EFFECT OF THE PHYSICS STUDENTS MOTIVATION ON THEIR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AT MASTER LEVEL

Submitted By: Muhammad Javaid Akhtar Usman Shafi 09-319 09-334

Master of Science Education (2009-2011) Submitted as requirement for partial fulfillment of Master of Science Education Institute of Education & Research University of the Punjab Lahore,Pakistan October, 2011

DEDICATION
I dedicate my each and every effort to Almighty Allah, the Lord of Lords AND Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) who introduced us to our creator and who is educator of all mankind. It would be obligatory on my part to state as well as express my appreciation to my father, mother, family members, dear and near brothers and sisters whose moral support always encouraged me. Moreover it is dedicated to my entire respectable teacher, friends and all those who directly or indirectly help me in the completion of the study.

Finally I dedicate and owe greatly to this humble effort especially to dearest mother whose prayers and inspiration prove a beam of light in each and every moment of my life. Moreover, without her loveable, favorable, valuable and sympathetic prayers, it would not have been easy for me to complete this work.

ACKNOWLEGMENT
Thanks to Almighty Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful, all-Embracing, All knowing, who provided me with this opportunity, courage and ability to complete this humble contribution towards knowledge. And all respects are Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) the greatest human educator to whom we love more than anything in the world. It would not have been possible for me to complete this study without the able guidance, encouragement, advice, cooperation and help of Dr. Rizwan Akram Rana chairman of the research committee, I found him always willing to listen to the problems and provide help and guidance, despite his multifarious professional engagements and pursuits. I am deeply indebted to Mr. Aasim Nazir member of the research committee for permitting me to undertake this study and for providing his valued advice and support at all stage during the study. I want to express my profound thanks to worthy Ms. Afshan Mumtaz, Mr. Imran Sarwar, Mobin-Ul-Islam (Ph.D. sholar) & Shabbir Saleemi (Ph.D. sholar) for their care, scholarly guidance and golden piece of advices during the completion of this thesis project. I also feel pleasure to acknowledge the help two of my sincere and dear friends Mr. Muhammad Mustaqeem Malik, & Faisal Kaleem, especially credit goes to Mr. Muhammad Mohsin Baig(M.Com (Hons.)) who devoted himself a lot during the completion of my thesis. M.J.A. U.S.(usmanshafi2009@gmail.com

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
The chapter outlines the statement of the problem, objectives of study, research questions/null hypothesis, significance of study and delimitations and limitations of current study. Physics is the mother of all sciences. Physics bring into play the dumb and dull equations of mathematics. This modern era of science and technology in which we are living is, in some or other way, based on the laws of physics. So it is very essential that we have continuous throw in of committed physicians. Master level physics students are trained to be physics scientists. So they must comprise a high motivation. Motivation refers to a student's eagerness, need, desire and compulsion to participate in, and be successful in the learning process (Bomia et al., 1997). Middleton and Spanias (1999) viewed motivation as reasons individuals have for behaving in a given situation. A more comprehensive definition was provided by Ames (1992) who stated that motivation exists as part of ones goal structures, ones beliefs about what is important and it determines whether or not one will engage in a given pursuit. Skinner and Belmont (1991) explained that students who are motivated to engage in school select tasks at the border of their competencies, initiate action when given the opportunity, and exert intense effort and concentration in the implementation of learning tasks; they show generally positive emotions during ongoing action, including enthusiasm, optimism, curiosity, and interest. As indicated by Dickinson and Butt (1989), students will find a task more enjoyable when they have moderately high probability of success as compared tone with a lower chance of success.

Motivation contributes to the ability to solve problems. Based on several problem solving models, ONeil & Schacter (1997) developed the CRESST model of problem solving that incorporates four elements; content understanding, problem solving strategies, metacognition and motivation. In their model, motivation comprises of three components; self efficacy, effort and worry. Several researches showed that high worry is associated with low cognitive performance (Hembree, 1988, 1990; Pajares & Urdan, 1996; Seipp, 1991). On the other hand, studies such as Wigfield and Meece (1988) showed that there is no relationship between worry and achievement. Although worry can trigger negative effects on learning, depending on the degree of worry, it could also contribute to positive antecedent to high achievement. It may trigger positive outcomes, in terms that it will drive students to work harder if their worries drive as a challenge to exhibit better performance. Effort is synonym to motivation. An individual who shows greater effort is considered to be motivated, whilst one who is motivated will also show greater effort. In Miller, Behrens, Greene, and Newmans study (1993) findings with respect to self-regulation and academic achievement, they confirmed that self-regulated learning comprised of several components, such as cognitive strategies and effort. Bandura (1993) and Schunk (1984) posited that effort is directly influenced by self-efficacy and directly affecting skill or performance. Bandura (1994) defines self-efficacy as peoples beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives. Similar to Banduras definition, Garcia et al. (1991) defined self -efficacy as self-appraisal of ones ability to accomplish a task and ones confidence in possessing the skills needed to

perform that task. Several researches (Malpass, O'Neil and Hocevar, 1999; Mone, Baker & Jefferies, 1995; Wolf & Smith, 1995) have shown that self-efficacy has a high positive correlation with test performance outcomes. Self efficacy is a continuous process throughout life. According to Bandura (1992), the growth of self-efficacy does not end during youth, but continues to evolve throughout life as people acquire new skills, experiences, and understanding. Bandura (1994) characterizes individual with a strong sense of self-efficacy as one who (i) view challenging problems as tasks to be mastered, (ii) develop deeper interest in the activities in which they participate, (iii) form a stronger sense of commitment to their interests and activities, and (iv) recover quickly from setbacks and disappointments. Bandura added that people with a weak sense of self-efficacy (i) avoids challenging tasks, (ii) believes that difficult tasks and situations are beyond their capabilities, (iii) focuses on personal failings and negative outcomes, and (iv) quickly loses confidence in personal abilities. Bandura (1993) posited that "self-efficacy beliefs contribute to motivation in several ways: They determine the goals people set for themselves, how much effort they expend, how long they persevere in the face of difficulties, and their resilience to failures" (p. 131). There are many studies conducted to study the effect of motivation on mathematics achievement. But only a few studies related to physics students motivation level are conducted. According to Anusak Hongsa-Ngiam (2006) Students interest in physics seems to be decreasing at all levels of education in most countries. Physics is a very important branch of science that considers physical phenomena. Physics is the oldest and most basic of the sciences is the science of matter and energy and of the relation between them (Mulligan, 1991, p.1). Physics includes studies of phenomena such as light, sound, mechanics and thermodynamics and develops models of these phenomena, many of which are mathematically based. There could be many factors for
6

this cause. While the world is developing rapidly through the application of science and technology, there is a problem of the students diminishing interest in physics, at all levels of education (Fischer & Horstendahl, 1997). As Motivation play a more important role in achievement of any field, if we are to maintain students interest in the subject, and to make significant progress in the field of physics, motivational level of students of physics students should be high enough. This study seeks to identify master level physics students motivation and its effect on physics achievement. 1.1 Statement of the Problem The problem investigated in this study was to identify effect of physics students motivation on their academic achievement at master level. 1.2 Objectives of the Study The study seeks to determine: i. ii. The Self efficacy of physics student in public & private universities of Lahore at master level The Level of effort of physics student in public & private universities of Lahore at master level iii. iv. v. The worry of physics student in public & private universities of Lahore at master level The motivation of physics student in public & private universities of Lahore at master level The effect of physics students self efficacy on their cgpa in public & private universities of Lahore at master level. vi. The effect of physics students level of effort on their cgpa in public & private universities of Lahore at master level.

vii.

The effect of physics students worry on their cgpa in public & private universities of Lahore at master level.

viii.

The effect of physics students motivation on their cgpa in public & private universities of Lahore at master level.

ix.

The difference in physics students self efficacy with respect to gender in public & private universities of Lahore at master level.

x.

The difference in physics students level of effort with respect to gender in public & private universities of Lahore at master level.

xi.

The difference in physics students worry with respect to gender in public & private universities of Lahore at master level.

xii.

The difference in physics students motivation with respect to gender in public & private universities of Lahore at master level.

xiii.

To provide feedback for further research related to this topic in public & private universities of Lahore at master level.

1.3 Null Hypotheses H01: There is no significant mean difference between male and female university physics students CGPA at master level. H02: There is no significant mean difference between male and female university physics students self efficacy at master level. H03: There is no significant mean difference between male and female university physics students level of effort at master level. H04: There is no significant mean difference between male and female university physics students worry at master level.
8

H05: There is no significant mean difference between male and female university physics students motivation at master level. H06: There is no significant effect of self efficacy on university physics students CGPA at master level. H07: There is no significant effect of level of effort on university physics students CGPA at master level. H08: There is no significant effect of worry on university physics students CGPA at master level. H09: There is no significant effect of overall motivational level on university physics students CGPA at master level. H10: There is no significant relationship between self efficacy and level of effort of university physics students at master level. H11: There is no significant relationship between self efficacy and worry of university physics students at master level. H12: There is no significant relationship between level of effort and worry of university physics students at master level.

1.4 Significance of the Study The main purpose of this study is to measure the motivational level of master level physics students. To assess the motivational level of students, self-efficacy, level of effort and worry towards physics of students are measured. Also the effect of motivational level of students on the achievement in physics is studied. This study will help researchers to label students with higher self efficacy, so they work effectively and may prove helpful in future for improvement in
9

physics, to identify students with prominent level of effort, so they will be supportive and make more effort for progress in the field of physics, to identify students with low worry towards physics, so they could work without difficulty in advance level physics and to identify students with high level of motivation towards physics, so they may work enthusiastically for development in science and technology. 1.5 Delimitations of the Study Due to socio-economic factor, time and accessibility limitation, the researchers had delimited the study to master level physics students of public and private universities of Lahore.

