Investigating the Relationship between Self-Efficacy, Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies, and Academic Self-Handicapping with Academic Achievement in Male High School Students in the Tribes of Far
Author: Javanmard A., Hoshmandja M; Ahmadzade L. 2013.
Date: 2018-08-19T23:17:14.719922+00:00

JLSB

J. Life Sci. Biomed. 3(1): 27-34, 2013

Journal of

2013, Scienceline Publication

Life Science and Biomedicine

ISSN 2251-9939

Investigating the Relationship between Self-Efficacy, Cognitive and

Metacognitive Strategies, and Academic Self-Handicapping with Academic

Achievement in Male High School Students in the Tribes of Fars Province

Ali Javanmard1*, Manizhe Hoshmandja2 and Leila Ahmadzade2

1.The Department General of Fars Province Education, Iran

2.Department of Human Science, Behbahan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Behbahan, Iran

*Corresponding author’s e-mail: javanmard.s@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

This study is aimed at Investigating the relationship between self-efficacy, cognitive and metacognitive
strategies, and academic self-handicapping with academic achievement in male high school students in
the tribes of Fars Province, Iran. A descriptive, correlational method has been used. The population of
this study is male high school students in the tribes of Fars Province studying in the academic year of

2010-2011. A sample of 322 students was selected by means of cluster sampling. The instruments
utilized in this study include the Self-efficacy Questionnaire developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem,
the Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies Questionnaire developed by Vahedi, and the Self-
handicapping Questionnaire developed by Jones, and Rhodewalt. The data gathered in this research
were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics (mean, frequency, and standard deviation) and
inferential statistics (Pearson correlation coefficient, regression, one-way ANOVA, Scheffe test, and the

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). The findings revealed that there is a significantly positive relationship
between self-efficacy and academic achievement. Furthermore, there is a significantly positive
association between cognitive and metacognitive strategies and academic achievement. In addition,
there is a significantly negative relationship between academic self-handicapping and academic
achievement. The results of the regression analysis showed that academic self-handicapping and
academic self-efficacy are significant predictors of academic achievement, and cognitive and
metacognitive strategies are not good predictors of academic achievement. Moreover, the results of
this research demonstrated that different groups of students - students had different fields of study
and were in different grades – were not significantly different with regard to academic self-efficacy,
academic self-handicapping, and cognitive and metacognitive strategies. However, there were
significant differences in employing metacognitive strategies with regard to students’ grades and fields
of study.

Keywords: Self-efficacy, cognitive strategies, Metacognitive strategies, Academic self-handicapping,

Academic achievement, Nomadic students.

INTRODUCTION

Lack of motivation in students is one of the most important concerns of most teachers. Almost all research
projects related to motivation, which include structures related to students’ beliefs about their abilities to carry
out their academic tasks, assert that these beliefs have been ignored in developing motivation patterns. One way
to conceptualize students’ beliefs about their abilities to carry out their school tasks is self-efficacy beliefs, which
has been used by motivation researchers. Self-efficacy was indicated as an important motivation behavior by
human behavior research in recent decades. It has been shown that higher levels of self-efficacy lead to better
performance in some academic tasks [1]. Developing his social-cognition theory, Bandura introduced self-efficacy

[2]. Bandura has defined self-efficacy as people’s judgment about their ability to organize and carry out some
behaviors in order to reach predetermined goals. In addition, Bandura held the view that self-efficacy is an
important factor in regulating human behavior. An individual’s self-efficacy judgments in a particular situation
are more important than the quality and features of that situation in producing pressure. Individuals with low
self-efficacy are pessimist about their abilities; hence they avoid situations deemed beyond their abilities.

Conversely, people with high self-efficacy consider difficult tasks as challenges which they can overcome. These

To cite this paper: Javanmard A., Hoshmandja M and Ahmadzade L. 2013. Investigating the Relationship between Self-Efficacy, Cognitive and Metacognitive

Strategies, and Academic Self-Handicapping with Academic Achievement in Male High School Students in the Tribes of Fars Province. J. Life Sci. Biomed. 3(1): 27-

34.

Journal homepage: http://jlsb.science-line.com/

27
individuals choose challenging tasks, recover their self-efficacy faster, and keep on trying in spite of difficulties

[3].

Cognitive strategies are methods that directly deal with learning and facilitate gathering, understanding
and interpreting information. Cognitive processes reinforce thinking processes and facilitate reaching cognitive
goals such as memorization [4]. Procoap has defined cognitive strategies as methods for processing verbal
information [5]. Metacognition refers to a learner’s awareness of the cognitive abilities and their application for
learning, which is quite important for learners. By means of applying strategies, repetition allows learners to
evaluate their progress and regulate their approach to learning [6]. Metacognitive strategies are methods used by
learners to plan and monitor their learning activities and evaluate the results of these activities.

