Next Article in Journal
Finding Spaces: Teacher Education Technology Competencies (TETCs)
Previous Article in Journal
Worldwide Trends in Bilingual Education Research: A Half-Century Overview
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cooperative Approaches and Academic Motivation towards Enhancing Pre-Service Teachers’ Achievement
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 11
10.3390/educsci11110732
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Students Who Orient towards Studying vs. Learning: Teachers’ Perceptions

by
Rocío Quijano-López
1,* and
Miguel Pérez-Ferra
2
1
Department of Science Didactics, Campus Las Lagunillas s/n, University of Jaén, 23071 Jaén, Spain
2
Department of Pedagogy, Campus Las Lagunillas s/n, University of Jaén, 23071 Jaén, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11(11), 732; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110732
Submission received: 15 August 2021 / Revised: 25 October 2021 / Accepted: 10 November 2021 / Published: 13 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Psychology and Education)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Many present-day students orient towards outcomes instead of learning. This is leading to failure that affects students, families, the educational system itself, and occupational and financial systems in Spain. Indeed, current data points to an 18.2% university drop-out rate during the first year. The present study seeks to identify teachers’ perceptions of the deficiencies pertaining to study orientations, their involvement in training processes, and student knowledge about the actual state of affairs regarding this topic. The target population for this incidental study was 1769 university lecturers, with a final participating sample of 317. A cross-sectional study was conducted, which was descriptive and inferential in nature. Linear regression was employed to explain variance. Outcomes showed a high degree of homogeneity in teachers’ responses. Outcomes indicate that orientations towards academic learning and study are deemed necessary. Furthermore, such orientations do not prevail due to a lack of teacher engagement, possibly due to a lack of teacher training directed towards managing and balancing class time with monitoring practices. A degree of insufficiency was observed with regards to teacher training for study management, in addition to greater teacher engagement amongst hired teaching staff with indefinite contracts working at public or private institutions, relative to official permanent teaching staff.

1. Introduction

1.1. Current State of the Issue

Student training includes a number of aspects that orient them towards learning or outcomes. Such aspects include the cultural level of the family, and the development of moral judgement and a sense of ethics. Other aspects, which form the basis of this present work, refer to teachers’ perceptions of the need to orient students in their studies, student knowledge about their own disposition towards studying, and teacher engagement when guiding students in this sense [1].
When responses to formulated questions are not adequately approached, it is common for teachers to lack knowledge in the practical sense of relevant epistemology [2] or to fail to develop commitment to taking in students’ concerns. This constitutes an essential link in the relationship between teachers and students [3], possibly because, as indicated by Ibáñez-Martín [4], teachers have “(…) left to one side the dimension of teachers for humanity” (p. 162).
It is certainly true that the aforementioned indicators, along with others that are not under investigation here (such as family socioeconomic and cultural levels, social uprooting, etc.), have a negative impact on students in particular, and on society in general.
Baccalaureate students who are oriented towards outcomes and who most frequently end up in university lecture halls often end their academic career with academic failure, and later, as university dropouts [5]. In the report entitled “Spanish Universities in Figures” requested by the Confederation of Spanish University Rectors (CRUE), Hernández-Armenteros and Pérez-García [6] urge for “(…) those responsible for education at pre-university and university stages to improve and generalise personal academic guidance services” (p. 57). This is due to the concerning finding indicated in the report that 18.2% of students who begin the first year of university drop out during this same academic year.
The aforementioned situation constitutes an unfortunate end to a process that begins during adolescence, keeping in mind that during this stage, the primary source of support to students changes, whilst, at the same time, a psychological adjustment that defines their personality takes place [7,8]. Positive effects can result when family and teacher support is present. This is beneficial, above all, for students whose orientational profile leans towards outcomes and tend to be unaware of their personal situation or tend to avoid it.
We live in a highly competitive society based on the premise of accepting a labour market that links the knowledge and operability of citizens to their production capacity. Students who are oriented towards outcomes tend to find themselves in a situation of school failure. Their access to the job market tends to be complicated, not just because of their deficiencies, but also because of the problems they experience with self-concept.
Considering this last circumstance, actions that enable training conditions and processes to be improved will have to be put into practice in the educational setting. This will be especially important for those who face more challenges when it comes to optimising their sense of self-perception [9,10], an aspect whose positive effect on Spanish adolescents’ future expectations favours orientations towards work [11]. In this same sense, Abiétar et al. [12] indicated that adolescents with good work capacity and also employ that capacity in the classroom tend to have positive attitudes towards their work life.
The reference framework reflected in these findings provides an argument of the highest magnitude, from which preventative approaches can be planned in order to assist students with their studies and help them to avoid dropping out and academic failure. These actions should not only favour study performance as an intellectual activity that promotes learning, but should also broaden students’ expectations of their working future.