10

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, we will take a review of studies previously done related to our study topics. We will try to define all important aspects of our study and mutual relationship between them. Motivation occurs when a leaner does something to earn external rewards. Motivation is to engage in an activity as a mean to an end. Individuals who are motivated work on tasks because they believe that participation will result in desirable outcomes such as a reward, teacher praise, or avoidance of punishment. Motivation of any person is influenced by many factors. In this study only three factors effecting motivation i.e. self efficacy, level of effort any worry were studied. 2.1 Self efficacy Self-efficacy is a term used in psychology, roughly corresponding to a person's belief in their own competence. It has been defined as the belief that one is capable of performing in a certain manner to attain certain goals. It is believed that our personalized ideas of self-efficacy affect our social interactions in almost every way. Understanding how to promote the development of selfefficacy is a vitally important goal for positive psychology because it can lead to living a more productive and happy life. Here are some theoretical approaches towards self efficacy: 2.1.1 Theoretical Approaches 2.1.1.1 Social Cognitive Theory

11

Social cognitive theory stemmed out of work in the area of social learning theory proposed by N.E. Miller and J.Dollard in 1941. Psychologist Albert Bandura has defined self-efficacy as one's belief in one's ability to succeed in specific situations. One's sense of self-efficacy can play a major role in how one approaches goals, tasks, and challenges. The concept of self-efficacy lies at the center of Banduras social cognitive theory, which emphasizes the role of observational learning and social experience in the development of personality. The main concept in social cognitive theory is that an individuals actions and reaction in almost every situation is influenced by the actions which that individual has observed in others. People observe others acting within an environment whether natural or social. These observations are remembered by an individual and help shape social behaviors and cognitive processes. This theoretical approach proposes the idea that by changing how an individual learns their behaviors in the early stages of mental development could have a large impact on their mental processes in later stages of development. Since Self-efficacy is developed from external experiences and self-perception and is influential in determining the outcome of many events, it is an important aspect of social cognitive theory. Self-efficacy represents the personal perception of external social factors. According to Bandura's theory, people with high self-efficacy that is, those who believe they can perform well, are more likely to view difficult tasks as something to be mastered rather than something to be avoided. 2.1.1.2 Social Learning Theory Albert Bandura (1977) expanded on the Rotter's idea, as well as earlier work by Miller & Dollard (1941), and is related to social learning theories. This psychological theory describes the acquisition of socially valuable skills that are developed exclusively or primarily in a social group. Social learning depends on group dynamics and how individuals either succeed or fail at
12

dynamic interactions. Social learning promotes the development of individual emotional and practical skills as well as the perception of oneself and the acceptance of others with their individual competencies and limitations. It considers that people learn from one another, including such concepts as observational learning, imitation, and modeling. Self-efficacy levels reflect a persons understanding of what skills they can offer in a group setting. 2.1.1.3 Self-Concept Theory The most influential and expressive voice in self-concept theory was that of Carl Rogers (1947) who introduced an entire system of helping built around the importance of the self. Self-Concept Theory Seeks to explain how people interpret and perceive their own existence from cues they receive from external sources. Unlike Social learning and Social Cognitive Theory, self-concept theory focuses on how these perceptions are organized and how they are dynamically active throughout life. Many of the successes and failures that people experience in many areas of life are closely related to the ways that they have learned to view themselves and their relationships with others. It is also becoming clear that self-concept has at least three major qualities of interest to behavioral therapist: (1) it is learned, (2) it is organized, and (3) it is dynamic. Selfconcept is learned and, from what we can tell, no one is born with a self-concept. Self-concept organization refers to the way we apply experiences to our selves; we often develop ideas based on multiple experiences. Self-concept dynamics refers to the idea that our perception changes at all times and is not fixed at a certain age. 2.1.1.4 Attribution Theory Attribution is a concept in social psychology referring to how individuals explain causes of behavior and events. Attribution theory is an umbrella term for various theories that attempt to explain these processes. Fritz Heider first proposed a theory of attribution The Psychology of
13

Interpersonal Relations (1958). It was further developed by others such as Harold Kelley and Bernard Weiner. Attribution theory focuses on how people attribute the cause of an event and how those beliefs interact with internal perception of themselves. Attribution Theory defines three major elements of cause: Locus, Stability, and Control ability. 1. Locus - determining the location of the causeinternal (dispositional) or external (situational) to the person Influential to feelings of self-esteem and self-efficacy If success or failure is attributed to internal factors, success will lead to pride and increased self-efficacy, whereas failure will diminish self-esteem and negatively affect self-efficacy 2. Stability - whether the cause is static or dynamic over time closely related to expectations and goals in the future If students attribute their failure to stable factors such as the difficulty of the subject, they will expect to fail in that subject in the future 3. Controllability - whether the person is actively in control of the cause Related to emotions such as anger, pity, gratitude, or shame Conflict can arise if we feel we have not done our best; guilt If we attribute our own abilities to success we will increase self-efficacy Failing at a task we cannot control can lead to shame or anger. 2.1.2 Self efficacy and academic achievement Academic self-efficacy refers to a students belief that he or she can successfully engage in and complete course-specific academic tasks, such as accomplishing course outcomes, demonstrating competency skills used in the course, satisfactorily completing assignments, passing the course, and meeting the requirements to continue on in his or her major. Various empirical inquiries have also been conducted attempting to measure academic self-efficacy. Much research shows that self-efficacy influences academic motivation, learning, and achievement (Pajares, 1996;

14

Schunk, 1995). Researchers have also reported that high ability students have stronger selfefficacy and are more accurately calibrated, that is, that they have more accurate self-perceptions (e.g., Zimmerman et al., 1992). Self-efficacy beliefs have been found to be sensitive to subtle changes in students performance context, to interact with self-regulated learning processes, and to mediate students academic achievement (Pintrich, 1999; Zimmerman, 2000). Similarly, research has consistently shown that self-efficacy is positively associated with general academic achievement (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006; Ferla, Valcke, & Schuyten, 2008). On the aspect of learning achievement, many confirmatory studies indicated the significant impacts of self-efficacy on the learning achievement. For example, Lee (2002) explored the impacts of multi-media instruction and self-efficacy on the learning achievement on the participants of physics and chemistry for junior high school students, and found that the students learning achievements were indeed influenced by self-efficacy. Hsu (2000) also indicated that there exists a significantly positive correlation between college students self-efficacy on the subject of biology and learning achievement. In Lius study (1992), appositive correlation between self-efficacy and academic achievement was also found. Bandura (1982) emphasized that the one with higher self-efficacy would have higher confidence level when encountering difficulties and it was the expecting confidence that easily encourages better performance. Because self-efficacy is the important factor of behavioral performance, task performance or personal achievement should have direct relation-ship with self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the main construct in Bandura's social- cognitive which refers to students beliefs in their ability to master new skills and tasks, often in a specific academic domain such as mathematics (Pajares and Miller, 1994). Students' self-efficacy is often viewed as the more influential variable on achievement. Findings from empirical research indicate that self-efficacy is one of the constructs

15

most highly related to achievement (Pajares and Miller, 1994). Higher self-efficacy correlates with, and may even lead to, higher achievement; just as lower self-efficacy relates to lower achievement. Students with strong senses of self-efficacy tendency involve in challenging tasks, invest more effort and persistence, and show excellent academic performance in comparison with students who lack such confidence (Bong, 2001). In addition, self-efficacy is especially important when students facing tasks difficulties. Students with strong self-efficacy are less likely to abandon than are those who are has doubts about their abilities (Alderman 2004). 2.1.3 Effect of gender difference on self efficacy The relationship between gender and self-efficacy has been a focus of research. In general, researchers report that boys and men tend to be more confident than girls and women in academic areas related to mathematics, science, and technology (Pajares & Miller, 1994; Wigfield, Eccles, & Pintrich, 1996), despite the fact that achievement differences in these areas either are diminishing or have disappeared (Eisenberg, Martin, & Fabes, 1996). Conversely, in areas related to language arts, male and female students exhibit similar confidence despite the fact that the achievement of girls typically is higher. Researchers have observed that students typically view such areas as mathematics, science, and technology as male domains (Eisenberg et al., 1996). Study by Md.Yunus, A. S. and Wan Ali, Z. A. (2009) found female students have higher self-efficacy 2.1.4 Physics self efficacy A very few studies are conducted to check influence of self efficacy on the achievement of physics students. But not a single study related to physics self-efficacy of master level students was found. However a few studies related to check self efficacy of physics students at lower

16

levels were conducted. When students comprehend the relationships in scientific study methods and when they observe things, do experiment and research things, it enables them to determine an appropriate method to gain an attitude towards real life problems and to solve them efficiently. Carrying out more laboratory activities enables students to understand the nature of physics and to form a connection between concepts and real life (Garnett & Garnett, 1995). In the study of (Muhammad Ali Khaksar; 2008), In study, The result indicates that the students of mathematics- physics field have the divergent learning style, the students of empirical

sciences field have assimilate learning style, and students of human sciences field have accommodate learning style. The students of mathematics- physics field have the highest selfefficacy compared to others. Significance was not seen between learning methods and selfefficacy belief and female students are in a higher level compared to male students in selfefficacy beliefs. Similarly some other studies also found significant effect of students self efficacy on their physics achievement. 2.1.5 Self efficacy and motivation People with high self-efficacy in a task are more likely to make more of an effort, and persist longer, than those with low efficacy. The stronger the self-efficacy or mastery potential, the more active the efforts. On the other hand, low self-efficacy provides an incentive to learn more about the subject. As a result, someone with a high self-efficacy may not prepare sufficiently for a task. Research indicates that self-efficacy influences academic motivation (Pajares 1996; Schunk 1995). Self-efficacy directly affects the levels of motivation and actions individuals engage. By determining what activities they are more likely to accomplish, the adult learner engages in actions they are more likely to succeed. According to Pajares (2001a), Pajares (2001b), and Schunk & Pajares (2001), research studies have demonstrated that self-efficacy affects the level
17

of motivation, learning, and achievement. The article When Self-Efficacy Negatively Relates to Motivation and Performance in a Learning Context by Vancouver and Kendall, 2006, provides an interesting view on the subject of self-efficacy and motivation. 2.2 Level of Effort Some define effort as the "total work done to achieve a particular end". This is the simplest of definitions of such a complex word. Effort is usually associated with motivation. If a student is more motivated to learn or to complete an assignment, they will more likely put in more effort to complete the task at hand. Also when it comes to effort, personal interest comes into play. If a student finds a topic particularly relevant, the more motivated they will be to learn about it, and hence, the amount of effort used will be increased. 2.2.1 Level of effort and academic achievement

Effort, along with ability, task difficulty, and luck, are all ways that students attribute their successes or failures. This can be seen more clearly through the Attribution Theory. The Attribution Theory basically gives reasons for the way students feel about their successes and failures, based on the four "causes" listed above. For example, if a student attributes failure to a cause such as ability or task difficulty, the student is likely to give up and to be less persistent when confronted with similar tasks in the future. The student feels that they are not smart enough or that the material is too hard for them. And if a student attributes failure to a cause such as effort or luck, then the student is likely to persist even if failure is a possibility. They reason that if they try harder, they can do it (Mayer, 2002, p. 254). High achievers tend to attribute failure to a lack of effort and success to effort and ability (Weiner, 1990).