Academic self-handicapping has been a subject of psychological enquiry since 1960. Berglas et al. [7]

pioneers in this regard, have defined academic self-handicapping as a behavior creating a good opportunity for
people to ascribe failure to external factors and success to internal factors. These factors can be the result of
activity (such as an illness before an exam) or laziness (failure to study for the exam). Self-handicapping includes
a set of behaviors (or not conducting a set of behaviors) before an activity or during it, and not after it. Not trying
hard, illness, shyness, seeking excuses, drug consumption, and frequent sleeping are examples of self-
handicapping. Many of such instances, such as shyness and being fickle are weak forms of self-handicapping that
are more unintentional because self-handicapping is a purposeful activity [8]. Koparan et al. [9] held that children
and teenagers spend most of their time at school, hence the kind of instruction they receive at school, teacher-
student relationship, student-student relationship, and the kind of instructional equipment students have
influence their self-efficacy. Low self-efficacy and self-worth in students may lead to self-handicapping [10, 11].

Students who have low self-worth, seek ways to present a positive picture of themselves to others and show that
they are not unable individuals. They are especially prone to motivational and behavioral difficulties and they
may resort to self-handicapping strategies to save their worth in others’ minds.

Valle et al. [12] found that self-efficacy beliefs, controlling learning, and test anxiety have direct causal effect
on students’ cognitive and metacognitive strategies on their way to gain academic achievement. Students enjoying
high self-efficacy seek merit and ascendency. They make use of elaboration and organization strategies in a deep
and elaborate manner and this may be the reason why they enjoy challenging issues and prefer difficult tasks

[13]. Abedindi [14] demonstrated that students with higher self-efficacy use more cognitive and metacognitive
strategies, have less test anxiety, and consequently have more academic achievements. Lavasani [15] revealed
that self-efficacy is a good predictor of the amount of effort, cognitive and metacognitive strategies, homework
value, and students’ academic achievement. Deireh [16] found that self-efficacy has both direct and indirect
influence on cognitive and metacognitive strategies through affecting goals, ascendency, and homework value. In
general, research has shown that self-efficacy beliefs exert a great influence on students’ motivation and their
academic achievement. Kadivar [17] demonstrated that there is a significant association between self-efficacy
beliefs and academic achievement. Aarabian [18] concluded that self-efficacy beliefs have a positive influence on
university students’ mental health and academic achievement.

Many research projects have shown the relationship between cognitive and metacognitive skills and
academic achievement. Kummin et al. [19] there is significantly positive relationship between metacognitive skills
and academic achievement. Parviz et al. [20] revealed that employing cognitive and metacognitive strategies
contributes to academic success and that place of living (city or village) affects using these strategies. They
concluded that urban students use these strategies more frequently than rural students. Ababaf [21] found that
cognitive strategies related to simple and difficult tasks and metacognitive strategies are more frequently used by
successful students than by weak students. Moreover, it has been shown that students of math, experiential
sciences, and humanities are different with regard to using cognitive strategies, but they are similar in using
metacognitive strategies.

Tomas et al. [22] found that self-handicapping is negatively correlated with deep learning, self-regulated
learning, and test anxiety scores. Angeliki et al. [23] concluded that self-handicapping is positively related to
performance-based goal setting and is negatively correlated with mathematics achievement. Research has shown
that self-handicapping and performance affect each other, in other words, self-handicapping weakens
performance and weak performance leads to self-handicapping [24]. It is evident that a student will have a weak
performance if he or she intentionally delays studying until the night before an exam [24]. Shokrkon et al. [24]

found that academic self-efficacy and self-handicapping are negatively related. Moreover, they demonstrated that
there is a negative association between self-handicapping and academic achievement. Ababaf [21] found that
there is a negative relationship between metacognitive strategies and academic self-handicapping. Moreover,
there is a significant negative association between self-efficacy and academic self-handicapping. Furthermore,
academic self-handicapping and upbringing methods are positively related. In addition, there is a significantly
positive association between variables related to metacognitive strategies and the age when independence
learning occurs are the best predictors of students’ academic self-handicapping. Basaknejad [25] found that self-
respect and self-handicapping are negatively correlated, and perfectionism and narcissism are positively
correlated with self-handicapping. Moreover, there are multiple correlations between these three personality
types. In male university students, perfectionism and in female university student’s self-respect is the best
predictors of self-handicapping.

