This study examined relationships between critical thinking, self-efficacy, self-regulated learning, and academic performance in university students. An in-class survey and online survey were administered to nutrition and education majors measuring these constructs. For the in-class survey, non-nutrition majors reported higher self-efficacy than nutrition majors. A significant relationship was found between self-efficacy and course grade for nutrition majors. The online survey found differences in self-efficacy between majors but no differences for critical thinking. Relationships were also found between self-efficacy and GPA for education majors.

1. Critical Thinking, Self-Efficacy, and Self-Regulated Learning in University Students Cheryl Reining & Sarah Thelen Thesis Supervisor: Catherine Arnold, MS, EdD, RD, LDN

3. Literature Review

8. Methods

15. Findings: In-Class Survey

16. Participant Profile: Age Distribution In-Class Survey

17. Participant Profile: Ethnicity Distribution 66.3%

18. Participant Profile: Nutrition Major vs. Non-Nutrition Majors 86%

20. Analysis: Cronbach Alpha Results Item N Cronbach’s Alpha Interpretation Self-Efficacy 8 .932 “ Excellent” Critical Thinking 5 .889 “ Good”

32. Findings: Online Survey

33. Participants Profile: Gender & Age Distribution Total participants= 88 79 females = 90% 9 males = 10% Females age: 63 = 23 and under 16 = 24 and over Males age: 9 = 23 and under 0 = 24 and over

34. Participant Profile: Ethnicity Distribution Online Survey Total Participants = 88 67% White 33% Non-white 33% 67%

35. Participant Profile: Distribution by Major 40% 60% Total participants= 88 60% Education majors 40% Nutrition majors

38. MAI Scale Scale: MAI A high value for Cronbach’s Alpha (> .9), indicates an excellent internal consistency Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .976 .977 52 Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation Score Interpretation Stop and reread 89.55 18.630 Good Use strategies from past 88.75 18.304 Good Good judge of understanding 87.78 15.863 Good Consider all options 68.58 29.483 Questionable Learned as much as could have 67.89 29.188 Questionable Question material prior 60.24 32.666 Questionable

39. Cronbach Alpha: Reliability A high value for Cronbach’s Alpha (> .9), indicates an excellent internal consistency of the items in the scale. Factor N Alpha Score Score Interpretation Critical thinking 5 .902 Excellent Self-efficacy 8 .944 Excellent MSLQ 13 .933 Excellent MAI 52 .977 Excellent

40. Null Hypotheses for Self-efficacy Null H08 - Null H012b

41. H08: There is No Difference Between Majors in Self-efficacy Null H0 is rejected Majors http://www.clker.com/clipart-thumb-up.html t = 2.125 df = 86 Self-efficacy N Mean Education 53 6.2382 Nutrition 35 5.8607 sig. .036

42. H09a : There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Academic Years for Nutrition Majors Null H0 is accepted Nutrition f = 1.833 df = 3, 31 Self-efficacy N Mean Freshman 7 5.6964 Sophomore 3 5.4583 Junior 11 5.5341 Senior 14 6.2857 Total 35 5.8607 sig. .162

43. H09b : There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Academic Years for Education Majors Education f = 3.919 df = 3, 49 Null H0 is rejected Self-efficacy N Mean Freshman 6 5.8958 Sophomore 8 5.5938 Junior 17 6.4779 Senior 22 6.3807 Total 53 6.2382 sig. .014

44. H010a: There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Age Categories for Nutrition Majors Nutrition f = 2.770 df = 1, 33 Null H0 is accepted Self-efficacy N Mean 23 and under 26 5.7115 24 and over 9 6.2917 Total 35 75.860 sig. .106

45. H010b: There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Age Categories in Education Majors Education f = 2.068 df = 1, 51 Null H0 is accepted Self-efficacy N Mean 23 and under 46 6.1821 24 and over 7 6.6071 Total 53 6.2382 sig. .156

46. H011a: There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Ethnicity Groups in Nutrition Majors Nutrition Null H0 is accepted t = 1.555 df = 33 Self-efficacy N Mean White 23 6.0326 Non-white 12 5.5313 sig. .130

47. H011b: There is No Difference in Self-efficacy Between Ethnicity Groups in Education Majors Null H0 is accepted Education t = 1.665 df = 50 Self-efficacy N Mean White 36 6.3403 Non-white 16 5.9766 sig. (2-tailed) .102

48. H012a: There is No Relationship Between Self-efficacy and Cumulative GPA in Nutrition Majors Null H0 is accepted Correlations Nutrition gpa self-efficacy gpa Pearson Correlation 1 .308 Sig. (2-tailed) .076 N 34 34 self-efficacy Pearson Correlation .308 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .076 N 34 35 Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

49. H012b: There is No Relationship Between Self-efficacy and Cumulative GPA in Education Majors Null H0 is rejected Correlations Education gpa self-efficacy gpa Pearson Correlation 1 .449 ** Sig. (2-tailed) .001 N 53 53 self-efficacy Pearson Correlation .449 ** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 N 53 53 Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