18

2.2.2 Achievement Motivation Theory

The Achievement Motivation Theory rests on the belief that most persons want to achieve and experience levels of aspiration. The level of aspiration concept, stresses that people tend to want to succeed at the highest possible level while at the same time avoiding the possibility of failure. The need for achievement is increased when persons experience success. If students experience success their need for achievement will thus be strengthened. However, psychologists have observed that some females in some situations may fear success if it interferes with relationships. Contributors to Achievement Motivation Theory are John W. Atkinson and David McClelland. Psychologists have developed the Attribution Theory to explain the factors to which students attribute failure. Low achievers tend to attribute failure to a lack of ability, and success to luck. High achievers, on the other hand, tend to attribute failure to a lack of effort, and success to effort and ability. Bernard Weiner has been cited in the Journal of Educational Psychology (1990) as one of the major contributors of cognitions which include causal attribution, selfefficacy, and learned helplessness.

Biehler and Snowman (1993) mentioned two limitations of the Achievement and Attribution theories: (1) aspirations, need for achievement, fear of success, and reactions to success and failure are often difficult to observe or analyze; (2) and lack of consistency in these behaviors (p. 522).Four Causes of Success and Failure (According to the Attribution Theory by Fritz Heider, 1958):

Ability

19

When a student attributes a failure to ability they feel as though they are not smart enough, and when they succeed they feel it is because they are smart.

Effort

When a student attributes a failure to effort they feel it was because they did not try hard enough, and vice versa for when they succeed.

Task difficulty

When a student attributes a failure to task difficulty they feel that the task was too hard for them, and when they have a success they feel the material was too easy.

Luck

When a student attributes luck to a failure or success they feel as though they have either good luck or bad luck at that particular time.

So students who have effort as an attribution tend to work harder at school, as well as with external activities. They attribute their success or failure to how much effort they put into that particular activity. If they succeed, they feel that it is because they tried extremely hard and put in the effort to do well. And if they do not succeed, it is because they did not try hard enough, and lacked in effort.

2.2.3 Level of effort and motivation Thus, students who are high in intrinsic motivation are more likely to be goal oriented and put forth more effort in their academic work. In a study with middle schools students, Standage and
20

Treasure (2002) found that a high level of task orientation fosters motivation. Pintrich and Garcia (1991) believe that motivation and cognition affect learning, and that motivation and cognition are related to the quality of effort put forth in classroom learning. In the college environment, Bean and Eaton (2000) proposed that personality traits such as self-efficacy help a student persist when faced with academic challenges, and those with an internal locus of control believe they can persevere and work through challenging tasks and situations. Student engagement and the quality of effort are generally considered to be good predictors of learning and personal development (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2004). The thesis is fairly straightforward: the more students put forth effort and spend time on academic tasks, the more they tend to learn. Likewise, the more students practice and receive feedback on writing, analysis, or problem solving, the better they become (Kuh, 2005). 2.3 Worry Worry is thoughts and images of a negative nature in which mental attempts are made to avoid anticipated potential threats. As an emotion it is experienced as anxiety or concern about a real or imagined issue, usually personal issues such as health or finances or broader ones such as environmental pollution and social or technological change. Most people experience short-lived periods of worry in their lives without incident; indeed, a moderate amount of worrying may even have positive effects, if it prompts people to take precautions (e.g., fastening their seat belt or buying fire insurance) or avoid risky behaviors (e.g., angering dangerous animals, or binge drinking). One theory of anxiety by Liebert and Morris in 1967 suggests that anxiety consists of two components; worry and emotionality. Emotionality refers to physiological symptoms such as sweating, increased heart beat and raised blood pressure. Worry refers to negative self-talk that often distracts the mind from focusing on solutions to the problem at hand. For example, when
21

students become anxious during a test, they may repeatedly tell themselves they are going to fail, or they cannot remember the material, or that their teacher will become angry with them if they perform poorly. This thinking interferes with focusing on the test as the speech areas of the brain that are needed to complete test questions are being used for worrying. 2.3.1 Worry and academic achievement Several researches showed that high worry is associated with low cognitive performance (Hembree, 1988, 1990; Pajares & Urdan, 1996). The worry component of test anxiety has been consistently shown to have an inverse relationship with performance; a relationship that has been observed in children as well as adults (Cassady , 2002), in both genders (Sowa & LaFleur, 1986). Moreover, these studies have also reliably shown that worry is manifested as task debilitating cognitions, including more negative self-evaluations and off-task thoughts and fewer positive self-evaluations. On the other hand, studies such as Wigfield and Meece (1988) showed that there is no relationship between worry and achievement. Although worry can trigger negative effects on learning, depending on the degree of worry, it could also contribute to positive predecessor to high achievement. It may trigger positive outcomes, in terms that it will drive students to work harder if their worries drive as a challenge to exhibit better performance. 2.3.2 Effect of gender difference on worry Study of Lama M. Al-Qaisy (2011) indicates the existence of differences between genders in terms of anxiety and depression, where the percentage of anxiety among females is higher than males, while the depression is higher among males than females. Wong et al. (2006) obtained the same results of the study. They also found a significant difference between the mean of
22

depression scores of male and female students. Male students means of depression scores were significantly higher compared to female students. Some previous studies, that investigated mental distress among university or college students using other survey methods and rating scales, found higher levels of depression among female students. Edwards and Holden (2001) obtained the same results that male students gave higher ratings than females for depression, but the female students gave higher ratings than males for anxiety. However, there are also studies that found no differences according to gender in terms of depression or depressive mood (Grant et al., 2002). 2.3.3 Effect of worry on achievement in physics In mathematics the anxiety concept was seriously studied and it has probably received more attention than any other factor in affective domain (Kazelskis, 1998, McLeod, 1992). However few studies were conducted in the area of physics. The studies on mathematics anxiety have a problem of lacking any agreement about what constitutes mathematics anxiety. The studies including achievement and anxiety are generally revealed co relational findings. In a meta-analysis conducted by Ma (1999) examined 26 studies on the relationship between anxiety toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics among elementary and secondary school students. This study suggested that the common population correlation was significant (-.27). The models of this study indicated that the relationship is consistent across gender, grade, and ethnic group. A study including the science anxiety with other affective factors is conducted by Simpson and Oliver (1990). They found anxiety is negatively correlated with attitudes. Science self-concept, science anxiety and achievement motivation altogether accounted for 55% of variance in attitudes toward science and for only 11% of the variance in science achievement. These studies have shown that anxiety was related to students
23

performance on standardized tests or achievement. However studies on anxiety were not integrative and extensive enough to conceptualize the causal relationships among anxiety, achievement and other affective characteristics at high school level. In Abaks (2003) study it was taken as a motivational variable and results showed that there is significant effect of motivation on students physics achievement for university students. Meece, Wigfield, and Eccles (1990) used structural equation modeling procedures to assess the influence of past math grades, math ability perceptions, performance expectancies and value perceptions on the level of math anxiety reported in a sample of seventh through ninth grade students. They also examined the relative influence of these performance, self-perceptions and affect variables on subsequent grades and enrollment intentions in mathematics. In this study researchers tested the models derived from expectancy-value theory and self-efficacy theories. These two theories maintain that in forming efficacy or ability judgments, individuals rely on information about their past performance. Researches had shown that successful performance does not necessarily enhance efficacy-related perceptions; the impact of this information depends on how it is cognitively appraised and interpreted (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1984). According to those researches the models predicted that students self-efficacy related beliefs mediate the effects of prior academic performance on anxiety. The results demonstrated that, math ability perceptions affected students valuing of math and expectancies. Also math anxiety has only indirect effects on subsequent performance and enrollment intentions. Concerning predictors of math anxiety, it was found that students current performance expectancies i n math and perceived importance have strongest direct effect on math anxiety, so they

suggested that it is students interpretations of their achievement outcomes and not these outcomes themselves have the strongest effects on students affective reactions. Past academic

24

successes and failures arouse anxiety through their effects on perceived self-efficacy. For example if failures weaken students sense of efficacy, they become anxious. Although it is indirect, successes and failures are effective on the level of anxiety. Hence, it can be concluded that achievement in form of performance on specific tasks are effective on their level of anxiety on those specific tasks. 2.3.4 Effect of worry on motivation The results indicated that matriculation students with high mathematics anxiety scored significantly lower in achievement. Numerous authors have suggested that higher achieving students are more fitting to be less anxious (Betz, 1978; Hembree, 1990). The data analysis also indicated that the effect of math anxiety on motivation was significant. Study by Md.Yunus, A. S. and Wan Ali, Z. A. (2009) found a positive correlation between worry and motivation. 2.4 Motivation Motivation is the driving force by which humans achieve their goals. Motivation is said to be intrinsic or extrinsic. The term is generally used for humans but it can also be used to describe the causes for animal behavior as well. This article refers to human motivation. According to various theories, motivation may be rooted in a basic need to minimize physical pain and maximize pleasure, or it may include specific needs such as eating and resting, or a desired object, goal, state of being, ideal, or it may be attributed to less-apparent reasons such as altruism, selfishness, morality, or avoiding mortality. Conceptually, motivation should not be confused with either volition or optimism. Motivation is related to, but distinct from, emotion. Motivation is of particular interest to educational psychologists because of the crucial role it plays in student learning. However, the specific kind of motivation that is studied in the
25

specialized setting of education differs qualitatively from the more general forms of motivation studied by psychologists in other fields. Motivation in education can have several effects on how students learn and how they behave towards subject matter. It can: 1. Direct behavior toward particular goals 2. Lead to increased effort and energy 3. Increase initiation of, and persistence in, activities 4. Enhance cognitive processing 5. Determine what consequences are reinforcing 6. Lead to improved performance. Because students are not always internally motivated, they sometimes need situated motivation, which is found in environmental conditions that the teacher creates. There are two kinds of motivation:

Intrinsic motivation occurs when people are internally motivated to do something because it either brings them pleasure, they think it is important, or they feel that what they are learning is significant. It has been shown that intrinsic motivation for education drops from grades 3-9 though the exact cause cannot be ascertained. Also, in younger students it has been shown that contextualizing material that would otherwise be presented in an abstract manner increases the intrinsic motivation of these students.