To cite this paper: Javanmard A., Hoshmandja M and Ahmadzade L. 2013. Investigating the Relationship between Self-Efficacy, Cognitive and Metacognitive

Strategies, and Academic Self-Handicapping with Academic Achievement in Male High School Students in the Tribes of Fars Province. J. Life Sci. Biomed. 3(1): 27-

34.

Journal homepage: http://jlsb.science-line.com/

28

Place of living is related to more complicated issues. Place of living is related to students’ social and cultural
background and the educational and welfare facilities they are provided with. Economic conditions and
educational and welfare facilities may explain the differences between rural, urban, and nomadic students. We
should pay attention to the social and cultural milieu in psychoanalysis, which influence individuals’ personality.

Nomads are an important part of our society to whom we should pay attention in all aspects. Hence, conducting
research projects on nomadic students is a necessity. Due to the paucity of research with regard to nomadic
students, the present research aims at investigating the relationship between cognitive and metacognitive
strategies and academic self-handicapping with academic achievement in male high school students of nomadic
tribes of Fars Province, Iran. Six hypotheses are posed and studied as follows:

1. There is a significant relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement.

2. There is a significant relationship between cognitive and metacognitive strategies and academic
achievement.

3. There exists a significant relationship between academic self-handicapping and academic achievement.

4. First-grade high school students (studying general courses) and upper-grade high school students

(studying math, experiential sciences, or humanities) are significantly difference with regard to self-efficacy.

5. First-grade high school students (studying general courses) and upper-grade high school students

(studying math, experiential sciences, or humanities) are significantly difference with regard to using cognitive
and metacognitive strategies.

6. First-grade high school students (studying general courses) and upper-grade high school students

(studying math, experiential sciences, or humanities) are significantly difference with regard to academic self-
handicapping.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The method of this research is descriptive-correlation. The data gathered in this research were analyzed by
means of descriptive statistics (mean, frequency, and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (Pearson
correlation coefficient, regression, one-way ANOVA, Scheffe test, and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The
population of this study is male high school students in the tribes of Fars Province studying in the academic year
of 2010-2011. Using Morgan Table, the researcher employed cluster sampling to pick up a sample of 322
participants. However, only 307 completed questionnaires were collected. In this project the following tools were
applied for collecting information:

1. Self-efficacy Scale

This instrument has been developed by Schwarzer et al. [26]. This 20-item scale included two subscales,
namely general self-efficacy and social self-efficacy. In 1981, this instrument was reduced to a 10-item
questionnaire with one subscale. A score of 1 (totally unlike me) to 4 (totally like me) is assigned to each item.

Hence, an individual’s score ranges from 10 to 40 [27]. With regard to the reliability of this scale, Fooldachang

[27] found a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83 and Rajabi [28] found a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82 and 0.84 for students of
psychology at two different universities. Rajabi [28] convergent validities of 0.30 and 0.20 between general self-
efficacy and Rosenberg self-esteem scales for two samples each consisting of 318 participants. This coefficient has
been significant for p< 0.001. The reliability of this instrument, measured by Cronbach’s alpha, in the present
research was .68 showing that the reliability of the scale is desirable .

2. Cognitive and metacognitive strategies scale

This questionnaire has been developed by Vahedi based on the studies conducted by Flavel, Mayer, and Van

Stein. This scale included five factors at first, but was changed to a six-factor questionnaire by Moosavian [21].

There are 30 items in this questionnaire. The participants were supposed to choose from a four-point Likert scale
ranging from never (0) to always (4). In the present research, the Cronbach’s alpha for the cognitive strategies
scale was 0.73 and the Cronbach’s alpha for the metacognitive strategies was 0.87 .

3. The academic self-handicapping scale

The self-handicapping questionnaire was developed by Rodvalt et al. [29]. It assesses people’s tendency to
use strategies such as lack of effort, simulation, laziness, emotional uneasiness, and being worried about progress.

This scale consists of 25 items translated by Heidari et al. The participants are supposed to choose from a five-
point Likert scale ranging from very little (1) to very much (5). Each item depicts a strategy which is used by
students to justify their subsequent poor performance. To measure the validity of this questionnaire, Heidari et
al. measured the correlation of this questionnaire with related constructs such as making excuses and making
little effort, which ranged from 0.27 to 0.60. Uysal et al. [30] found the internal consistency of the self-
handicapping questionnaire to be .80. They measured the internal consistency, which was 0.60 for making
excuses and 0.72 for bad temper. In this research, the reliability of this instrument was measured by Cronbach’s
alpha, which was 0.74

To cite this paper: Javanmard A., Hoshmandja M and Ahmadzade L. 2013. Investigating the Relationship between Self-Efficacy, Cognitive and Metacognitive

Strategies, and Academic Self-Handicapping with Academic Achievement in Male High School Students in the Tribes of Fars Province. J. Life Sci. Biomed. 3(1): 27-

34.

