Acting-out preventivo

The first phase of the research design is a survey. Surveys offer a number of advantages in data collection, noted below

• The opportunity to capture a large number of participants

• Relatively cheap and easy to reproduce

• Consistency in addressing the population - the purpose and instructions can be written

• Ease of administration

• Potential to reduce researcher bias-each participant receives the same questions in the same sequence

• Offers anonymity to participants – reduces risk of fear/embarrassment

• May be analysed statistically

• Participant familiarity with survey method

(Adapated from Burns, 2000; Walliman, 2011; Anderson, 2009).

The survey is based on an existing instrument which has been adapted for this purpose, with the addition of questions relating to biographical data, and a scale to determine skills, designed for this

88

study. A copy of the survey is included in this thesis (Appendix 9), and details of each section noted below.

3.6.1 Adapting the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

The focus of the questionnaire is to gather students’ perceptions about their self-efficacy, self- regulated learning and skills. Measuring self-efficacy has attracted much debate in literature (Atta et al, 2013; Adams, 2004; Lane et al, 2003; Pajares, 1996) as has assessing students’ learning strategies (Pintrich et al, 1990; Zimmerman, 2008) and employability skills (Raybould et al, 2005; Rothwell et al, 2007; Tomlinson, 2008). As noted in the previous chapter, tools exist which incorporate measures for self-efficacy and self-regulated learning, specifically the MSLQ, which have been used extensively in research. This instrument was adapted for this study for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the MSLQ is underpinned by a view of motivation and learning strategies as dynamic and determined by the student, which corresponds with the research proposition, informed by the literature (Dweck, 1999) that self- efficacy is not fixed but may change. Secondly, the MSLQ has been used extensively to address students’ deployment of learning strategies and the impact on students of the courses they undertake (see Appendix 7 for examples).

Thirdly, the tool was designed to be used flexibly, hence its adoption for this study, and the decision to develop, and incorporate, an additional scale to address skills. In communication with Professor Bill McKeachie, (one of the MSLQ authors), consent was given to use the MSLQ and further, to adapt the tool for this research study.

A number of instruments had been considered, in particular, the New General Self Efficacy Scale but rejected, mindful of the criticism of self- efficacy measures as too general to be of value, for example in attempting to measure people’s confidence in their ability to do something, without identifying what that thing is (Pajares, 1996). Similarly, Bandura (2006) notes the limited value in a

89

‘one size fits all’ measures of general self-efficacy since items are not related to a domain of functioning. The MSLQ examines students’ motivation and learning strategies in relation to their programme of study. The survey is a self-report, the culmination of 5 years of research, into student motivational orientation and learning strategies.

The MSLQ comprises 15 scales. The first section comprises 31 items exploring students’ goals, beliefs and anxieties, the second section examines learning strategies, including study management. Scale scores are constructed by taking the mean of items which make up the scale.

The MSQL Scales are presented in Fig. 10, noting where any have been adapted:

It was decided to incorporate the entire MSLQ into the survey designed for this study, in order to retain integrity as far as possible. Following Easterby-Smith et al (2008) and Gill et al (2010) slight changes were made to make it more relevant to the audience.

Fig 10 Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

Intrinsic Goal orientation concerns the student’s perception of engagement as a result of the desire to learn Extrinsic Goal Orientation relates to the student’s perception of their

participation as driven by external influences, for example, reward.

Task Value explores the student’s evaluation of what they

are doing as oppose to why they are doing it. Control of Learning Beliefs relates to the perception that achievement is

determined by personal endeavour

Self-Efficacy for Learning and Performance Assesses performance expectations and judgments about ability to accomplish a task.

Test Anxiety The scale relates to the impact negative

thoughts and physical responses may have on performance. Two of the five items in this scale were omitted, as irrelevant to postgraduate students.

Elaboration explores the ability to build connections

between new information and existing knowledge.

Organisation examines ability to collate and structure

90

Critical Thinking looks at students’ responses as to how they apply previous knowledge to new situations, and their critical evaluation of new material presented,

Self-Regulation focuses on students’ perception of the process of learning and the steps they take to check and correct their learning as they progress with a task

Rehearsal The scale has been omitted as the items explore

very basis recitation activities which are not relevant, and may serve to undermine the perceived relevance of the survey to a postgraduate population.

Resource Management Addresses practical skills in managing

resources

Effort Regulation refers to perseverance.

Time and Study Environment examines planning and focus

Peer Learning and Help Seeking refer to collaboration strategies and the extent to which students actively seek support from colleagues and lecturers

Since the scale was developed for younger college (undergraduate) students some of the language was altered, for example the word class became lecture.

The decision to focus on two scales for analysis (highlighted above) was based on their relevance to this study. Other scales were considered and rejected as either replicating the themes already incorporated and/or worded in a way which would be irrelevant to the audience. In sum, the MSLQ is a robust tool which has been subject to considerable testing to assess validity and reliability, and as such the original form of the questionnaire has been deployed as far as is possible, though some modifications were made, appropriate to the population, and requirements of the study

3.6.2 Developing the Skills Scale

The skills scale (Fig. 11) has been informed by a critical review of the employability literature. As noted in Chapter 2 a range of studies exist into employability, albeit mainly in the undergraduate

91

area (Bennett, 2009; Archer et al, 2008; Knight et al, 2002). The development of the skills scale for this study is rooted in the literature. The comparison of frameworks which focuses on skills (Fig 4) presented in Chapter 2, highlight a range of skills relating to employability. These skills have been adapted and developed to inform the items for this scale. Each item in the scale below is labelled (A-J) to indicate from where in the literature (See Fig 5) it has been developed.

In order to validate the content, items are phrased to reflect the construct, thus as self-efficacy is concerned with perceived capability, then items are presented in terms of ‘am’ and ‘can’ rather than ‘will’ or ‘may’ (Bandura, 2006). Thus, this relates to the idea that programmes are created with the management criteria defined from and with support of industry. It should be noted here that within the university framework the practice is that employers are involved in the development of programmes at approval, and re-approval stage.

The MSQL items address many of the Programmes’ generic management outcomes. The skills scale captures student belief more explicitly about practitioner related requirements, specifically knowledge and understanding and occupational competencies. The skills scale comprises ten items, and has been scattered through the questionnaire. In line with the original MSLQ, scale scores are constructed taking the means of items which make up the scale.

Fig.11 The Skills Scale

Skills Scale Items