26

Extrinsic motivation comes into play when a student is compelled to do something or act a certain way because of factors external to him or her (like money or good grades).

Whyte researched and reported about the importance of locus of control and academic achievement. Students tending toward a more internal locus of control are more academically successful, thus encouraging curriculum and activity development with consideration of motivation theories. Motivation is one of the most important influences of achievement, like positive attitudes and other affective characteristics; motivation should be taken into consideration. Motivation is one of the most important impulsive power sources which gives some guidance to behavior of students in school and determines behaviors strength and stability. Motivation is a repulsive power to conduct organism attaining to certain goal and being able to do necessary actions in particular conditions, giving energy and a guide to behaviors causing an affective advance. It is a power gaining state to reach certain goals (Senemolu, 2004). In order to learn, each student has to participate in the teaching-learning process willingly. She/he should also obey the required learning principles and bare responsibility for pertaining to learn. Therefore, providing a necessary motivation and giving priority to motivation for learning are among the major duties of teachers and school. There are differences in principle between motivated and non motivated student behaviors. When an individual is motivated, maintenance of being interested and paying attention, willingness to make an effort and coursing of necessary time to gain behaviors, focusing --and devoting on the subject, not giving up doing demanded behavior in difficult circumstances, insisting on bringing to an end and resolution are observed. It is considered that bearing all these peculiarities would influence the academic achievement and the anxiety level of an individual.
27

2.4.1 Motivation and academic achievement Motivational researchers share the view that achievement behavior is an interaction between situational variables and the individual subject's motivation to achieve. Motivation is one of the most important impulsive power sources which gives some guidance to behavior of students in school and determines behaviors strength and stability. Motivation is a repulsive power to conduct organism attaining to certain goal and being able to do necessary actions in particular conditions, giving energy and a guide to behaviors causing an affective advance. It is a power gaining state to reach certain goals. In order to learn, each student has to participate in the teaching-learning process willingly. She/he should also obey the required learning principles and bare responsibility for pertaining to learn. Therefore, providing a necessary motivation and giving priority to motivation for learning are among the major duties of teachers and school. There are differences in principle between motivated and non motivated student behaviors. When an individual is motivated, maintenance of being interested and paying attention, willingness to make an effort and coursing of necessary time to gain behaviors, focusing and devoting on the subject, not giving up doing demanded behavior in difficult circumstances, insisting on bringing to an end and resolution are observed. 2.4.2 Effect of gender difference on motivational level Gender is one of the personal variables that have been related to differences found in motivational functioning and in self-regulated learning. Different research has demonstrated the existence of different attribution patterns in boys and girls, such that while girls tend to give more emphasis to effort when explaining their performance (Georgiou, 1999), boys appeal more to ability and luck as causes of their academic achievement (Burgner & Hewstone,1993).

28

Different research has also pointed out that girls usually make external attributions for successes and failures, and that when they make internal attributions, these refer not so much to effort, but to ability. However, boys usually attribute successes to stable and internal causes such as ability, while failure is attributed to unstable external causes like luck or internal causes like effort, thus showing an attribution pattern which enables them to enhance their own image of themselves (Smith, Sinclair & Chapman, 2002). As for the type of academic goals pursued by boys and girls, several studies have shown that boys show a greater degree of extrinsic motivational orientation (Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Midgley & Urdan, 1995; Roeser, Midgley & Urdan, 1996; Urdan et al., 1998), while girls show a greater intrinsic motivation (Meece & Holt, 1993; Nolen, 1988).However, other studies have not found differences in the type of goal pursued as a function of gender (Ryan & Pintrich, 1997). Regarding gender differences in academic selfconcept, there is no evidence of such differences existing (Gabelko, 1997; Amezcua & Pichardo, 2000), and when such differences do occur, it is to the loss of the girls (Hilke & Conway, 1994). 2.4.3 Motivation towards physics Study by ZLEM DOAN TEKROLU (2005) imply that high school students who did well in physics are more interested in physics, are motivated to learn physics, give more importance to physics, enjoy more in activities related to physics, feel less anxious about taking a physics exam, or about physics courses, fell more efficacious about physics and are more motivated to be successful in physics lesson. However being more interested in physics, more motivated to learn physics, giving more importance to physics, enjoying more in activities related to physics, feeling less anxious about taking a physics exam, or about physics courses, felling more efficacious about physics and being more motivated to be successful in physics lesson do not necessarily lead to greater achievement in physics. In summary, being
29

successful in physics lesson influences students affective characteristics. There relations between interest, motivation, importance, enjoyment, self-concept and self efficacy and achievement were positive and the relation between students test and course anxiety and achievement were negative. Self-concept in physics and achievement motivation in physics are also related variables (.23). This relation simply means that students who feel that they are good at physics are motivated to be successful in physics and this result was also found in Abaks study (2003). Another supported relationship by Abak (2003) was between student motivation in physics and importance given to physics. It can be explained as students who give importance to physics are also motivated to learn physics. 2.5 Effect of motivation, self efficacy, level of effort and worry on academic achievement Self-efficacy scales have been applied to educational research, primarily in studies of academic motivation and self-regulation (Pajares, 1997, 2002).Self-efficacy influences the choices people make in specific situations, such as whether to start a task. It influences the effort people put into tasks and their persistence, especially when the going gets tough. Furthermore, self-efficacy has not only a psychological effect, but also a physiological effect, affecting; for instance, anxiety levels (Pajares, 2002). In summary, self-efficacy research has helped to tease out the contributions that ability and self-confidence in ones ability makes to academic success and in careers beyond education (Crozier, 1997). According to Aida Suraya Md.Yunus and Wan Zah Wan Ali (2009) overall, students motivations was found to be high and majority of the respondents were in the high level for effort but was only moderate for self efficacy. Significant difference was established in overall motivation scores between the female and male

30

respondents, favouring the females, but not for the subscales effort, self-efficacy and worry. In other words, female students have higher level of effort and self-efficacy and have lesser worry in the learning of mathematics. This contradicts findings of earlier study conducted by Malpass, O'Neil and Hocevar (1999) that showed young men were less worried and had higher selfefficacy for math than young women.

Gender difference

Self- efficacy

Achievement in physics

Level of effort

Worry

Motivation

Figure 2.1 2.6 Importance of physics The emergence of a highly competitive and integrated world economy, rapid scientific and technological innovations, and the ever-growing knowledge base will continue to have a profound impact on our lives. In order to meet the challenges posed by these developments, Physics, like other science electives, will provide a platform for developing scientific literacy and the essential scientific knowledge and skills for lifelong learning in science and technology.
31

Physics is one of the most fundamental natural sciences. It involves the study of universal laws, and of the behaviors and relationships among a wide range of physical phenomena. Through the learning of physics, students will acquire conceptual and procedural knowledge relevant to their daily lives. In addition to the relevance and intrinsic beauty of physics, the study of physics will enable students to develop an understanding of its practical applications in a wide variety of fields. With a solid foundation in physics, students should be able to appreciate both the intrinsic beauty and quantitative nature of physical phenomena, and the role of physics in many important developments in engineering, medicine, economics and other fields of science and technology. Physics plays an important role in health, economic development, education, energy, and the environment. Our modern world is much more connected than in previous historical times. These days we travel far, communicate easily and quickly, and conduct business around the world effortlessly. In fact almost no place on earth has been excluded from the modern interconnected world. Physics has the capability of playing a major role in finding solutions to many of the problems facing the human race. Of course it does not have all the answers but the science is developed enough to have created nuclear weapons which remain a global threat, then surely it can be used for the betterment of all people around the globe. Physics and technology must work together to resolve the need for new technologies that will decrease the damage to our planet, for strategies to ensure that the people of developing countries have the tools to progress, the need for solutions to deadly diseases that remain a threat, and the need for solutions to the increasing demands we place on our resources before they are depleted. The role of physics in our modern world is more important than in any other time in history.

32

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE

In this chapter an attempt is made to describe the procedure adopted in this research study. This chapter presents the population of study, sample of study, research instrument, data collection and scoring procedures utilized in this study. 3.1 Population of Study Our population of study contains master level students of physics of public sector universities of Lahore. 3.2 Sample of the Study Due to easy asses and time limitations, sample of the study was selected from PHYSICS DEPARTMENT AND CENTRE FOR HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS IN PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, GOVT. COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY,

FORMAN CHRISTIAN

COLLEGE,

and UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND

TECHNOLOGY. Sample contained 300 students from above institutes. 3.3 Research Instrument It was a descriptive study. A research instrument, designed as Likert scale, containing 28 items was developed to measure the motivation of students. The subscales used to measure the motivation are self efficacy, level of effort and worry. The research instrument consists of 28 items which contained 12 items related to self efficacy, 8 items related to level of effort and 8 items related to worry. The research instrument also contained 2 negative statements. The

33

Cronbach's Alpha analysis showed that the reliability for the motivation questionnaire was high (r = .814).

Self-efficacy

Level of effort

Motivation

Worry

Figure 3.1

3.4 Collection of Data After the development of questionnaire, researchers get it filled from public and private universities. First they were given instruction about how to fill in the questionnaire and purpose of the study. Then they were requested to fill in the questionnaire after carefully reading the statements about their self efficacy, level of effort, worry and motivation toward research. 3.5 Analysis of Data After the collection of all questionnaires, each questionnaire was given a code. After coding, data was entered on SPSS. The researcher found mean, standard deviation, frequency and percentage. 3.6 Scoring Procedure In order to get the response of master level physics student about their self efficacy, level of effort, worry and motivation toward physics. It was developed on five-point scale. The likert
34

scale was used for scoring. In this instrument the most frequent used scale is the likert scale. In this scale, the respondent are given a choice of response between five degree / level of opinion. Each respondent was to response to a point on the scale. The respondent was instructed to tick the letter that best reflect his/her opinion. Numerical values to the options were allotted as follow: Scale Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Positive Statement 5 4 3 2 1 Negative Statement 1 2 3 4 5

35

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter outlines the analysis and interpretation of data. The data collected for the research was analyzed and represented in the form of tables which were followed by their interpretations. The objectives of the study were to determine students level of effort, self efficacy and worry in physics based on gender, current cumulative grade point average (CGPA), students level of motivation in physics based on gender, current cumulative grade point average (CGPA) and relationship between levels of motivation and students physics achievement. The researchers delivered questionnaires to the master level university physics students. After the collection of the questionnaire data was entered on SPSS. Then researchers found out frequency and percentage of each statement. Means of self efficacy, level of effort and worry were also calculated. Independent sample t-test was applied for gender differences about self efficacy, level of effort, worry and motivation towards physics. To find out the effect of self efficacy, level of effort, worry and motivation on the physics achievement of students, ANOVA test was applied. To find out the relationship between motivational factors i.e. self efficacy, level of effort and worry, researchers found Pearson r-value. After applying all the test researchers formulated tables. Then researchers interpreted the data.