Journal homepage: http://jlsb.science-line.com/

29

Academic achievement: Students’ GPA was considered as the indicator of their academic achievement.

RESULTS

First hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement.

Table 1 demonstrates that the correlation coefficient between self-efficacy and academic achievement is

0.64 (P< 0.01). In other words, the relationship between these two variables is significant and the first hypothesis
is confirmed.

Table 1. The Pearson correlation coefficient between self-efficacy and academic achievement

Variables

Academic achievement

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy

**0.64

1

Academic achievement

1

**p<.01

Second hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between cognitive and metacognitive strategies and
academic achievement.

According to Table 2, the correlation coefficient between cognitive strategies and academic achievement is

0.31 (P<0.01). In other words, indicating that the relationship between these two variables is significant.

Moreover, there is a significantly positive relationship between metacognitive strategies and academic
achievement (r=0.32), showing the association between these two variables is significant and positive.

Furthermore, the correlation coefficient between cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies is 0.40

(P<0.01), which means there is a significant relationship between cognitive and metacognitive strategies.

Table 2. The Pearson correlation coefficients among cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and academic
achievement

Variables

Cognitive Strategies

Metacognitive Strategies

Metacognitive Strategies

Cognitive Strategies

1

Metacognitive Strategies

**0.40

1

Academic Achievement

**0.31

**0.32

1

**P < 0.01

Hypothesis 3: There exists a significant relationship between academic self-handicapping and academic
achievement.

Based on Table 3, there is a significantly negative relationship between academic self-handicapping and
academic achievement (r= -0.53), showing the association between these two variables is significant and negative.

Hence, the third hypothesis is confirmed. As Table 4 demonstrates, academic self-efficacy and academic self-
handicapping significantly predict academic achievement (R=0.74). These two variables account for 54% of
variance in academic achievement. Moreover, Table 5 depicts that for academic self-efficacy β=0.53, and for
academic self-handicapping β=-0.38. Finally, Table 5 demonstrates that cognitive and metacognitive strategies
are not good predictors of academic achievement.

Table 3. The Pearson correlation coefficient between academic self-handicapping and academic achievement

Variables

Academic achievement

Academic self-handicapping

Academic self-handicapping

**-0 .53

1

Academic achievement

1

**P < 0.01

Table 4. The results of regression analysis for predictive variables

Variable

Mount of Constant

Β

T

Sig.

R

R2

Cognitive

-

0.04

0.08

0.93

-

-

Metacognitive

0.59

0.03

0.60

0.55

0.74

0.54

Self-efficacy

-

0.53

13.1

0.01

-

-

Self-handicapping

-

-0.38

-9.3

0.01

-

-

Hypothesis 4: First-grade high school students (studying general courses) and upper-grade high school
students (studying math, experiential sciences, or humanities) are significantly difference with regard to self-
efficacy.

As Table 5 illustrates, there is no significant difference between students with different academic
background with regard to academic self-efficacy (p<0.41). Therefore, the null form of the fourth hypothesis is
confirmed. In other words, students studying different fields of study are similar with regard to academic self-
efficacy. Too, there is no significant difference between students in different grades with regard to academic self-

To cite this paper: Javanmard A., Hoshmandja M and Ahmadzade L. 2013. Investigating the Relationship between Self-Efficacy, Cognitive and Metacognitive

Strategies, and Academic Self-Handicapping with Academic Achievement in Male High School Students in the Tribes of Fars Province. J. Life Sci. Biomed. 3(1): 27-

34.

Journal homepage: http://jlsb.science-line.com/

30
efficacy (p<0.82). Therefore, the null hypothesis is confirmed. In other words, students studying in different
grades are similar with regard to academic self-efficacy.

Table 5. Results of one-way ANOVA for academic self-efficacy with regard to students’ fields of study and grade

Source of changes

Sum of squares

Df

Meanof squares

F

Sig.

Between groups

15.9

3

5.3

0.96

0.41

Within groups

1666

303

5.5

Total

1681.9

306

Between groups

5.2

3

1.7

0.31

0.82

Within groups

1676.7

303

5.5

Total

1681.9

306

Hypothesis 5: First-grade high school students (studying general courses) and upper-grade high school
students (studying math, experiential sciences, or humanities) are significantly difference with regard to using
cognitive and metacognitive strategies.

