Jaeyun Han , Pilvi Peura , Calah J. Ford , Amanda R. Butz , Ellen L. Usher
{"title":"机遇与障碍:利用特征分析研究青少年早期阅读自我效能感的来源","authors":"Jaeyun Han , Pilvi Peura , Calah J. Ford , Amanda R. Butz , Ellen L. Usher","doi":"10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>When investigating the sources of self-efficacy, researchers have historically focused on learners' perceptions of positive (e.g., direct & vicarious successes, encouragement & praise) and negative (e.g., stress, anxiety) experiences. These approaches may not capture other types of efficacy-relevant experiences. The purpose of this study was to investigate how early adolescent readers perceive and integrate diverse types of efficacy-relevant information. Students (<em>N</em> = 1804) responded to items related to four hypothesized sources of self-efficacy that reflected opportunities and obstacles in reading. Latent profile analysis indicated four profiles related to students' efficacy-relevant reading experiences. These profiles were examined in relation to students' gender, socioeconomic status, grade level, and race/ethnicity. Students exposed to mostly positive sources of information showed higher levels of reading self-efficacy and reading achievement than those reporting more exposure to negative sources of information. Results highlight the importance of providing opportunities and minimizing obstacles to support adolescents' reading self-efficacy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48336,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Individual Differences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Opportunities and obstacles: Using profile analysis to examine sources of reading self-efficacy in early adolescence\",\"authors\":\"Jaeyun Han , Pilvi Peura , Calah J. Ford , Amanda R. Butz , Ellen L. Usher\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102573\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>When investigating the sources of self-efficacy, researchers have historically focused on learners' perceptions of positive (e.g., direct & vicarious successes, encouragement & praise) and negative (e.g., stress, anxiety) experiences. These approaches may not capture other types of efficacy-relevant experiences. The purpose of this study was to investigate how early adolescent readers perceive and integrate diverse types of efficacy-relevant information. Students (<em>N</em> = 1804) responded to items related to four hypothesized sources of self-efficacy that reflected opportunities and obstacles in reading. Latent profile analysis indicated four profiles related to students' efficacy-relevant reading experiences. These profiles were examined in relation to students' gender, socioeconomic status, grade level, and race/ethnicity. Students exposed to mostly positive sources of information showed higher levels of reading self-efficacy and reading achievement than those reporting more exposure to negative sources of information. Results highlight the importance of providing opportunities and minimizing obstacles to support adolescents' reading self-efficacy.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48336,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learning and Individual Differences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Learning and Individual Differences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608024001663\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608024001663","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Opportunities and obstacles: Using profile analysis to examine sources of reading self-efficacy in early adolescence
When investigating the sources of self-efficacy, researchers have historically focused on learners' perceptions of positive (e.g., direct & vicarious successes, encouragement & praise) and negative (e.g., stress, anxiety) experiences. These approaches may not capture other types of efficacy-relevant experiences. The purpose of this study was to investigate how early adolescent readers perceive and integrate diverse types of efficacy-relevant information. Students (N = 1804) responded to items related to four hypothesized sources of self-efficacy that reflected opportunities and obstacles in reading. Latent profile analysis indicated four profiles related to students' efficacy-relevant reading experiences. These profiles were examined in relation to students' gender, socioeconomic status, grade level, and race/ethnicity. Students exposed to mostly positive sources of information showed higher levels of reading self-efficacy and reading achievement than those reporting more exposure to negative sources of information. Results highlight the importance of providing opportunities and minimizing obstacles to support adolescents' reading self-efficacy.
期刊介绍:
Learning and Individual Differences is a research journal devoted to publishing articles of individual differences as they relate to learning within an educational context. The Journal focuses on original empirical studies of high theoretical and methodological rigor that that make a substantial scientific contribution. Learning and Individual Differences publishes original research. Manuscripts should be no longer than 7500 words of primary text (not including tables, figures, references).