36

4.1: Frequency and percentage of statements Table: 4.1.1

Frequency and percentage of self efficacy of master level university physics students Sr. no. 1 Statements I believe that I will get excellent grades in the physics at this level. In class, I prefer material that really challenges me so I can learn new things. Considering the difficulty of any course, I do well in that course. I often apply physics to other situations in life. If there are unseen questions in test, I perform well than most of my classmates in exams. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected problems during work. I choose physics because I have imaginative ideas in physics. I am much confident that understanding the complex subject matter is very easy for me. I actively take part in discussion during class as well working in laboratory. During course work, I prefer course material that increases my interest, even if it is difficult to learn. I always interrelates the basic concepts of physics. Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree disagree 37
12.3% 21 7% 36 12% 129 43% 159 53%

Strongly Agree
77 25.7% 32 10.7%

37 12.3% 20 6.7% 18 6% 25 8.3% 43 14.3% 30 10.0% 26 8.7%

22 7.3% 22 7.3% 44 14.7% 32 10.7% 24 8.0% 22 7.3% 31 10.3%

50 16.7% 19 6.3% 19 6.3% 65 21.7% 28 9.3% 35 11.7% 43 14.3%

176 58.7% 129 43% 142 47.3% 115 38.3% 104 34.7% 120 40%

63 21% 90 30% 36 12% 90 30% 109 36.3% 80 26.7%

24 8.0% 26 8.7%

25 8.3% 31 10.3%

28 9.3% 25 8.3%

173 57.7% 168 56%

50 16.7% 50 16.7%

10

11

24 8.0%

9 3.0%

24 8.0%

92 30.7%

151 50.3%

37

12

When I am confronted with a problem during course work, I can usually find several solutions. Table 4.1.1 shows that

16 5.3%

56 18.7%

64 21.3%

105 35%

59 19.7%

1. Most of the students believed that they will get excellent grades in the physics. This provided us an idea about most of the physics students are in excellent spirit related to your achievement. As about 68.7% agreed with the statement while 19.3% go against. 2. Majority of the students believed that in class, they prefer material that really challenges them so they can learn new thing. This demonstrated that majority of physics students like to study or learn content materials that are challenging. About 63.7% agreed with the statement while 19.3% contradict. 3. A large number of students believed that considering the difficulty of any course, they do well in that course, so they perform well in complicated lessons. As about 79.7% agreed with the statement while 14% go against. 4. Many of the students accepted as true that they often apply physics to other situations in life. About 73% agreed with the statement while 20.7% disagreed. 5. Most of the students believed that if there are unseen questions in test, they perform well than most of our classmates in exam. About 69.3% agreed with the statement while19% while do not. 6. A large No. of students agreed that they are confident that they could deal efficiently with unexpected problems during work. About 68.3% agreed with the statement while 22.3% disagreed. 7. A large No of students believed that they choose physics because they have imaginative ideas in physics. About 71% agreed with the statement% while 17.3% contradict.
38

8. Majority of the students agreed that they are much confident that understanding the complex subject matter are very easy for him. About 66.7% agreed with the statement while 19% violate. 9. Most of students agreed that they actively take part in discussion during class as well working in laboratory. About 74.4% agreed with the statement while 16.3% disagreed. 10. Majority of students believed that during course work they prefer course material that increases their interest, even if it is difficult to learn. About 72.7% strong-willed with the statement while 19% do not. 11. A large No of students agreed that they always interrelates the basic concepts of physics. About 81% agreed with statement while 11% disagreed. 12. Majority of students believe that when they are confronted with a problem during course work, they can usually find several solutions. About 54.7%agreed with the statement while 24% do not.

39

Table: 4.1.2
Frequency and percentage of level of effort of master level university physics students Sr. no. 13 Statements I try my very best to learn although I do not like the subject matter. I work hard to develop concept about any subject matter so I may get good grades. When activities are difficult, I give up or only do the easy parts. I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough. Though I work hard, I could not get good grades in test. Strongly Agree agree 17 5.7% 9 3% 83 27.7% 38 12.7% 70 23.3% 40 13.3% 24 8% 15 5% 58 19.3% 40 13.3% 105 35% 40 13.3% 130 43.3% 42 14% 52 17.3% 15 5% Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree 60 20% 61 20.3% 60 20% 21 7% 51 17% 38 12.7% 58 19.3% 34 11.3% 80 26.7% 111 37% 23 7.7% 160 53.3% 24 8% 88 29.3% 69 23% 177 59.0% 85 28.3% 79 26.3% 29 9.7% 41 13.7% 25 8.3% 92 30.7% 97 32.3% 59 19.7%

14

15

16

17

18

If I found some topic interesting, I work more hard on that topic. 19 If I found some topic important, I make more effort on that topic. 20 If I found some topic challenging, I make more effort on that topic. Table 4.1.2 shows that

13. Majority of the students agreed that they try to best learn although they do not like the subject matter. About 55% student agreed with the statement while 25% violate. 14. Most of the students agreed that they work hard to develop concept about any subject matter so they may get good grade. About 66.3% student agreed with the statement while 16.3% disagreed.

40

15. Only17.4% students believed that when activities are difficult, they gave up or only do the easy parts. While 62.7% do no do not believe that. 16. Most of the students believed that they can always manage to solve difficult problems if they try to hard enough. As 67% student agreed with the statement while 26% disagreed. 17. Majority of the students agreed that though they work hard, they could get good grades in test. About 16.3% agreed with the statement while 66.3% violate. 18. Most of the students believed that if they found some topic interesting, they work more hard on that topic. About 60% agreed with the statement while 27.3% do not. 19. Majority of the students agreed that if they found some topic important, they make more effort on that topic. About 55.3% agreed with the statement while 25.3% disagreed. 20. A large number of students believed that if they found some topic challenging, they make more effort on that topic. About 78.7% agreed with the statement while 10% violate.

41

Table: 4.1.3
Frequency and percentage of worry of master level university physics students Sr. no. 21 Statements Strongly Agree agree 29 9.7% 17 5.7% 31 10.3% 29 9.7% 24 8.0% 32 10.7% 29 9.7% 16 5.3% Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree 45 15% 25 8.3% 44 14.7% 22 7.3% 6 2.0% 27 9.0% 56 18.7% 36 12.0% 124 41.3% 117 39% 111 37% 128 42.7% 157 52.3% 84 28.0% 80 26.7% 191 63.7% 45 28.0% 117 39% 89 29.7% 93 31% 91 30.3% 127 42.3% 119 39.7% 36 12.0%

I am continuously worried about 18 my performance in study. 6% When I have to learn new topic, 24 I feel a bit worry. 8% When I find some content 25 difficult I feel nervous and 8.3% anxious. I am worried that I could not 28 deal efficiently with unexpected 9.3% problems during study. I am always anxious about any 22 new assignment. 7.3% Worry about my class achievement causes me to be more focused on my lesson. I am anxious about my ability to interpret any content. 30 10.0% 16 5.3% 21 7.0%

22 23

24

25

26

27

28

I am always worried about topics that are important in course. Table 4.1.3 shows that

21. Majority of the students believed that they are continuously worried about their performance in study. About 69.3% agreed with the statement while 15.7% do not. 22. Most of the students agreed that when they have to learn new topic, they feel a bit worry. About 78% agreed with the statement while 13.7% disagreed. 23. A large number of students agreed that when they find some content difficult they feel nervous and anxious. About 66.7% agreed with the statement while 18.6% go against.

42

24. Majority of the students believed that they are worried that they could not deal efficiently with unexpected problems during study. About 73.7% agreed with the statement while 19% violate. 25. Most of the students believed that they are always anxious about any new assignment. About 82.6% agreed with the statement while 19% violate. 26. A large No of students agreed that worry about their class achievement cause them to be more focused on their lesson. About 70.3% agreed with the statement while 20.7% disagreed. 27. Majority of the students believed that they are anxious about their ability to interpret any content. About 66.4% agreed with the statement while 15% violate. 28. Most of the students believed that they are always worried about topics that are important in course. About 75.7% agreed with the statement while 12.3% go against.

43

4.2: Descriptive information

Table: 4.2.1 Mean and standard deviation of subscales of motivation Variable N Mean Self efficacy Level of effort Worry 300 300 300 43.98 26.24 30.43

St.deviation 7.84 5.15 6.24

Table 4.2.1 shows the contribution of motivation subscales. As the mean of self efficacy is 43.98 with standard deviation 7.84, which is the highest contribution to motivation of students. The mean of level of effort is 26.24 with standard deviation 5.15 which is lowest from among subscales. The mean of worry is 30.43 with standard deviation 6.24. It can be concluded that self efficacy has the greater contribution towards motivation than both level of effort and worry.

44

4.3: T-test interpretations H01: There is no significant mean difference between male and female university physics students CGPA at master level. Table: 4.3.1 t-test for Mean difference between male and female university physics students CGPA at master level Variable N Mean df t-value Sig. Male Female 150 150 3.2933 3.4054 298 3.087 0.02

Table: 4.3.1 indicate that t-value (3.087) is significant at p0.05 level of significance, so our null hypothesis There is no significant mean difference between male and female university physics students CGPA at master level is rejected. Also mean of female students CGPA is greater

than that of male student. So it is concluded that there is mean difference between male and female university physics students CGPA at master level.

45

H02: There is no significant mean difference between male and female university physics students self efficacy at master level. Table: 4.3.2 t-test for mean difference between male and female university physics students self efficacy at master level Variable N Mean df t-value Sig. Male Female 150 150 43.06 44.90 298 2.050 .041

Table: 4.3.2 indicates that t-value (2.050) is significant at p0.05 level of significance, so our null hypothesis There is no significant mean difference between male and female university physics students self efficacy at master level is rejected. Also mean of female students self efficacy is greater than that of male student. So it is concluded that there is mean difference between male and female university physics students self efficacy at master level.