1.2. Literature Review and Justification of Study Validity

That being said, it is necessary for teachers to orient students’ education in such a way that they equip them with the strategies and competencies available in order to appropriately tackle the demands of their academic situation, avoiding negative dispositions towards training [13,14].
Recent studies indicate that when students achieve poor results, if not tackled immediately, this can give rise to negative personal dispositions towards academic activities [15]. Avoiding this type of situation demands that skills and knowledge be internalised by students, whose achievements are mediated by the guiding actions of teachers. For this reason, teachers must be equipped with the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for adequate counselling [16].
In addition to having knowledge of determined procedures, students should also exert effort when completing activities, with this being more inherent in academic-oriented students than outcome-oriented ones. This is achieved with the support of the monitoring of activities and the organisation of daily work [17]. This generates a good climate of persistent work that is regulated throughout the academic year via self-efficacy, which teachers must teach their students how to manage [18].
One of the important functions that teacher guidance should be able to maintain is that of a good classroom environment. Its evaluation facilitates the detection of potential deficits, which may stand in the way of students achieving their objectives [19]. A good classroom environment facilitates the performance of tasks and allows students to define objectives and subsequently reach them [20,21,22]. The reality described above can be achieved when teaching staff reinforce the achievements of students with motivational dispositions that favour the definition of objectives, performance of tasks, and development of habits in the organisation of daily work. This is possible when teachers assert themselves, even when students are outcome-oriented, and takes a humanistic stance in which they are more committed to the student. This generates an ethical commitment that goes beyond just this challenge, and it is based on caring and taking responsibility for the student, with this being relevant to both individual teachers and departments as a whole, given that such work is performed by a team. Nonetheless, the levels of commitment shown in research studies are not the most appropriate.
A review of the literature indicates that teachers urge for the skills alluded to here to be developed in students. Nevertheless, institutions imparting primary and secondary education and vocational training continue, to a certain extent, to deliver academic-centric training. Curricula are overloaded with information and knowledge, which means that basic teaching has been converted into a mere disseminator of knowledge [23].
For this reason, teachers are urged to perform didactic actions that are linked to the development of skills and abilities, in the sense that they should favour the exercise of reasoning and, consequently, develop the intellectual work techniques [24] required in order to make the exercise of knowledge operational. Nonetheless, the available literature highlights the fact that the need mentioned by teachers to orient students towards studying does not correspond to their engagement in this process.
Studies carried out by Grillo and Kier [25] alluded to a commitment deficit in the professional identity of teachers. Other research studies refer to the absence of teamwork based on professional commitment [26,27,28]. Equally as essential as the aforementioned aspects are the support provided by the school leadership and the supervision of inspection services, which should favour a culture of collaboration and facilitate teacher training, alongside the consequent extra time available to attend to students [28]. In the same way, studies have been conducted on the impact of a fluid teacher–student relationship. This is necessary in responding to their doubts, in the sense of defining a series of questions as a function of responses given by students to teachers. This will enable more in-depth knowledge of student indecisiveness and the mistakes made in the discursive process [29].
Research studies have been conducted in which it can be seen that students are not imaginative and do not consider learning to be the most important aspect of studying. These studies have attributed the origin of these aforementioned situations to the fact that students are often concerned about objectives, which are only based on outcomes, and do not value the processes needed to achieve them [30].
The importance of the present study is found in the fact that the orientation of students towards studying is not only impacted by deficient initial preparation and the absence of study habits, but also the didactic sequence, which must be tightly related to teacher knowledge of their students’ learning styles and, consequently, to the methods used in response to the learning demanded by these styles. As a result, methodological training is vitally important for teachers to be able to support students in developing an orientation towards learning. Such an orientation will facilitate positive attitudes and motivation towards studying [31]. In the same way, and in relation to that which was mentioned previously, it is important for teachers, families, and the students themselves to understand the consequences of school failure, such as academic abandonment and reduced labour insertion [32].

2. Materials and Method

2.1. Research Objetives

Reflections and analysis integrated into the introduction and the literature review permit the following research objectives to be defined:
  • Identify teacher perceptions of the need for secondary school students to orient towards studying;
  • Examine teacher dispositions towards teaching their students to study;
  • Evaluate teacher opinions of their students’ perceptions of their own study-based orientations.