50. Results of Self-efficacy Analyses Hypotheses for Self-efficacy Null H0 for Self-efficacy & … Sig. H08 Majors .036 H09a Academic year for NUTR. majors .162 H09b Academic year for Ed. majors .014 H010a Age categories for NUTR. Majors .106 H010b Age categories for Ed. majors .156 H011a Ethnicities for NUTR majors .130 H011b Ethnicities for Ed. majors .102 H012a Cumulative GPA for NUTR. majors .076 H012b Cumulative GPA for Ed. majors .001

51. Null Hypotheses for Critical Thinking Null H013 - Null H017b

52. H013: There is No Difference in Critical Thinking Between Majors Null H0 is accepted Majors t = 1.509 df = 86 Critical thinking N Mean Education 53 5.5283 Nutrition 35 5.1657 sig. .135

53. H014: There is No Difference in Critical Thinking Across Academic Years f = 1.973 df = 3, 84 Null H0 is accepted Academic Year Critical Thinking N Mean Freshman 13 5.1077 Sophomore 11 4.7636 Junior 28 5.4929 Senior 36 5.5889 Total 88 5.3841 sig. .124

54. H015: There is No Difference in Critical Thinking Across Ethnicity Groups Null H0 is accepted t = .343 df = 85 Critical Thinking N Mean White 59 5.4169 Other 28 5.32876 sig. .732

55. H016: There is No Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Cumulative GPA Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Null H0 is accepted Correlations gpa critical_thinking gpa Pearson Correlation 1 .071 Sig. (2-tailed) .516 N 87 87 Critical thinking Pearson Correlation .071 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .516 N 87 88

56. H017: There is No Difference in Critical Thinking Across Age Groups Age Null H0 is rejected f = 4.840 df = 1, 86 Critical Thinking N Mean 23 and under 72 5.2639 24 and over 16 5.9250 Total 88 5.3841 sig. .030

57. H017a: There is No Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Cumulative GPA in Students Aged 23 and Under Null H0 is accepted Correlations 23 and under gpa critical_thinking gpa Pearson Correlation 1 .140 Sig. (2-tailed) .241 N 72 72 Critical thinking Pearson Correlation .140 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .241 N 72 72 Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

58. H017b: There is No Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Cumulative GPA in Students Aged 24 and Over Null H0 is accepted Correlations 24 and over gpa critical_thinking gpa Pearson Correlation 1 -.278 Sig. (2-tailed) .316 N 15 15 Critical thinking Pearson Correlation -.278 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .316 N 15 16 Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

59. Results for Critical Thinking Analyses Hypotheses for Critical Thinking Null H0 for Critical Thinking & … Sig. H013 Majors .130 H014 Academic year .124 H015 Ethnicity groups .732 H016 Cumulative GPA .516 H017 Age groups .030 H017a Cumulative GPA in 23 years and under .241 H017b Cumulative GPA in 24 years and over .316

60. Null Hypotheses for MAI/SRL Null H018 - Null H023

61. H018: There is No Difference in MAI/SRL Between Majors Null H0 is accepted Majors t = .261 df = 86 MAI/SRL N Mean Education 53 80.0708 Nutrition 35 79.1797 sig. .795

62. H019: There is No Difference in MAI/SRL Between Academic Years f = 3.84 df = 3, 84 Null H0 is accepted MAI/SRL N Mean Freshman 13 76.0740 Sophomore 11 70.6818 Junior 28 83.1408 Senior 36 81.1287 Total 88 79.7163 sig. .107

63. H020: There is No Relationship Between MAI/SRL and Ethnicity Null H0 is accepted t = 1.026 df = 85 MAI/SRL N Mean White 59 80.6750 Other 28 77.0165 sig. (2-tailed) .308

64. H021: There is No Difference Between MAI/SRL and Age Groups Null H0 is rejected t = - 2.365 df = 86 MAI/SRL N Mean 23 and under 72 77.9111 24 and over 16 87.8401 sig. .020

65. H022a: There is No Relationship Between MAI/SRL and Cumulative GPA in Students Aged 23 and Under Null H0 is accepted Correlations 23 and under gpa MAI gpa Pearson Correlation 1 -.070 Sig. (2-tailed) .558 N 72 72 MAI Pearson Correlation -.070 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .558 N 72 72 Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

66. H022b: There is No Relationship Between MAI/SRL and Cumulative GPA in Students Aged 24 and Over Null H0 is rejected Correlations 24 and over gpa MAI gpa Pearson Correlation 1 .651 ** Sig. (2-tailed) .009 N 15 15 MAI Pearson Correlation .651 ** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .009 N 15 16 Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

67. H023: There is No Relationship Between MAI/SRL, Critical Thinking & Self-efficacy MAI/SRL, Critical Thinking & Self-efficacy Null H0 is rejected Correlations MAI Critical thinking self-efficacy MAI/SRL Pearson Correlation 1 .340 ** .312 ** Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .003 N 88 88 88 Critical thinking Pearson Correlation .340 ** 1 .524 ** Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 N 88 88 88 self-efficacy Pearson Correlation .312 ** .524 ** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .000 N 88 88 88 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

68. Results for MAI/SRL Analyses Hypotheses for MAI/SRL Null H0 for MAI/SRL & … Sig. H018 Majors .795 H019 Academic year .107 H020 Ethnicity groups .308 H021 Age groups .020 H022a Cumulative GPA in 23 yrs and under .558 H022b Cumulative GPA in 24 yrs and over .009 H023 Critical thinking & self-efficacy .003

73. Thank You! Any Questions?