46

H03: There is no significant mean difference between male and female university physics students level of effort at master level. Table: 4.3.3 t-test for mean difference between male and female university physics students level of effort at master level Variable N Mean df t-value Sig. Male Female 150 150 25.50 26.98 293.82 2.51 .013

Table: 4.3.3 indicates that t-value (2.51) is significant at p0.05 level of significance, so our null hypothesis There is no significant mean difference between male and female university physics students level of effort at master level is rejected. Also mean of female students level of effort is greater than that of male student. So it is concluded that there is mean difference between male and female university physics students level of effort at master level.

47

H04: There is no significant mean difference between male and female university physics students worry at master level. Table: 4.3.4 t-test for mean difference between male and female university physics students worry at master level Variable N Mean df t-value Sig. Male Female 150 150 29.92 30.94 290.26 1.418 .157

Table: 4.3.4 indicate that t-value (1.418) is not significant at p0.05 level of significance, so our null hypothesis There is no significant mean difference between male and female university physics students worry at master level. is accepted. Also mean of female students worry is greater than that of male student. So it is concluded that there is no mean difference between male and female university physics students worry at master level.

48

H05: There is no significant mean difference between male and female university physics students motivation at master level. Table: 4.3.5 t-test for mean difference between male and female university physics students motivation at master level Variable Male Female N 150 150 Mean 98.48 102.82 df 286.53 t-value 2.55 Sig. .011

Table: 4.3.5 indicates that t-value (2.55) is significant at p0.05 level of significance, so our null hypothesis There is no significant mean difference between male and female university physics students motivation at master level. is rejected. Also mean of female students motivation is greater than that of male student. So it is concluded that there is mean difference between male and female university physics students motivation at master level.

49

4.4: One-way ANOVA test interpretations H06: There is no significant effect of self efficacy on university physics students CGPA at master level. Table: 4.4.1 Univeriante analysis for effect of self efficacy on university physics students CGPA at master level CGPA Sum of df Mean Square F Sig. square Between Groups 11.065 35 .316 4.316 .000 Within Groups Total 19.337 30.403 264 299 .073

Table: 4.4.1 indicates that F-ratio (4.316) is significant at P0.05 level of significance so, our null hypothesis that There is no significant effect of self efficacy on university physics students CGPA at master level is rejected. So it is concluded that there is significant effect of self efficacy on university physics students CGPA at master level.

50

H07: There is no significant effect of level of effort on university physics students CGPA at master level. Table: 4.4.2 Univeriante analysis for effect of level of effort on university physics students CGPA at master level CGPA Sum of df Mean Square F Sig. square Between Groups 4.77 25 .191 2.043 .003 Within Groups Total 25.62 30.40 274 299 .094

Table: 4.4.2 indicates that F-ratio (2.043) is significant at P0.05 level of significance so, our null hypothesis that There is no significant effect of level of effort on university physics students CGPA at master level is rejected. So it is concluded that there is significant effect of level of effort on university physics students CGPA at master level.

51

H08: There is no significant effect of worry on university physics students CGPA at master level. Table: 4.4.3 Univeriante analysis for effect of worry on university physics students CGPA at master level CGPA Sum of df Mean Square F Sig. squares Between Groups 8.90 27 .330 4.171 .000 Within Groups Total 21.50 30.40 272 299 .079

Table: 4.4.3 indicates that F-ratio (4.171) is significant at P0.05 level of significance so, our null hypothesis that There is no significant effect of worry on university physics students CGPA at master level is rejected. So it is concluded that there is significant effect of worry on university physics students CGPA at master level.

52

H09: There is no significant effect of overall motivational level on university physics students CGPA at master level. Table: 4.4.4 Univeriante analysis for effect of overall motivation on university physics students CGPA at master level CGPA Sum of df Mean Square F Sig. squares Between Groups 15.15 60 .253 3.957 .000 Within Groups Total 15.25 30.403 239 299 .064

Table: 4.4.4 indicates that F-ratio (3.957) is significant at P0.05 level of significance so, our null hypothesis that There is no significant effect of overall motivational level on university physics students CGPA at master level is rejected. So it is concluded that there is significant effect of overall motivational level on university physics students CGPA at master level.

53

4.5: Pearson-r Test interpretations H10: There is no significant relationship between self efficacy and level of effort of university physics students at master level. Table: 4.5.1 Relationship between self efficacy and level of effort of university physics students at master level Variable N Pearson r value Sig. Self efficacy and 300 .300 .000 level of effort

Table: 4.5.1 indicates that Pearson r-value (.300) is significant at P0.05 level of significance so, our null hypothesis that There is no significant relationship between self efficacy and level of effort of university physics students at master level is rejected. So it is concluded that there is significant relationship between self efficacy and level of effort of university physics students at master level.

54

H11: There is no significant relationship between self efficacy and worry of university physics students at master level. Table: 4.5.2 Relationship between self efficacy and worry of university physics students at master level Variable N Pearson r value Sig. Self efficacy and 300 .622 .000 worry

Table: 4.5.2 indicates that Pearson r-value (.622) is significant at P0.05 level of significance so, our null hypothesis that There is no significant relationship between self efficacy and worry of university physics students at master level is rejected. So it is concluded that there is significant relationship between self efficacy and worry of university physics students at master level.

55

H12: There is no significant relationship between level of effort and worry of university physics students at master level. Table: 4.5.3 Relationship between level of effort and worry of university physics students at master level Variable N Pearson r value Sig. Level of effort 300 .134 .000 and worry Table: 4.5.3 indicates that Pearson r-value (.134) is significant at P0.05 level of significance so, our null hypothesis that There is no significant relationship between level of effort and worry of university physics students at master level is rejected. So it is concluded that there is significant relationship between level of effort and worry of university physics students at master level.

56

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary Research is the systematic process of collecting and analyzing information to increase our understanding of the phenomenon under study. It is the function of the researcher to contribute to the understanding of the phenomenon and to communicate that understanding to others. This study focused on students motivation towards physics. The subscales used in the measurement of motivation are effort, self-efficacy, and worry. The research was also carried out to identify levels of self efficacy, level of effort and worry. The study also focused at testing difference of motivation among male and female students, also differences of self efficacy, level of effort and worry among male and female students was checked. With all this effect of self motivation on CGPA i.e. physics achievement was checked, also effect of subscales of motivation i.e. self efficacy, level of effort and worry was identified. Data was gathered through a descriptive survey using questionnaire. The questionnaire got responses for motivation on three subscales those were 1) self efficacy, 2) level of effort and 3) worry. We used five point scales, designed as Likert scale, to find out the responses. For this purpose research was conducted in five different universities of Lahore. Data was acquired from 300 students. Collected data was analyzed by applying different appropriate tests using software Statistical package for social sciences i.e. SPSS version 15.

57

5.2 Findings 1. 68.7% students believed that they will get excellent grades in the physics while 19.3% go against. 2. 63.7% students believed that in class, they prefer material that really challenges them so they can learn new thing while 19.3% contradict. 3. 79.7% students believed that considering the difficulty of any course, they do well in that course while 14% violate. 4. 73% students agreed that they often apply physics to other situations in life while 20.7% disagreed. 5. 59.3% students believed that If there are unseen questions in test, they perform well than most of our classmates in exam while19% while do not. 6. 68.3% students agreed that they are confident that they could deal efficiently with unexpected problems during work while 22.3% disagreed. 7. 71% students believed that they choose physics because they have imaginative ideas in physics while 17.3% contradict. 8. 66.7% students agreed that they are much confident that understanding the complex subject matter are very easy for him while 19% violate. 9. 74.4% students agreed that they actively take part in discussion during class as well working in laboratory while 16.3% disagreed. 10. 72.7% students believed that during course work they prefer course material that increases their interest, even if it is difficult to learn while 19% do not. 11. 81% students approved that they always interrelates the basic concepts of physics while 11% disagreed.

58

12. 54.7% students believed that when they are confronted with a problem during course work, they can usually find several solutions while 24% do not. 13. 55% students agreed that they try to best learn although they do not like the subject matter while 25% violate. 14. 63.3% students agreed that they work hard to develop concept about any subject matter so they may get good grade while 16.3% disagreed. 15. 17.4% students considered that when activities are difficult, they gave up or only do the easy parts while 62.7% do not. 16. 67% students consider that they can always manage to solve difficult problems if they try to hard enough while 26% vary. 17. 16.3% students agreed that though they work hard, they could not get good grades in test while 66.3% violate. 18. 60% students believe that if they found some topic interesting, they work more hard on that topic while 27.3% did not. 19. 55.3% students agreed that if they found some topic important, they make more effort on that topic while 25.3% differ. 20. About 78.7% students reflected that if they found some topic challenging, they make more effort on that topic while 10% go against. 21. 69.3% students believed that they are continuously worried about their performance in study while 15.7% did not. 22. 78% students agreed that when they have to learn new topic, they feel a bit worry while 13.7% disagreed.

59

23. 66.7% students agreed that when they find some content difficult they feel nervous and anxious while 18.6% go against. 24. 73.7% students believed that they are worried that they could not deal efficiently with unexpected problems during study while 19% violate. 25. 82.6% students believed that they are always anxious about any new assignment while 15.3% do not. 26. 70.3% students agreed that worry about their class achievement cause them to be more focused on their lesson while 20.7% disagreed. 27. 66.4% students believed that they are anxious about their ability to interpret any content while 15% violate. 28. 75.7% students believed that they are always worried about topics that are important in course while 12.3% go against. 29. Among the motivation subscales, self efficacy has the highest value; worry has an intermediate while level of effort has the lowest contribution to the motivation of the students. 30. There is mean difference between male and female university physics students CGPA at master level. As the female students have a higher mean than male fellows. 31. There is mean difference between male and female university physics students self efficacy at master level. Mean of female students self efficacy is greater than that of male student. 32. There is mean difference between male and female university physics students level of effort at master level. Mean of female students level of effort is greater than that of male student.

