anthropologist 2015, 20, 553–561. [CrossRef]
34. Liem, A.D.; Lau, S.; Nie, Y. The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task
disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement outcome. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 33, 486–512. [CrossRef]
35. Majer, J.M. Self-efficacy and academic success among ethnically diverse first generation community college students. J. Divers.
High. Educ. 2009, 2, 243–250. [CrossRef]
36. Thijs, J.; Verkuyten, M. Peer victimization and academic achievement in a multiethnic sample: The role of perceived academic
self-efficacy. J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 100, 754–764. [CrossRef]
37. Bandura, A. The self and mechanisms of agency. Am. Psychol. 1982, 37, 122. [CrossRef]
38. Wester, E.R.; Walsh, L.L.; Arango-Caro, S.; Callis-Duehl, K.L. Student engagement declines in STEM undergraduate during
COVID-19 driven remote learning. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 2021, 22, ev22i21. [CrossRef]
39. Schunk, D.H.; Mullen, C.A. Self-Efficacy as an Engaged Learner. In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement; Christenson, S.L.,
Reschly, A.L., Wylie, C., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 219–235.
40. Korobova, N.; Starobin, S.S. A comparative study of student engagement, satisfaction, and academic success among international
and American students. J. Int. Stud. 2015, 5, 72–85. [CrossRef]
41. Xerri, M.J.; Radford, K.; Shacklock, K. Student engagement in academic activities: A social support perspective. High. Educ. 2018,
75, 589–605. [CrossRef]
42. Schaufeli, W.B.; Salanova, M.; González-Romá, V.; Bakker, A.B. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample
confirmative analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2002, 3, 71–92. [CrossRef]
43. Bae, Y.; Han, S. Academic engagement and learning outcomes of the student experience in the research university: Construct
validation of the instrument. Educ. Sci. Theor. Pract. 2019, 19, 49–64. [CrossRef]
44. Krause, K.L.; Coates, H. Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2008, 33, 493–505. [CrossRef]
45. Christenson, S.; Reschly, A.; Wylie, C. (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012.
46. Henning, G.W. Leveraging student engagement for student and institutional success. About Campus 2012, 17, 15–18. [CrossRef]
47. Johnson, S.R.; Stage, F.K. Academic engagement and student success: Do high impact practices mean higher education rates? J.
High. Educ. 2018, 89, 753–781. [CrossRef]
48. Chouinard, R.; Karsenti, T.; Roy, N. Relations among competence beliefs, utility value, achievement goals, and effort in
mathematics. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2007, 77, 501–517. [CrossRef]
49. Hong, M. Public university governance in China and Australia: A comparative study. High. Educ. 2018, 76, 717–733. [CrossRef]
50. Pintrich, P.R.; De Groot, E.V. Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning Components of Classroom Academic Performance. J.
Educ. Psychol. 1990, 82, 33–40. [CrossRef]
51. Liang, Y.S. Correlation between self-efficacy to school work and mental health of university students. Chin. J. Clin. Rehabil. 2004,
8, 4962–4963.
52. Abdollahi, A.; Noltemeyer, A. Academic hardiness: Mediator between sense of belonging to school and academic achievement? J.
Educ. Res. 2018, 111, 345–351. [CrossRef]
53. Bue, S.L.; Taverniers, J.; Mylle, J.; Euwema, M. Hardiness promotes work engagement, prevents burnout, and moderates their
relationship. Mil. Psychol. 2017, 25, 105–115. [CrossRef]
54. Li, X.Y.; Huang, R. A revise of the UWES-S of Chinese college samples. Psychol. Res. 2010, 3, 84–88.
55. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Press: New
York, NY, USA, 2013.
56. Efron, B. Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife. Ann. Stat. 1979, 7, 1–26. [CrossRef]
57. Hayes, A.F.; Scharkow, M. The Relative Trustworthiness of Inferential Tests of the Indirect Effect in Statistical Mediation Analysis:
Does Method Really Matter? Psychol. Sci. 2013, 24, 1918–1927. [CrossRef]
58. Kolo, A.G.; Jaafar, W.; Ahmad, N.B. Relationship between academic self-efficacy believed of college students and academic
performance. IOSR J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2017, 22, 75–80. [CrossRef]
59. Tenaw, Y.A. Relationship between self-efficacy, academic achievement and gender in analytical chemistry at Debre Markos
College of Teacher Education. Afr. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 3, 3–28.
60. Li, L.K.Y. A study of the attitude, self-efficacy, effort and academic achievement of city U students towards research methods and
statistics. Discov. SS Stud. E-J. 2012, 1, 154–183.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5767 14 of 14

61. Halbesleben, J.R.B. A Meta-Analysis of Work Engagement: Relationships with Burnout, Demands, Resources and Consequences.
In Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research; Bakker, A.B., Leiter, M.P., Eds.; Psychology Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2010; pp. 102–117.
62. Bresó, E.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Salanova, M. Can a self-efficacy-based intervention decrease burnout, increase engagement, and
enhance performance? A quasi-experimental study. High. Educ. 2011, 61, 339–355. [CrossRef]
63. Oriol-Granado, X.; Mendoza-Lira, M.; Covarrubias-Apablaza, C.G.; Molina-López, V. Positive emotions, autonomy support and
academic performance of university students: The mediating role of academic engagement and self-efficacy. J. Psychodidact. 2017,
22, 45–53. [CrossRef]
64. Serrano, C.; Andreu, Y. Perceived emotional intelligence, subjective well-being, perceived stress, engagement and academic
achievement of adolescents. J. Psychodidact. 2016, 21, 357–374. [CrossRef]
65. Ouweneel, E.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Le Blanc, P.M. Believe, and you will achieve: Changes over time in self-efficacy, engagement, and
performance. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 2013, 5, 225–247. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Bakker, A.B.; Sanz, A.I.S.; Kuntze, J. Student engagement and performance: A weekly diary study on the role of openness. Motiv.
Emot. 2015, 39, 49–62. [CrossRef]
67. Jelas, Z.M.; Azman, N.; Zulnaidi, H.; Ahmad, N.A. Learning support and academic achievement among Malaysian adolescents:
The mediating role of student engagement. Learn. Environ. Res. 2016, 19, 221–240. [CrossRef]
68. Sharabi, M. Managing and improving service quality in higher education. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2013, 5, 309–320. [CrossRef]
69. Shin, M.H. Effects of Project-based Learning on Students’ Motivation and Self-efficacy. Engl. Teach. 2018, 73, 95–114. [CrossRef]
70. Luo, Y.; Shi, J.H.; Xu, D.B. Annual report of Tsinghua college education Survey 2009: Comparing with American top research
university. Tsinghua J. Edu. 2009, 30, 1–13.
71. Eakman, A.M.; Kinney, A.R.; Schierl, M.L.; Henry, K.L. Academic performance in student service members/veterans: Effects of
instructor autonomy support, academic self-efficacy and academic problems. Educ. Psychol. 2019, 39, 1005–1026. [CrossRef]
72. Ma, K.; Chutiyami, M.; Zhang, Y.; Nicoll, S. Online teaching self-efficacy during COVID-19: Changes, its associated factors and
moderators. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 6675–6697. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
73. Carlson, M.D.A.; Morrison, R.S. Study design, precision, and validity in observational studies. J. Palliat. Med. 2009, 12, 77–82.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.