Based on Table6, there is no significant difference between students having different fields of study with
regard to cognitive strategies (p<0.07). Therefore, the null hypothesis is confirmed. In other words, students
having different fields of study are similar with regard to using cognitive strategies. Too there is no significant
difference between students in different grades with regard to cognitive strategies (p<0.18). Therefore, the null
hypothesis is confirmed. In other words, students studying in different grades are similar with regard to using
cognitive strategies.

According to Table 7, students having different fields of study are significantly different with regard to
metacognitive strategies (p<0.01). Therefore, the researcher’s hypothesis is confirmed. In other words, students
having different fields of study have different levels of metacognitive strategies. In order to investigate the
differences, Scheffe post hoc test was run. It was found that a significant difference exists between general
students (grade 1) and math students and between general students and experiential students. Too students
studying in different grades are significantly different with regard to metacognitive strategies (p<0.01).

Therefore, the researcher’s hypothesis is confirmed. In other words, students studying in different grades have
different levels of metacognitive strategies. In order to investigate the differences, Scheffe post hoc test was run.

It was found that a significant difference exists between general students (grade 1) and grade 2 students (p<0.01).

Table 6. Results of One-way ANOVA for cognitive strategies with regard to students’ fields of study and grade

Source of changes

Sumof squares
df

Meanof squares

F

Sig.

Between groups

332.7

3

110.9

2.4

0.07

Within groups

14115.2

303

46.6

Total

14447.9

306

Between groups

232.5

3

77.5

1.6

0.18

Within groups

14215.4

303

46.9

Total

14447.9

306

Table 7. Results of one-way ANOVA for metacognitive strategies with regard to students’ fields of study and grade

Source of changes

Sum of squares

Df

Mean of squares

F

Sig.

Between groups

528.4

3

176.1

6.3

0.01

Within groups

8481.6

303

28

Total

9010

306

Between groups

494.7

3

164.9

5.8

0.01

Within groups

8515.4

303

28.1

Total

9010.1

306

Hypothesis 6: First-grade high school students (studying general courses) and upper-grade high school
students (studying math, experiential sciences, or humanities) are significantly difference with regard to
academic self-handicapping.

As Table 8 illustrates, there is no significant difference between students having different fields of study
with regard to self-handicapping (p<0.37). Therefore, the null hypothesis is confirmed. In other words, students
having different fields of study are similar with regard to self-handicapping. Too there is no significant difference
between students studying in different grades with regard to self-handicapping (p<0.59). Therefore, the null
hypothesis is confirmed. In other words, students studying in different grades are similar with regard to self-
handicapping.

To cite this paper: Javanmard A., Hoshmandja M and Ahmadzade L. 2013. Investigating the Relationship between Self-Efficacy, Cognitive and Metacognitive

Strategies, and Academic Self-Handicapping with Academic Achievement in Male High School Students in the Tribes of Fars Province. J. Life Sci. Biomed. 3(1): 27-

34.

Journal homepage: http://jlsb.science-line.com/

31

Table 8. Results of one-way ANOVA for self-handicapping with regard to students’ fields of study and grade

Source of changes

Sum of squares
df

Mean of squares

F

Sig.

Between groups

644

3

214.6

1.04

0.37

Within groups

62334

303

205.7

Total

62978

306

Between groups

399

3

132.9

0.64

0.59

Within groups

62579

303

206.5

Total

62978

306

DISCUSSION

Since examining high school students’ academic achievement is of prime importance, the present study
explored the contribution of self-efficacy, self-handicapping, cognitive strategies, and metacognitive strategies to
nomadic students’ academic achievement in Fars Province, Iran. As the results of this study revealed, there is a
significantly positive relationship between academic success and self-efficacy. In other words, students’ academic
achievement increases as their self-efficacy beliefs increase. This supports the findings of Valle et al. [12], and

Abedini et al. [13]. In a similar vein, Kadivar [17] found that there is a significant difference between self-efficacy
beliefs and academic success. Similarly, Aarabian et al. [18] concluded that strong self-efficacy has a positive
influence on university students’ mental health.

Another important finding revealed by this study is that there is a significant relationship between
cognitive and metacognitive strategies and academic achievement. To put it differently, the more cognitive and
metacognitive strategies students use, the more their academic success is. This finding is in line with those of

Morton [31], Alonso et al. [32]. In addition, it has been revealed that metacognition plays a positive role in reading
comprehension [33]. Similarly, Kummin et al. [19] reported that there is a significantly positive relationship
between metacognitive skills and academic achievement. Moreover, Parviz et al. [20] demonstrated that using
cognitive and metacognitive strategies exert a positive influence on academic success. Most of the research
projects conducted to investigate the effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategies on learning have found that
learners who use strategies appropriate to their learning tasks are more successful in their learning .