2.2. Population and Research Sample

Due to the nature of the population, causal or incidental sampling was carried out. Given that the whole teaching body had not previously committed to participate, the participating sample was made up of teachers who agreed to participate in this research.
The sample was calculated through the application of the Sample Size Calculator for a proportion (absolute margin): http://www.berrie.dds.nl/calcss.htm (accessed on 19 February 2021). The population was made up of 1709 teachers. The minimum sample was 268, and the participating sample was 316.

2.3. Data Collection Instrument

The selected instrument was a Likert-type scale, which was initially made up of 27 items and was designed by those involved in the project. The professional experience of teachers working with students who were oriented towards outcome or learning was taken as a reference, as was previously conducted literature in the field.
The process used to elaborate the scale, in line with that described by García-Sánchez et al. [33], consisted of first defining the potential dimensions to be evaluated. Namely, these were students’ level of orientation towards study, teacher engagement in students’ study, and student self-knowledge of their disposition towards studying. Secondly, relevant variables were defined for each dimension. Definitions were based on a literature review. A pilot sample of secondary school teachers were provided with the preliminary scale in order to evaluate it (from 0 to 1). According to Lawshe [34], content validity indices (CVI) “should be considered between 0.33 and 1”, producing a CVI of 1.67. None of the items were dropped from the scale, with the final scale being constructed according to the items previously defined. Following this, exploratory factor analysis was conducted, followed by confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis.
The scale, which was ordinal in nature, offered 5 response options, with the aim of enabling inferential studies to be carried out later. Values ranged from “totally disagree” = 1 to “totally agree” = 5.
The dependent variable was defined as: “Teacher perceptions of the reasons why students are oriented towards outcome vs. learning”. The independent variables were made up of two dichotomous variables—specifically, teachers’ highest level of qualification (5-year degree/4-year degree/PhD) and school location (Jaen capital or provincial), and two categorial variables (didactic training received by teachers and employment status).
Questionnaire administration and collection was performed by the Educational Inspection Service of the Territorial Delegation for Education and Sport in Jaen (EIS; Council of Andalusia). EIS management was first informed; they also communicated with teaching staff and sent out “drive” forms via email.

3. Methodology

3.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis

Scale Construct Validity

The scale was initially made up of twenty-seven items. Analysis examined whether items really evaluated what the questionnaire sought to evaluate, alongside inter-item correlations and the factors with which they correlated (KMO test). Furthermore, the orthogonality of analysed variables was examined (Bartlett sphericity test); in other words, whether correlations between variables were zero was examined. Both the Bartlett sphericity test (χ2(351, df) = 1938.019; p = 0.000) and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (0.777) indicated that factor analysis was appropriate within the present sample (Table 1).
Specifically, sixteen of the twenty-six items that made up the scale were eventually used in the final study. The distribution of these items according to the factors was examined, while considering the correlation indices produced in relation to defined factors. Factor loadings had a strength of 0.5.
Commonality highlights that item responses ranged from an explained variance of 0.740 (item 8) to 0.466 (item 7).
Variable distribution according to factors is presented in Table 2, although factor 3 had only two variables, which affect the estimations for analysis. Nonetheless, whether or not confirmatory factor analysis produced reasonable values of explained variance for each variable, with respect to its respective latent variable, will be considered. However, total variance was explained, suggesting that the Likert scale measures the targeted trait reasonably well (Table 3).