60

33. There is no mean difference between male and female university physics students worry at master level. Mean of female students worry is greater than that of male student. 34. There is mean difference between male and female university physics students motivation at master level. Mean of female students self efficacy is greater than that of male student. 35. There is significant effect of self efficacy on university physics students CGPA at master level. 36. There is significant effect of level of effort on university physics students CGPA at master level. 37. There is significant effect of worry on university physics students CGPA at master level. 38. There is significant effect of overall motivation on university physics students CGPA at master level. 39. There is significant relationship between self efficacy and level of effort of university physics students at master level. 40. There is significant relationship between self efficacy and worry of university physics students at master level. 41. There is significant relationship between level of effort and worry of university physics students at master level. 5.3 Conclusion After carefully analyzing the data and findings overall results shows that students have a high level of motivation towards physics. The majority of the students have positive response towards subscales of motivation. Overall, students motivations was found to be high and greater part of the respondents were in the high self efficacy but were moderate for worry. Significant difference was found in overall motivation scores, except worry, between the female and male
61

respondents, supporting the females. In other words, female students have higher level of effort and self-efficacy and worry in the learning of physics. These results are normal with educational environment in Pakistan where girls usually outperformed boys. Significant effect of motivation was found on students physics achievement as self efficacy, level of effort and worry also have significant effect on students physics achievement. Likewise, significant relations were established between effort, self-efficacy, worry, and overall motivation. This finding also confirmed key findings from previous studies (Malpass, O'Neil & Hocevar, 1999; Mone, Baker & Jefferies, 1995) that self-efficacy has a high positive relation with result. Thus, effort is directly influenced by self-efficacy and directly affecting skill or performance (Bandura, 1993; Schunk, 1984). Study shows worry and motivation have a positive relationship which is coherent with the results of Md.Yunus et al. (2009). Studies such as Wigfield and Meece (1988) showed that there is no relationship between worry and achievement. Though worry can cause negative effects on achievement, depending on the degree of worry, it could also add to positive antecedent to high achievement. It may trigger positive outcomes, in terms that it will force students to work harder if their worries drive as a challenge to show better results. 5.4 Recommendations 1. At university level, research shows that physics students have lowest level of ef fort as compared to other self efficacy and worry. So teachers should assign students certain assignments to increase their level of effort. As level of effort has direct influence on academic achievement.

62

2. Research indicates that girls have higher self efficacy, level of effort and worry, thus high level of motivation towards physics, so boys should be given special attention and treatment to increase their motivation towards physics. 3. As it is obvious by results of research that self efficacy, level of effort and worry have direct impact on physics achievement, so techniques should be applied by teachers to increase students motivation, at lower educational levels. 4. All subscales of motivation were related to achievement in physics, so teachers, parents, curriculum developers and textbook authors should be aware about the issue. 5. Teachers should: not give very difficult tasks that probably will end with a failure of student, and will probably give the sense of incompetency. Spend more time and effort to persuade students that they are doing well. Not demotivate students. Try to make students believe that they are efficient in physics. Arouse interest and increase achievement motivation.

6. Parents should Emphasize their childrens successful performances and try to make to believe them that they are capable Not force their children to perform very heavy duties that may give the sense of incapability Consider arousing interest in physics, science and technology from early ages of their children. 7. Curriculum developers should

63

Not load the curriculum with the information above students level. Should emphasize students needs, and interests.

8. Text book authors should Avoid information, explanations and examples above students level.

9. Gage & Berliner (1992) provided 15 motivational techniques that can be applied to classroom or similar settings. Among the techniques are begin the lesson by giving students reasons to be motivated, tell students exactly what you want to achieve, have students set short term goals, use spoken and written praise, use tests and grades judiciously, exploit on the stimulation of suspense, discovery, curiosity, exploration, control and fantasy, occasionally do the unexpected, stimulate the appetite, use familiar materials for examples, use unique and unexpected contexts when applying concepts and principles, make students use what they have previously learned, use simulation and games, minimize the attractiveness of competing motivational system and minimize any unpleasant consequences of student involvement. These techniques could easily be applied or integrated in a physics classroom. Thus, teachers need to reserve part of the class time to conduct activities that would develop passion in physics, thus enhancing students motivation in learning physics. Special attention must also be given to the male students so as to reduce the gap in achievement between the male and female students. 10. Suggestions for further research: The final model found in this study should be examined with other samples of the same population to confirm the findings.

64

Continue this research with other samples of students from different institutes in order to see differences or students from different age groups in order to see effects of the subscales of motivation on their physics achievement, used in this research.

Research instrument developed should be modified and applied to students of other subjects to recognize their level of motivation.

Factors effecting motivational level (self efficacy, effort and worry) should be included to instrument to have more affective results and measure other characteristics.

65

Bibliography
Abak, A. (2003). Modeling The Relationship Between University Students Selected Affective Characteristics and Their Physics Achievement. Unpublished Masters Thesis, METU, Ankara, Turkey. Akbas, A. & Kan, A. (2007). Affective Factors That Influence Chemistry Achievement (Motivation and Anxiety) and the Power of These Factors to Predict Chemistry Achievement-II. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(1), 10-19. Alderman, M.K. (2004). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and learning. Publishers Mahwah, New jersey, Second edition. Amezcua, J.A. & Pichardo, M.C. (2000). Gender differences in self-concept in adolescent subjects. Anales de Psicologa, 16, 207-214. Anderman, L.H. & Anderman, E.M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students' achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 21-37. Anderman, E.M. & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived academic competence and grades across the transition to middle level schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 269-298. Anderman, E.M. & Young, A.J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual differences and classroom effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 811-831. Al-Qaisy, L.M. (2011). The relation of depression and anxiety in academic achievement among group of university students. International Journal of Psychology and Counseling, Vol. 3(5), pp. 96-100 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York Freeman. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of behavior, Vol. 4, pp. 71-81. human

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development & functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-Evaluative & Self-Efficacy mechanism governing the motivational effects of goal system. Journal of personality & social psychology, 45(5), 1017-1028. Baran, M. & Maskan, A.K. (2011). A Study of Relationships between Academic Self Concepts, Some Selected Variables & Physics Course Achievement. International Journal of Education, Vol. 3.
66

Betz, N. (1978). Prevalence, distribution, and correlates of math anxiety in college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25(5), 441-48. Biehler, Robert F., Snowman, Jack. (1993). Psychology applied to teaching (7th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Bomia, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M., & Sheldon, B. 1997. The Impact of Teaching Strategies on Intrinsic Motivation. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418 925) Bong, M. (2001). Role of self-efficacy and task value in predicting college students' course performance and future enrollment intentions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 553-570. Boldaji, M.A.K.,(2008). The Relationship between learning style, self-efficacy beliefs, and academic fields in high school students, Quarterly Journal of Educational Innovations, 24. Brunstein, Joachim C., & Maier, (2005). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(2), 205-222. Burgner, D. & Hewstone, M. (1993). Young children's causal attributions for success and failure: self-enhancing boys and self-derogating girls. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11, 125-129. Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473-490. Cassady, J.C., & Johnson, R.E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 270-295. Crozier, R. (1997). Individual Learners: personality differences in education. Routledge. London,

Dickinson, D. J. & Butt, J. A. 1989. The Effects of Success and Failure on the On -Task Behavior of High Achieving Students, Education and Treatment of Children, 12(3), 243252. Douglas, I. & Alemanne, N.D. (2007). Measuring students participation and effort. IADIS International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, (299302), Florida. Eccles, J.S. (1983). Expectancies, values, ad Academic Choice: Origins and Changes. In J. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and Achievement Motivation, 87-134. San Francisco: Freeman. Edwards MJ, Holden RR (2001). Coping, meaning in life, and suicidal manifestations: Examining gender differences. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59, 1133-1150.

67

Eisenberg, N., Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A. (1996). Gender development and gendereffects. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology 358-396. New York: Macmillan. Ferla, J., Valcke, M., & Schuyten, G. (2008). Relationships between student cognitions and their effects on study strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(2), 271-278. Fischer, H.E. & Horstendahl, M. (1997). Motivation and Learning Physics. Research and Science Education, 27(3), 411-424. Gabelko, N.H. (1997). Age and gender differences in global, academic, social and athletic selfconcepts in academically talented students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association: Chicago. Gage, N. L. & Berliner, D. C. 1992. Educational Psychology (5th Ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company. Garcia, T., McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., & Smith, D. A. 1991. A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Tech. Rep. No. 91-B-004). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan, School of Education. Garnett, P.J. & Garnett, P.J. (1995). Refocussing the chemistrylab.: A case for laboratory based investigations, Australian Secience Teachers Journal, 41(2), 26-33. Georgiou, S. (1999). Achievement attributions of sixth grade children and their parents. Educational Psychology, 19, 399-412. Glynn, S.M., Taasoobshirazi, G. & Brickman.P. (2009). Science Motivation Questionnaire: Construct Validation with Nonscience Majors. Journal of research in science teaching 46(2), 127146. Grant K, Marsh P, Syniar G (2002). Gender differences in rates of depression among undergraduates: Measurement matters. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 613617. Hanze, M. & Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, (17), 29-41. Heider, Fritz (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, New York: Wiley. Hembree, R. 1988. Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety, Educational Research, 58(1), 47-77. Review of

Hembree, R. 1990. The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21 (1), 33-46. Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 33-46. Hilke, E.V. & Conway, G.C. (1994). Gender equity in education. Indiana: Reports-Descriptive.
68

Hongsa-Ngiam, A. (2006) An investigaton of physics instructors beliefs and students beliefs, goals and motivation for studying physics in Thai Rajabhat universities. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Thesis,. The School of Education, Faculty of Education and Arts Edith Cowan University Perth, Western Australia. Hsu, Der-Hwa. (2000). A study on the relations among science attitudes, self-efficacy and nutrition-heath belief of biology, and academic achievement of junior college students. A doctoral dissertation of the college of science education in National Taiwan Normal University. Iskender, M. (2009). The relationships between self-compassion, self-efficacy, & control belief about learning in Turkish university students. Social behavior & personality, 37(5), 711720, DOI: 10.2224/sbp.2009.37.5.711. Jackson, J.W. (2002). Enhancing Self-Efficacy & learning performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(3), 243-254. Liebert, R. M., & Morris, L, W. (1967). Cognitive and emotionalcomponents of test anxiety: A distinction and some initial data.Psychological Reports, 20, 975-978.