This study also demonstrated that there is a significantly negative association between academic
achievement and academic self-handicapping. In other words, the more self-handicapping strategies students
employ the less academic success they achieve. This supports the findings of, Midgoli et al. [10] and Shokrkon

[24]. Zackerman asserted that self-handicapping and academic performance affect each other. In other words,
weak performance leads to further self-handicapping and vice versa [24]. Shokrkon et al. [24] found that there
exists a significantly negative relationship between self-handicapping and previous and subsequent academic
performance. In a similar vein, Angeliki et al. [23] concluded that self-handicapping is positively related to
performance-based goal setting and is negatively correlated with mathematics achievement .

Furthermore, the results of this study showed that academic self-efficacy and self-handicapping are
significant predictors of academic achievement, and cognitive and netacognitive strategies are not good
predictors of academic success.

In addition, the findings of this study revealed that students studying in different grades are not
significantly different with regard to academic self-efficacy, self-handicapping, and cognitive strategies. In other
words, students of different grades are rather similar with regard to academic self-efficacy, self-handicapping, and
cognitive strategies. Moreover, it was found that students having different fields of study are not significantly
different with regard to academic self-efficacy, self-handicapping, and cognitive strategies. To put it differently,
students of different fields of study have more or less the same level of academic self-efficacy, self-handicapping,
and cognitive strategies.

Another salient finding of this study is that students having different fields of study are significantly
different with regard to metacognitive strategies (p<0.01). In other words, students having different fields of
study have different levels of metacognitive strategies. In order to investigate the differences, Scheffe posthoc test
was run. It was found that a significant difference exists between general students (grade 1) and math students
and between general students and experiential students. Furthermore, students studying in different grades are
significantly different with regard to metacognitive strategies (p<0.01). In other words, students studying in
different grades have different levels of metacognitive strategies. In order to investigate the differences, Scheffe
post hoc test was run. It was found that a significant difference exists between general students (grade 1) and
grade 2 students (p<0.01). This finding is in contrast with Ababaf [21] who found that students of math,
experiential sciences, and humanities are different with regard to using cognitive strategies, but they are similar
in using metacognitive strategies. The researcher holds the view that this contrast may be rooted in the
differences between the population of the studies.

Consequently, the educational policy makers, particularly those in charge of the education of the tribes.

should make educational plans appropriate to teenagers’ cognitive and mental features. This may play an

To cite this paper: Javanmard A., Hoshmandja M and Ahmadzade L. 2013. Investigating the Relationship between Self-Efficacy, Cognitive and Metacognitive

Strategies, and Academic Self-Handicapping with Academic Achievement in Male High School Students in the Tribes of Fars Province. J. Life Sci. Biomed. 3(1): 27-

34.

Journal homepage: http://jlsb.science-line.com/

32
important factor in making instructional materials attractive to students, resulting in more academic
achievements. Self-efficacy and academic achievement go hand in hand. This can lead students to greater progress
because their motivation to pay attention to their teachers and try harder increases, do their homework with
more interest, and being successful in society and their parents’ satisfaction become more important to them. In
order to go faster in this direction, educational policy makers, mangers, instructors, and councilors and parents
should attach importance to teaching cognitive and metacognitive strategies. The quality of self-efficacy changes
in different developmental stages, hence educational managers should be familiar with the foundations of
developmental psychology with regard to self-efficacy and cognitive and metacognitive strategies and the
interplay between them and academic achievement. Another important factor involved in academic success is
students’ use of academic self-handicapping strategies. Based on their motivation, individuals fall into two groups,
namely those who have avoiding motivation (avoiding failure) and those who have seeking motivation (seeking
success). Most research projects have focused on seeking motivation because researcher, teachers, and parents
are inclined to encouraging students to get more involved in school tasks, take academic risks, and make more
efforts to carry out their school duties. However, we should not overlook the importance of avoiding motivation.

Self-handicapping is a kind of avoiding behavior decreasing individuals’ efforts and destroying their academic
performance. The primary goals of all avoiding behaviors are laziness and passiveness, hampering students’

learning. The findings of this research highlight the importance of students’ personality types in addition to their
cognitive abilities. It is recommended that parents, educational councilors, and other officials involved in the
education of nomadic students to be familiarized with the importance of self-efficacy and other personality
variables investigated in this study. It is also suggested that the same issue to be examined in primary and junior
students. Finally, future research may focus on psychological, family, emotional, cultural, and institutional factors
involved in the education of nomadic students who are deprived but talented.