3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis was performed through structural equation models and by using Lisrel 8.80. The aim of this analysis was to determine “to what extent sample data supports a theoretical model of multiple dependent relationships between variables” [35].
An SEM model was developed for factor analysis as this enables the creation of models that incorporate measurement error [36]. This analysis was conducted in 4 phases:
Phase 1
Determination of the estimation model, operationalised through a Likert-type scale. The model was previously defined through exploratory factor analysis, with rotation adhering to principal components. This defined sixteen observed variables which were integrated according to 3 latent factors.
Phase 2
Identification, implementation of structural equation procedures in order to permit the determination of whether the model had been identified. This required the calculation of the degrees of freedom (df). In the present study, df = 101 < 0, suggesting an over-indication.
Phase 3
Parameter estimation, which responded to a graphical representation of the theoretical and conceptual structure of the instrument under analysis. This provided the basis for the formulation of the reproduced matrix, which would be compared with the derived matrix. Parameters of unknown values were determined. This process was carried out using the software Lisrel 8.80.
The graphical representation is presented in Figure 1. This defines 3 latent variables and the coefficient regressions defined between the latent and observed variables; in other words, the variance percentage is explained by each item. The interpretation of these results is as follows:
−
Latent variable F-1 (need to be oriented towards studying). The latent variable most strongly influenced tem17 (0.47). Student motivation increased with prior experience of achievement (tem22 = 0.45). A positive work climate favoured the definition of objectives by students (tem14 = 0.43/tem21 = 0.43). The above means that organising daily work promotes a learning orientation, and the generation of an appropriate work climate favours task performance.
−
Latent variable F-2 (teacher engagement to achieve effective studying). The latent variable most strongly influenced tem-13 (0.51). Orientation towards better time organisation facilitated meaningful learning (tem-18 = 0.46). A fluid relationship with teachers increased study motivation (tem-10 = 0.45). Subject material was tackled through learning based on reasoning.
−
Latent variable F-3 (knowledge of students about their own disposition towards studying). The latent variable most strongly influenced tem-6 (0.58). Students considered learning to be the most important aspect of studying. This variable also had a notable impact on tem-1 (0.53). Students tended to be imaginative and creative.
The strongest relationship between latent variables was defined as follows: F1–F2-->(0.96) (the need to be study-oriented (F1) and teacher engagement in achieving effective studying (F2)). A medium–strong relationship was found between F2–F3-->(0.71) (teacher engagement (F2) and student knowledge of their own disposition towards studying (F3)). A weak to medium relationship was found between F1–F3-->(0.50) (need to be study-oriented (F1) and student knowledge about their own disposition towards studying (F-3)).
Evaluation of model fit. In this phase, goodness of fit criteria and indicators enable evidence regarding validity to be related with the structure of the instrument being evaluated. The following outcomes were found: 4.1. Coefficient X2/df (122.61/101 = 1.21; X2/df = 1.21 < 5). The coefficient was then adjusted. 4.2. Absolute fit indices (AFI): GFI (0.99); RMSEA (0.073); NCP (21.62), (0.00), (53.72); ECVI (1.95). 4.3. Incremental fit indices (IFI): AGFI (0.79); IFI (0.97); NNFI (0.97); CFI (0.97). 4.4. Parsimonious fit indices: PNFI (0.73); PGFI (0.62). According to Lévy-Mangin and Varela-Mallou [37], the model produced acceptable goodness of fit indices; for this reason, it is considered acceptable.

3.3. Scale Reliability

Internal consistency of the instrument was evaluated via Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, with the lower limit estimated to be at 0.60–0.70, in accordance with Hair et al. [38]. The Cronbach alpha coefficient with regards to the overall scale was 0.831, with this value being highly acceptable. With regards to the two halves, evenly numbered items had a Cronbach alpha of 0.717, and unevenly numbered items had an alpha of 0.749. This indicates that the scale is well-balanced with regards to its consistency. Furthermore, the Guttman coefficient pertaining to the two halves was 0.777, which confirms the data presented above.

3.4. Statistical Analysis

A cross-sectional descriptive-inferential study was conducted to uncover the opinions held by teachers about the reasons why students orient towards outcomes vs. learning. The study was based on a maximum potential standard deviation of 2 (SD). An inferential study of gathered data was conducted in order to determine whether statistically significant differences emerged as well as statistical power and effect size. The Student’s t-test analysis was used for the two variables with two categories, whilst one-way ANOVA was used for the variables with three or more categories.
Finally, linear regression analysis was conducted with the aim of identifying the proportion of variance explained by each of the 3 considered factors.
With regards to all variables, data was found to be normally distributed, whilst Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS), homogeneity of variance, and Levene test outcomes were all acceptable. Parametric tests could therefore be used.

