Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: * The Structural Rel

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: * The Structural Rel"

한솔 금
5 years ago
Views:

1 Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: * The Structural Relationship among Autonomy Support, Social Support, Achievement Emotion and Academic Achievement of College Students Purpose: The purpose of this research study is to explore structural relationships among autonomy support, social support, achievement emotion and academic achievement of college students. And to examine whether autonomy support and social support influence academic achievement through achievement emotion. Method: We used the structural equation model and the Sobel-test to verify the mediating effects. Results: The results indicated that autonomy support and social support provide positive effects with positive emotions. And achievement emotions have significant effects on academic achievement. Conclusion: This study shows that autonomy support and social support have influences on the achievement emotions and academic achievement. Therefore, it is meaningful to reveal the importance of environmental factors of achievement emotion through this study. Key words : Autonomy support, Social support, Achievement emotion, Academic achievement * Corresponding Author: Kang, Seung-hee. Pukyong University, Dept. of Lifelong Education & Counseling, 45, Yongsoro, Busan, Korea, sheekang@pknu.ac.kr

2 ....,,,, (Meyer & Turner, 2002; Op't Eynde & Turner, 2006)., (,, 2014;, 2014; Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2009). (,, 2011;,, 2012,,, 2013; Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld & Perry, 2011; Villavicencio & Bernardo, 2013).,, (, 2013; Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld, & Perry, 2011; Putwain, Baker, Symess, & Pekrun, 2018). Pekrun (achievement emotion). - (Pekrun, 2006)., (Pekrun, 2006). 3,, -, -.,,,,,,.,,,,,,,.. Pekrun(2006) -,,. (, ), (, ), -.,,

3 , (Pekrun, Frenzel, Goetz, & Perry, 2007).... (Grolnich & Ryan, 1989), (Black & Deci, 2000; Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 1994). (,, 2014; Roth & Assor, 2012).,,, (, 2012; Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004)., (, 1985),., (Ahmed, Minnaert, Werf, & Kuyper, 2010; Wentzel, 1998)., (,, 2014;,,, 2016). (, 2009).. (,, 2015;,, 2017;,, 2014;, 2012;, 2013; Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2009).,,,,,,, (Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2009).,, (,, 2015;,, 2017)..,. Pekrun(2006) -,

4 (,, 2015;, ; 2015;,, 2012;,, 2013;, 2012;, 2014). 3% (,, 2017),.,.,,.,..,,,,?,?,, < -1>. Pekrun(2006) -. -,.,. (,,,, 2011), 2.

5 , (11 ~12 ),.,,,. < -1>. % ) 측정도구 (1) 성취정서척도,,, (2011) (Korean-Achievement Emotion Questionnaire: K-AEQ). K-AEQ 3,, 9..,,,,,,,. 75, Likert 5.. Cronbach s α

6 .80,.77,.73,.91,.85,.89,.92,.93. (2) 사회적지지척도 (1985).,,, 4. 25, Likert 5.. Cronbach s α.85,.90,.90,.93,. (3) 자율성지지척도 Willians Deci(1996) (The Learning Climate Questionnaire, LCQ), (2011). 6. Likert 7,. Cronbach α.93. (4) 학업성취. 2) 자료처리.,.,.., Pearson.,, χ 2,, RMSEA, TLI, CFI. Sobel Test. SPSS 23, AMOS 23.

7 . 1) 기술통계,. < -1>. 5.12(SD=1.12). 3.81(SD=.57), 3.91(SD=.60), 3.90(SD=.64), 3.83(SD=.65), 3.60(SD=.61). 3.26(SD=.52), 3.44(SD=.61), 3.43(SD=.62), 3.06(SD=.56). 2.45(SD=.66), 2.63(SD=.65) 2.63(SD=.81), 2.37(SD=.71), 2.31(SD=.81), 2.26(SD=.77) (SD=.60). 3.0, 8.0~20.0 (, 2014),.03~.68,.00~1.74. M SD

8 2) 상관분석, < -2>.. r=.24(p<.001), r=.23(p<.001), r=.22(p<.001). r=-.26(p<.001), r=-.24(p<.001) r=-.17(p<.001) r=-.12(p<.001).,, *** ***.82 *** ***.74 ***.72 *** ***.79 ***.77 ***.78 *** ***.17 ***.15 ***.15 ***.19 *** ***.27 ***.26 ***.23 ***.30 ***.64 *** ***.26 ***.29 ***.18 ***.27 ***.72 ***.64 *** *** -.26 *** -.27 *** -.22 *** -.30 *** -.40 *** -.53 *** -.33 *** *** -.24 *** -.23 *** -.20 *** -.26 *** -.15 *** -.35 *** -.15 ***.69 *** *** -.34 *** -.30 *** -.24 *** -.32 *** -.15 *** -.39 *** -.25 ***.61 ***.77 *** *** -.30 *** -.29 *** -.23 *** -.35 *** -.38 *** -.56 *** -.41 ***.79 ***.74 ***.78 *** *** -.25 *** -.26 *** -.24 *** -.28 *** -.53 *** -.60 *** -.42 ***.85 ***.60 ***.58 ***.77 *** ***.22 ***.24 *** -.17 *** *** -.26 *** -.24 *** *** p< , 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8., 9., 10., 11., 12., 13., 14.,,. < -3>. 1 χ (df=30, p<.001), χ 2 /df TLI=.982, CFI=.988 (.90), RMSEA