Liu, Hsin-Hsiung. (1992). A study on the relations among cognitive styles, leaving strategies, self-efficacy, and academic achievement of primary school students. A doctoral dissertation of the college of education in National Taiwan Normal University. Kazelskis, R. (1998). Some Dimensions of Mathematics Anxiety: A Factor Analysis Across Instruments. Education and Psychological Measurement. 58(4). 623-633 Korpershoeka, H., Kuypera, H., Werf, G.v. d. & Boskera, R. (2010). Who succeeds in advanced mathematics and science courses?. British Educational Research Journal, iFirst Article, 1 24. Kuh, G. D., Hayek, J. C., Carini, R.M., Ouimet, J. A., Gonyea, R.M., and Kennedy, J. (2001).NSSE Technical and Norms Report, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Researchand Planning, Bloomington, IN. Lightbody, P., Siann, G., Stocks, R. & Walsh, D. (1996). Motivation and attribution at secondary school: the role of gender. Educational Studies, 22, 13-25. Malpass, J. R., O'Neil, H. F. Jr., & Dennis Hocevar, D. 1999. Self-Regulation, Goal Orientation, Self-Efficacy, Worry, and High-Stakes Math Achievement for Mathematically Gifted High School Students, Roeper Review, May, 1999. Ma, X. (1999). A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Anxiety Toward Mathematics and Achievement in Mathematics. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education. 30(5), 520-540. Mayer, Richard E. The Promise of Educational Psychology Volume II: Teaching for Meaningful Learning. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall, 2002.
69

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1958). A scoring manual for the achievement motive; Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in Fantasy, Action and Society. New York: Van Nostrand. Md.Yunus, A. S. & Ali, W. Z. W. (2009). Motivation in the Learning of Mathematics. European Journal of Social Sciences, 7(4). Md.Yunus, A. S. & Wan Ali, W. Z. 2008. Metacognition and motivation in problem solving, International Journal of Learning, 15(3), 121-132. Meece, J.L. & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students' achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 582-590. Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles J.S. (1990). Predictors of Math Anxiety and Its Influence on Young Adolescents Course Enrollment Intentions and Performance in Mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 60-70. Midgley, C. & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students' use of self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 389-411. Miller, N.E. & Dollard, J. (1941). Social Learning and Imitation. New Haven: Yale University Press. Miller, R. B., Behrens, J. T., Greene, B. A., & Newman, D. 1993. Goals and perceived ability: Impact on student valuing, self-regulation, and persistence, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 2-14. Simpson, R.D., & Oliver, J.S. (1990). A Summary of Major Influences on Attitude toward and Achievement in Science among Adolescent Students. Science Education, 74(1), 1-18. McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on Affect in Mathematics Education: A Reconceptualization. In D.A. Groups (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 575-596. Nilsen, H. (2009). Influence on Student Academic Behavior through Motivation, Self-Efficacy & Value-Expectation: An Action Research Project to Improve Learning. Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology, 6. Nolen, S.B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269-287. ONeil, H. F. & Schacter, J. (1997). Test Specifications for Problem Solving Assessment, CSE Technical Report 463. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation. Pajares, F. & Schunk, D.H. (2001). A. Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.). The Development of Academic Self-Efficacy. Development of achievement motivation. San Diego. Academic Press.

70

Pajares, F. & Graham, L. (1999). Self-Efficacy, Motivation Constructs, & Mathematics Performance of Entering Middle School Students. Contemporary Educational Psychology 24, 124139. Patrick, H., Ryan, A.M. & Pintrich, P.R. (1999). The differential impact of extrinsic and mastery goal orientations on males' and females' self-regulated learning. Learning and individual differences, 11, 153-171. Pajares, F. & Urdan, T. 1996. Exploratory factor analysis of the Mathematics Anxiety Scale, Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29, 35-47. Postigo, Y., Prez, M. & Sanz, A. (1999). Un estudio acerca de las diferencias de gnero en la resolucin de problemas cientficos. A study about gender differences in solving scientific problems. Enseanza de las Ciencias, 17, 247-258. Rana, R.A. & Mahmood, N. (2010). The Relationship between Test Anxiety and Academic Achievement. Bulletin of Education and Research, 32(2), 63- 74. Roeser, R.W., Midgley, C. & Urdan, T.C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents' psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408422. Rogers, Carl (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications and theory. London Constable. Rotter, J.B. (1945). Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Prentice-Hall. Sam, H.K., Othman, A.E.A. & Nordin, Z.S. (2005). Computer Self-Efficacy, Computer Anxiety, & Attitudes toward the Internet: A Study among Undergraduates in Unimas. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (4), 205-219. Sayiner, B. (2006). Stress level of university students. Istanbul Commerce University of Science and Technology Journal Year: 5 Issue: 10 Fall. Scuhnk, D.H. & Meece, J.L. (2005). Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, 7196. Information Age Publishing. Schunk, D. H. 1984. Self-efficacy perspective in achievement behavior, Educational Psychologist, 19, 48-58. Semela, T. (2010). Who is joining physics & why? Factors influencing the choice of physics among Ethiopian university students. International Journal of Environmental & Science, 5(3), 319-340.Skinner, E. & Belmont, M. (1991). A longitudinal study of motivation in school: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement. Unpublished manuscript, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.

71

Smith, L., Sinclair, K.E. & Chapman, E.S. (2002). Students' Goals, Self-Efficacy, SelfHandicapping, and Negative Affective Responses: An Australian Senior School Student Study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 471-485. Sowa, C. J. & LaFleur, N. K. (1986). Gender differences within test anxiety. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 13, 75-80. Standage, M. & Treasure, D.C. (2002). Relationship among achievement goal orientations and multidimensional situational motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 87-103. Tekiroglu, O.D. (2005). Explaining the relationship between high school students selected affective characteristics & their physics achievement. (Master thesis, Middle East technical university). Retrieved from http://www.etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12606243 Tan, J.B.U. & Yates, S.M. (2007). A Rasch analysis of the Academic Self-Concept Questionnaire. International Education Journal, 8(2), 470-484. Tuana, H., Chinb, C. & Shieh, S. (2005) 'The development of a questionnaire to measure students' motivation towards science learning', International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639 - 654. Vancouver, J. B., & Kendall, L. N. (2006). When self-ecacy negatively relates to motivation and performance in a learning context. Journal of Applied Psychology,91, 11461153. Weaver, J. (2008). The effects of self-efficacy on motivation & achievement among fifth grade science students. (A Masters Research Project, The Faculty of the College of Education Ohio University). Retrieved from http://www. www.cehs.ohio.edu/resources/documents. Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: SpringerVerlag. Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivation research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 616622. Wiegers, I.M. & Friere, I.H (1977). Gender, female traditionality, achievement level and cognitions of success and failure. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 125-137. Wigfield, A., & Meece, J. L. 1988. Math anxiety in elementary and secondary school students, Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 210-216. Wolf, L. F. & Smith, J. K. 1995. The consequence of consequence: Motivation, anxiety and test performance, Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 227-242. Wong, J. G., Cheung, E. P., Chan, K. K., Ma, K. K. and Tang, S. W. (2006), Web-based survey of depression, anxiety and stress in first-year tertiary education students in Hong Kong. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 40, 777782.

72

Zakaria, E. & Nordin, N.M. (2008). The Effects of Mathematics Anxiety on Matriculation Students as Related to Motivation and Achievement. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(1), 27-30. Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845-862. Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., and Martinez-Pons, M. (1992) Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676. Zhu, Z. (2007). Learning content, physics self-efficacy, & female students physics coursetaking. International Education Journal, 8(2), 204-212. http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Effort. Accessed on 4th September 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org. Accessed on 1st September 2009.

73

APPENDIX Appendix 1: Questionnaire

Dear Students: We are the students of Master of Science Education, Institute of Education and Research, University Of Punjab We are conducting a research study Effect of self efficacy, level of effort and worry on motivation level of master level physics students, based on gender and CGPA/%Marks to fulfill the requirement of master degree. Please provide the information in the following section. There is no right or wrong answer. We just want to know about your opinion and views. We ensure you that your data will be kept confidential and will be used only for research purpose. We will be very thankful for your cooperation. Thanks in appreciation Muhammad Javaid Akhter (09-319) Usman Shafi (09-334)

Student name .. Program (Masters/Bachelors) Department .

Gender (male / female) CGPA/%Marks.. Institution..

Semester/Year of study.
74

Please read following directions very carefully. Direction: - please read each statement and circle a number 1, 2, 3, 4or 5 which indicate how much the statement applied to you. The rating scale is as follows: 1 SA Strongly agree 2 A Agree 3 U Undecided 4 D Disagree 5 SD Strongly disagree For Example I love physics very much 1 2 3 4 5

1. Self Efficacy S.No 1 2 3 4 5 SA 1 A 2 2 2 2 2 U 3 3 3 3 3 D 4 4 4 4 4 SD 5 5 5 5 5

Statements I believe that I will get excellent grades in the physics at this level.

In class, I prefer material that really challenges me so I can learn 1 new things. Considering the difficulty of any course, I do well in that course. I often apply physics to other situations in life. 1 1

If there are unseen questions in test, I perform well than most of 1 my classmates in exams.

75

I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected 1 problems during work. I choose physics because I have imaginative ideas in physics. 1

7 8 9 10 11 12

2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5

I am much confident that understanding the complex subject 1 matter is very easy for me. I actively take part in discussion during class as well working in 1 laboratory. During course work, I prefer course material that increases my 1 interest, even if it is difficult to learn. I always interrelates the basic concepts of physics. 1

When I am confronted with a problem during course work, I can 1 usually find several solutions.

2. Level of effort S.No. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 SA 1 1 1 A 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 U 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 D 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 SD 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Statements I try my very best to learn although I do not like the subject matter. I work hard to develop concept about any subject matter so I may get good grades. When activities are difficult, I give up or only do the easy parts.(-)

I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough. 1 Though I work hard, I could not get good grades in test. (-) If I found some topic interesting, I work more hard on that topic. If I found some topic important, I make more effort on that topic. If I found some topic challenging, I make more effort on that topic. 1 1 1 1

76

3. Worry SA 1 1 1 A 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 U 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 D 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 SD 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

S.No Statements 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I am continuously worried about my performance in study. When I have to learn new topic, I feel a bit worry. When I find some content difficult I feel nervous and anxious.

I am worried that I could not deal efficiently with unexpected 1 problems during study. I am always anxious about any new assignment. Worry about my class achievement causes me to be more focused on my lesson. I am anxious about my ability to interpret any content. I am always worried about topics that are important in course. 1 1 1 1

77