3.4.1. Descriptive Analysis

Teachers were found to “agree” that there was a “need for students to be study oriented”, with responses being largely homogeneous (M = 4.02; SD = 0.464). This perception was emphasised through their agreement that there is a “need to help students to create an appropriate study climate” (M = 4.48; SD = 0.624) and to “reinforce students’ capacity to organise their work, given that this facilitates their motivation to study” (M = 4.40; SD = 0.690). This finding was corroborated by the opinion that “effort in itself does not determine student performance” (M = 2.81; SD = 0.828), with teachers generally “moderately agreeing” with this item.
Teachers commonly “agreed” that there was a “lack of teacher engagement to ensure that students study effectively” (M = 3.91; SD = 0.510). This lack of engagement was mainly manifested through statements that “students lacked guidance when it came to managing study time” (M = 4.27; SD = 0.739), and that there existed a “lack of monitoring around how to run activities for meaningful learning” (M = 3.95; SD = 0.797). A lack of commitment was also highlighted in agreement with a “lack of guidance to learn content through reasoning”, with this item being strongly linked with the aforementioned deficiency (M = 3.66; SD = 0.850). These findings were manifested through the “moderate agreement” of teachers that “students are prepared to use intellectual work techniques”, either on very few occasions or with little continuity (M = 3.46; SD = 0.867). As a consequence, the fact that “there is a fluid relationship between teachers and students that increases the motivation to study” (M = 4.32; SD = 0.713) is not effective. This is because it is not normally taken advantage of when it comes to developing the skills and abilities of students.
In addition, teachers did not consider that “students have knowledge of their own disposition towards studying” (M = 2.93; SD = 0.759). This was the case both in terms of their lack of knowledge about the possibilities open to them, and in terms of their possible approach to studying, but this was more evident among teachers who had the employment status of “official with final assignment” (OFA). Data referred to in Table 4.