REFERENCES

1. Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

2. Basol, G. 2010. Validity and reliability of Turkish form of children’s self-efficacy scale in: Catterall, J.S. 1998. Risk and
resilience in student transitions to high school. American Journal of Education.106: 302−333.

3. Karademas, E. & Kalantzi, A. 2004. The stress process, self-efficacy expectations, and psychological health. Personality and

Individual Differences, 37: 1033-1043.

4. Schleifer, L.L.F. & Dull, R.B. 2009. Metacognition and Performance in the Accounting Classroom. Issues in Accounting

Education, 24, (3): 339-367.

5. Shokrpour, N. & Fotovatian, S. 2009. The effects of consciousness rising on metacognitive strategies on EFL students`
reading comprehension. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics.

6. Ally, M. 2008. Foundations Educational Theory for Online Learning INI. Anderson and G. Sanders (EDS); Theory and

Practice of Online Learning, Athabasca; Canada: Athabasca University, pp. 1-31.

7. Berglas, S., & Jones, E.E. 1978. Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to no contingent success. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 36: 405-41.

8. Tim, U. & Carol, M. 2001. Academic Self-Handicapping: What We Know, What More There is to Learn. Educational

Psychology Review, 13(2).

9. Koparan, S. Ozturk, F., Ozkilic. R. & Senisik, Y. 2009. Anivestijation of social self-efficacy expectations and assertiveness in
multi – program high school students. Procedia social and behavioral Sciences 1: 623-629.

10. Midgley, C., Maeher, M.L., Hruda, L.Z., Anderman, L., Freeman, K.E, Gheen, M. et al. 2000. Manual for the patterns of
adaptive learning scales (pals) ann.arbor, mi: University of Michigan.

11. Prapavessis, H. & Grove, J.R. 1998. Self-handicapping and self-esteem. Journal of applied sport Psychology, 10: 175-184.

12. Valle, A., Nunez P.J.C., Gonzalez C.R., Gonzalez-Pienda G.J.A., Rodriguez, S., Rosario, P., Munoz Casavid, M.A., & Cerezo, R.

2009. Academic goals and learning quality in higher education students. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(1): 96-105.

13. Greene, B.A, Miller, R.B, Crowson, H.M, Duke, B.L & Akey, K.L. 2004. Predicting high school Student, cognitive engagement
and achievement: contribution of classroom perception and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29: 462-

482.

14. Abedini, Y., Bagherian, R., & Kadkhodaei, M. 2010. Investigating the relationship among motivational beliefs, cognitive and
metacognitive strategies, and academic achievement: Testing alternative models. New Trends in Cognitive Psychology,

12(3): 34-48.

15. Lavasani, M., Ezhehei, J., & afshari, M. 2009. The relationship among academic self-efficacy, academic involvement, and
academic achievement. Journal of Psychology, 13(3).

16. Deireh, E., & Banijamali, S. 2009. Investigating the contribution of motivational factors in using cognitive and
metacognitive strategies in the process of learning. Psychological Studies, 5(3).

17. Kadivar, p. 2003. The role of self-efficacy beliefs and intelligence in high school students’ academic achievement. Journal
of Education and Psychology, 1: 45-58.

18. Aarabian, A., Khodapanahi, M., Heidari, M., & Saleh Sadooghpoor, B. 2004. Investigating the association among university
students ‘self-efficacy beliefs, mental health, and academic success. The Journal of Psychology, 8(2): 361-371.

19. Kummin, S. & Rahman, S. 2010. The relationship between the use of meta-cognitive strategies and achievement in English.

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7(C): 145-150.

20. Parviz, K., & Sharifi, M. 2011. The relationship between cognitive and metacognitive strategies and academic achievement
in urban and rural high school students. Educational Strategies Quarterly, 4(1).

To cite this paper: Javanmard A., Hoshmandja M and Ahmadzade L. 2013. Investigating the Relationship between Self-Efficacy, Cognitive and Metacognitive

Strategies, and Academic Self-Handicapping with Academic Achievement in Male High School Students in the Tribes of Fars Province. J. Life Sci. Biomed. 3(1): 27-

34.

Journal homepage: http://jlsb.science-line.com/

33

21. Ababaf, H. 2008. The relationship between metacognitive strategies, self-efficacy, and upbringing methods and academic
self-handicapping in high school students in Ahvaz. New findings in Psychology, 7(2): 108-122.

22. Thomas, C.R. & Gadbois, S.A. 2007. Academic Self-handicapping: The role of slef-concept clarity & student learning
strategies, Bry Rduc psychol, 77(1):101-19.

23. Angeliki, L. & Eleftheria, G. 2007. Predicting academic self-handicapping in different age groups. British journal of
educational psychology, 77, 3: 595-611.

