الفهرس 
المدخل الي الدراسهيوجد فقط 14 صفحة متاحة للعرض العام
 |  | from | 202 |  |  |
| | | from | 202 | | |
المستخلص
Self-Efficacy, Attributional Style and Hope among Normal and High
Achievement Students: Factor Study.
-Introduction:
The field of psychology which contains many psychological variables
that affect human behavior, either positively or negatively would need to
distinguish those variables from each other in order to achieve a deep
understanding of these variables, and relations between them.
by review of research literature in the field of psychology it is clear
that there is a similarity between variable hope with some other
variables, including the self- efficacy and attributional style, Snyder
(1995: 356) noted that there was a similarity of efficacy expectancies , as
one of the components of the self- efficacy, with the component of energy
as a component of hope, where that each of them refers to the ability of
individuals to the implementation of activities associated with the goal
successfully, and similar outcome expectancies as one of the components
of the self-efficacy with the pathways component as a component of
hope in the cognitive model where each of them refers to the ability of
individuals to identify the behaviors required to successfully accomplish
the goals.
In the framework of factor studies, the study of (Magaletta & Oliver,
1999) aimed to discuss the distinction between hope and self-efficacy in a
sample of university students. The factor analysis was used in a rotation
orthogonal and oblique rotation and the results indicated that hope
distinct from the general self-efficacy. And the study of (Carifio &
Rhodes, 2002) noted that there wasn’t a distinction between agency and
self-efficacy but there was a distinction between pathways and selfefficacy.
And the results of the study (Kamal Ismail Attia, 2004) showed
that there wasn’t a distinction between hope and self-efficacy.
On the other hand there is a similarity between variable of hope with
attributional style, where (Snyder, 1995) indicates that each of the
cognitive variables, and across situations and time, while (Abramson et
al., 1998) distinguish between hope and attributional style indicated that
hope focus on the positive future events and is thus prospective in nature,
while attributional style focus on past events and it is therefore
retrospective in nature. While (Stotland, 1969) noted that hope links
between past events and future results In the framework of factor studies, (Ciarrochi et al., 2007) aimed to
discuss the distinctions between hope and attributional style in a sample
of students from seventh and eighth grade, the results showed that there
was a distinction between hope and attributional style. The study of
(Carifio & Rhodes, 2002) showed that there was a distinction between
hope components (agency, and pathways) and factors of locus of control
(luck, and situation, and effort) but there wasn’t a distinction between
pathways and factor (ability).
In the context of factor studies that addressed self- efficacy and
attributional style, according to a study (Carifio & Rhodes, 2002) which
showed that there was a distinction between self- efficacy and locus of
control factors (luck, effort, ability, and situation).
Thus study is an attempt for knowing and revealing the distinction
between self-efficacy, and attributional style, and hope, and the similarity
between the factors of the study variables by a different academic level
(normal and high achievers).
- THE STUDY PROBLEM:
The problem is stated in the following questions:
1. Are hope, self-efficacy and attributional style distinctive from each
other for high achiever students?
2. Are hope, self-efficacy and attributional style distinctive from each
other for normal achiever students?
3. Are there is a similarity between factors of hope, self-efficacy and
attributional style according to the distinction of academic level
(normal/high achiever).
- STUDY OBJECT
The present study aims at investigating the distinction between selfefficacy,
attributional style and hope. It also aims at examining the
similarity between the study variables factors between the normal
achievement students and the high achievement ones.- Importance of the Study:
Its Can be Identified in:
1. Received more light on one of the important variables in the field
of psychology, a variable hope in terms of nature, and theories and
how to measure it.
2. Seeks to attract those involved in the educational process to the
importance of the current variables in the formulation of programs
and curricula to help achieve educational goals.
3. The offering of the current study of a theoretical framework and
measurement tools can be used in the future studies and researches.
- STUDY SAMPLE:
The Sample of the Present Study Consisted of 496 Females and Males
of normal and high achievement students in the first year, secondary stage
-STUDY TOOLS:
The present study uses the following tools:
1- General self-efficacy scale, developed by (Kamal Ismail Attia,
2004).
2- Attributional style scale, prepared by the present study author.
3- Hope scale prepared by the present study author.
- STUDY PROCEDURES:
1- Identifying the high achievement students who got 285 degree, by
checking the students’ records at the preparatory stage.
2- Identifying the normal achievement students who got degree
between 258 and 285 by checking the students’ records at the
preparatory stage.
3- Administering the study tools on the normal achievement students
and the high achievement ones.
4- Scoring and tabulating the students’ responses and treating them
statistically.
5- Analyzing the study findings and suggesting recommendations.Results:
There is a partial distinction between dimensions of self efficacy and
attributional style and hope with high achiever.
There were three factors:
- The first factor: the dimensions of hope (self trust, awareness,
work) and self-efficacy dimensions (efficacy, outcome
expectancies) loaded on it.
- The second factor: the dimensions of attributional style (internality,
stability, and generality) loaded in it.
- The third factor: the dimensions of hope (one, group, and society
trust) loaded on it.
There is a partial distinction between dimensions of self efficacy and
attributional style and hope with normal achiever.
There were four factors:
- The first factor: the dimensions of hope (self trust, work) and selfefficacy
dimensions (efficacy, outcome expectancies) loaded on it.
- The second factor: the dimensions of attributional style (internality,
stability, and generality) loaded in it.
- The third factor: the dimensions of hope (one trust, awareness)
loaded on it.
- The fourth factor: the dimensions of hope (group, and society
trust) loaded in it.
There is a partial similarity for the factors of the study variables by a
different academic level (normal, and high achievers).