9 . 1 χ (df=31, p<.001), χ 2 /df TLI=.982, CFI=.988 (.90), RMSEA χ 2, (, 2000). χ 2 χ 2 ( χ 2 (1, N=422)=1.468) 1 1. χ 2 (p) df χ 2 /df RMSEA(90% ) TLI CFI χ 2 df (.000) ( ) (.000) ( ) χ (df=30, p<.001), χ 2 /df TLI=.973, CFI=.982 (.90 ), RMSEA

10 χ (df=32, p<.001), χ 2 /df TLI=.974, CFI=.982 (.90), RMSEA χ 2, (, 2000). χ 2 χ 2 ( χ 2 =3.435, N=422)) 2 2. χ 2 (p) df χ 2 /df RMSEA(90% ) TLI CFI χ 2 df (.000) ( ) (.000) ( ) < -5>. 1, (β =.213, p<.001) (β=.237, p<.001). (β=-.131, p<.05). (β =.320, p<.001). 2

11 , (β=-.140, p<.01) (β=-.300, p<.001),. (β =-.173, p<.001). 1 2 S.E. C.R..094 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * ** *** *** *** *** *** / 1 ***.952 /.978 *** *** *** *** *** *** p<.001 < -6>. 1 (β=.213) (β=.237). β=-.131 β=.068 β=-.063.

12 β=.076. β= (β=-.140) (β=-.300). β=.024. β =.052. β= (β) (β) (β) Sobel-test, < -7>. (Zab=3.78, p<.001), (Zab=4.09, p<.001). (Zab=2.15, p<.05) (Zab=2.99, p<.01). Zab 3.78 *** 4.09 *** 2.15 * 2.99 ** * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

13 .,,,,..,,....,,..,,.. (,,, 2016)., (, 2009; Ahmed, Minnaert, Werf, & Kuyper, 2010; Wentzel, 1998). (, 2009; Ahmed, Minnaert, Werf, & Kuyper, 2010; Wentzel, 1998),.,,.,, (, 2010;,, 2014)., (Roth & Assor, 2012).,,..

14 (, 2004).,,.,,.,.(, 2014;,, 2014).,.,..,, (,, 2015;,, 2014;, 2013; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2009; Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld & Perry, 2011)., (, 2013). (Putwain, Baker, Symess, & Pekrun, 2018). (,, 2013)..,, (Pekrun, 2006)., (,, 2012).,...,,..,

15 .,,,...,..,.,.,.,. (2010). :,. (2), , (2015).. (1), (2014)..., (2015)., :. (10), , (2013)... (1), (2012).,. (1), , (2014).,. (2), , (2011).,

16 . (3), ,,, (2011). (K-AEQ). (4), , (2017).. (1), (1985)... (2014). :, (2015).. (3), , (2012).. (2), ,, (2014). -. (3) , (2013).. (4), (2011).,,.., (2017).,,,. (11), , (2014)., :. (4), ,, (2016). :. (1), (2004)... (2009).. (3), (2012).,,. (4), (2013).,. (4), (2014).,,. (2), (2000)..

17 (1), Ahmed, W., Minnaert, A., van der Werf, G., & Kuyper, H. (2010). Perceived social support and early adolescents' achievement: The mediational roles of motivational beliefs and emotions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(1), Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructor's autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of parent motivational practices in children's academic intrinsic motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of motivational beliefs in conceptual change, In Limon., M., & Mason (Eds), Reconsidering conceptual change Issues in theory and practice(pp ). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Discovering emotion in classroom motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), Op't Eynde, P., & Turner, J. (2006). Focusing on the Complexity of emotion issues in academic learning: A dynamical component systems approach. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), Pekrun. R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in student's learning and performance: The achievement emotions questionnaire(aeq). Comtemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotion in student's self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), Pekrun. R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goal and achievement emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), Pekrun. R., Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control-value theory of achievement emotion: An integrative approach to emotion in education. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds), Emotion in education(pp.13-36). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Putwain, D., Baker, S., Symes, W., & Pekrun, R. (2018). Reciprocal relations between student's academic enjoyment, boredom, and achievement over time. Learning and Instruction, 54(April),

18 Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, d., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing high school student's engagement by increasing their teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), Roth, G., & Assor, A. (2012). The costs of parental pressure to express emotion: Conditional regard and autonomy support as predictors of emotion regulation and intimacy. Journal of Adolescence, 35(4), Villavicencio, F. T., & Bernardo, A. B. I. (2013). Positive academic emotions moderate the relationship between self-regulation and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), : / : / :

19 ,, :,,.. :, Sobel test. :,,,.,. :,..

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp DOI: 3 * Effects of 9th

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.357-378 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.29.2.201906.357 3 * Effects of 9th Grade Students Participation in Career Curriculum Cluster