24. Shokrkon, H., Hashemi, S., & Najarian, B. 2005. Investigating some important factors leading to academic self-
handicapping and some selected consequences in male high school students in Ahvaz. Shahid Chamran Journal of

Educational Psychology, 12(3): 77-100.

25. Basaknejad, S. 2009. The relationship among self-respect, perfectionism, narcissism, and self-handicapping in a group of
students at Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz, Iran. The Spring Journal of Psychology, 13(1): 69-84.

26. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. 1995. Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale in J. Weiman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Ed).

Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio, causal and control beliefs. 35-37, Winderser, UKNFER-NELSON.

27. Fooldachang, M. 2008. Investigating self-efficacy beliefs in female students of fars Province and presenting appropriate
suggestions. The anthology of the Research Weak of the Organization of Education in Fars Province, 82: 75-99.

28. Rajabi, G., 2006. Investigating the reliability and validity of general self-efficacy in students of the Faculty of Education at

Shahid Chamran University and Azad University: Marvadasht Branch. New Thoughts in Education (Faculty of Education
and Psychology of Azahra University), 2(1): 111-122.

29. Jones, E.E., & Rhodewalt, F. 1982. The Self-Handicapping Scale. Princeton University.

30. Uysal, A., & Lu, Q. 2010. Self-handicapping and pain catastrophizing. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5): 502-

505.

31. Morton, A. 2008. Helping Students Set Goals and Monitor their own Learning. Wiki book, the open- content textbooks
collection: Amor 007 Talk 23:21(UTC).

32. Alnso, S.S. & Vovides, Y. 2007. Integration of metacognitive skills in the design of learning objects. Computers in human
behavior, 23(6): 2585-2595.

33. Coutinho, S.A. 2007. The relationship between goal, metacognition, and academic success. Northern Illinois University,

USA: Educate, 7(1): 39-47.

To cite this paper: Javanmard A., Hoshmandja M and Ahmadzade L. 2013. Investigating the Relationship between Self-Efficacy, Cognitive and Metacognitive

Strategies, and Academic Self-Handicapping with Academic Achievement in Male High School Students in the Tribes of Fars Province. J. Life Sci. Biomed. 3(1): 27-

34.

Journal homepage: http://jlsb.science-line.com/

34

Document Outline

- ABSTRACT
- Keywords:
- INTRODUCTION

- MATERIALS AND METHODS

- 1. Self-efficacy Scale

- 2. Cognitive and metacognitive strategies scale

- 3. The academic self-handicapping scale

- Academic achievement: St

- RESULTS

- First hypothesis:

- Table 1. The Pearson correlation coefficient between self-efficacy and academic achievement

- Second hypothesis: Th

- Table 2. The Pearson correlation coefficients among cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and academic achievement

- Hypothesis 3:

- Table 3. The Pearson correlation coefficient between academic self-handicapping and academic achievement

- Table 4. The results of regression analysis for predictive variables

- Hypothesis 4:

- Table 5. Results of one-way ANOVA for academic self-efficacy with regard to students’ fields of study and grade

- Hypothesis 5:

- Table 6. Results of One-way ANOVA for cognitive strategies with regard to students’ fields of study and grade

- Table 7. Results of one-way ANOVA for metacognitive strategies with regard to students’ fields of study and grade

- Hypothesis 6: F

- Table 8. Results of one-way ANOVA for self-handicapping with regard to students’ fields of study and grade

- DISCUSSION

- REFERENCES

Table of Contents

- ABSTRACT
- Keywords:
- INTRODUCTION

- MATERIALS AND METHODS

- 1. Self-efficacy Scale

- 2. Cognitive and metacognitive strategies scale

- 3. The academic self-handicapping scale

- Academic achievement: St

- RESULTS

- First hypothesis:

- Table 1. The Pearson correlation coefficient between self-efficacy and academic achievement

- Second hypothesis: Th

- Table 2. The Pearson correlation coefficients among cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and academic achievement

- Hypothesis 3:

- Table 3. The Pearson correlation coefficient between academic self-handicapping and academic achievement

- Table 4. The results of regression analysis for predictive variables

- Hypothesis 4:

- Table 5. Results of one-way ANOVA for academic self-efficacy with regard to students’ fields of study and grade

- Hypothesis 5:

- Table 6. Results of One-way ANOVA for cognitive strategies with regard to students’ fields of study and grade

- Table 7. Results of one-way ANOVA for metacognitive strategies with regard to students’ fields of study and grade

- Hypothesis 6: F

- Table 8. Results of one-way ANOVA for self-handicapping with regard to students’ fields of study and grade

- DISCUSSION

- REFERENCES