3.4.2. Inferential Study

−
Mean differences between teachers’ academic level and the three factors of the dependent variable.
Data was found to be normally distributed (KS = 0.262 > 0.05). Outcomes of the Levene test demonstrate that variances were equal (p = 0.802 > 0.05). For this reason, parametric tests could be used.
Outcomes indicate that no statistically significant differences existed between “teacher’s qualification level” (a 4-year degree, 5-year degree, or a doctorate) and the “need for students to be oriented towards studying” (F(238) = 0.796; t(238) = 0.758; p = 0.464 > 0.05) or “lack of teacher engagement to ensure that students study effectively” (F(238) = 0.686; t(238) = 0.758; p = 0.449 > 0.05). There were also no statistically significant differences found between the reference variable and “students’ knowledge of their own disposition towards studying” (F(238) = 0.482 t(238) = 783; p = 0.434 > 0.05) (Table 5).
−
Mean differences between school location (capital city or other schools in the province) and the three factors formed by the dependent variable.
The Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS = 0.712 > 0.05) and the Levene tests (p = 0.525) showed that data were normally distributed and variances were equal. For this reason, parametric tests were appropriate.
No statistically significant differences were found between the perceptions of teachers who delivered teaching in Jaen capital city or in the rest of the province; between the “need for students to be oriented towards studying” (F(342) = 0.952; t(245) = −0.952; p = 0.342 >0.05) and the “lack of teacher engagement to ensure that students study effectively” (F(245) = 0.735; t(245) = −1.246; p = 0.214 > 0.05); or between school location and the level of “student knowledge about their own disposition towards studying” (F(245) = 0.018; t(245) = −0.592; p = 0.555 > 0.5) (Table 6)
−
Mean differences between teacher employment status and the factors comprised by the dependent variable.
Parametric tests were used given that the KS (=0.448 > 0.05) and Levene test (p = 0.186 > 0.05) outcomes were not statistically significant, confirming that data distribution was normal, and variance was homogeneous.
No statistically significant differences were found between employment status and the “need for students to be study oriented” (F(5,223) = 1.809; p = 0.076 > 0.05) (Table 7).
Statistically significant differences did exist between teachers’ employment status and the “lack of teacher engagement to ensure that students study effectively” (F-2). Differences were found between teachers with an indefinite contract (TIC) and officials with final assignment (OFA) (F(5,223) = 1.822; p = 0.000 < 0.05). In this case, statistical power was (d) = 0.987. This translates to outcomes being repeated in 98.7% of research studies. Effect size was (1 − β) = 0.106, giving a very low explained variance of just 1.06%.
Statistically significant differences were established in relation to item 8, “students are prepared to use intellectual work techniques that are focused towards study” and “teachers’ employment status” (F(5,220) = 1.888; p = 0.000 < 0.05; (d) = 0.991; (1 − β) = 0.112). These differences emerged between officials with final assignment (OFA) at mixed funded (private and public) schools (MFS), with outcomes favouring the second (MFS) (M(MFS) = 4.21 > 3.30 = M(OFA); p = 0.000 < 0.05). Statistically significant differences were also found between officials with provisional assignment (OPA) but without a permanent school destination (PSD) and teachers who had indefinite contracts at mixed funded schools (MFS). Once again, outcomes favoured the MFS, with teachers reporting to be “in agreement” (M(MFS)) = 4.21 > 3.25 = M(OFA); p = 0.006 < 0.05).
Statistically significant differences were also found in relation to item 13, “lack of guidance around the organisation of study time” and “teachers’ employment status (F(5,223) = 2.307; p = 0.009 < 0.05; (d) = 0.874; (1 − β) = 0.066). Observed differences emerged between official with final assignment (OFA) and a permanent school destination and those with an indefinite contract working at mixed funded schools (MFS) (M(MFS) = 4.79 > 4.19 = M(OFA); p = 0.012 < 0.05), favouring teachers with indefinite contracts at mixed funded schools who reported strong agreement.
Statistically significant differences persisted with regards to item 16, “teachers at the school reinforce the achievements made by students” and teachers’ employment status (F(5,220) = 0.647; p = 0.000 < 0.05; (d) = 0.990; (1 − β) = 0.111).
Differences were produced between teachers who were official with final assignment (OFA) and substitute teachers (ST) (M(OFA) = 3.72 < 4.56; M(ST); p = 0.022 < 0.05), and between teachers who were official with final assignment (OFA) and those with indefinite contracts at mixed funded schools (MFS) (M(OFA) = 3.72 < 4.53; M(MFS); p = 0.000 < 0.05). In both cases, evaluations were more favourable for non-permanent staff; however, in the case of all three, opinions demonstrated “agreement”.
Statistically significant differences were generated in relation to teachers’ employment status and item 18, “fluid relationship between teachers and students increases study motivation” (F(2,220) = 2.648; p = 0.047 < 0.05; (d) = 0.732; (1 − β) = 0.049). Nonetheless, these significant differences were not evident when comparing the different categories of this variable.
Statistically significant differences were also found in relation to teachers’ employment status and “level of students’ knowledge about their own disposition towards studying (F3) (F(5,223) = 1.127; p = 0.000 < 0.05; (d) = 0.993; (1 − β) = 0.114). Differences were produced among teachers who were official with final assignment (OFA), particularly between those with indefinite contracts who work in private schools (ICPS) (M(OFA) = 2.85 < 3.47 = M(ipcs); p = 0.006 < 0.05) and those with indefinite contracts working at mixed funded schools (MFS) (M(OFA) = 2.86 < 3.69 = M(MFS); p = 0.006 < 0.05)
These statistically significant differences were specified in relation to teachers’ employment status and item1 (“baccalaureate students are aware of their challenges and limitations”) (F(5,222) = 1.139; p = 0.000 < 0.05; (d) = 0.997; (1 − β) = 0.097).
Statistically significant differences were established between teachers who were official with final assignment (OFA) and those with indefinite contracts working at mixed funded schools (MFS) (M(OFA)= 2.97 < 3.58 = M(MFS); p = 0.032 < 0.05), and between teachers who were official with final assignment (OFA) and those with indefinite contracts working at private schools (ICPS) (M(OFA) = 2.97 < 3.88; M(CICP); p = 0.033 < 0.05), with opinions being more favourable amongst those working at private institutions.
Statistically significant differences were found to exist with regards to teachers’ employment status and item 6 (“students consider learning to be the most important aspect of studying”) (F(5,222) = 1.854; p = 0.003; (d) = 0.993; (1 − β) = 0.078). Differences were specified between teachers with an official final assignment (OFA) and those with indefinite contracts working at mixed funded schools (MFS) (M(OFA) = 2.72 < 3.37; M(MFS); p = 0.042 < 0.05), with outcomes being favourable to the latter despite being generally similar.
Differences also emerged between teachers official with provisional assignment (OPA) and those with indefinite contracts working at mixed funded schools (MFS) (M(OPA) = 2.40 < 3.37 = M(MFS); p = 0.013 < 0.05), and with regards to those with indefinite contracts working at private schools (ICPS) (M(OPA) = 2.72 < 3.50 = M(ICPS); p = 0.047). In both cases, opinions were more favourable within the former, although the most common response was “moderately agree” for all groups.
−
Mean differences between hours of teacher training and the three factors that make up the dependent variable.
Outcomes of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS = 0.209 > 0.05) and Levene tests (p = 0.970) confirmed normal data distribution and homogeneity of variance.
Variance analysis performed according to the hours of didactic teacher training and the three factors that make up the dependent variable indicated that no differences existed in any of the 3 dimensions, factor-1 (F(4,240) = 0.485; p = 0.272 > 0.05); factor-2 (F(2,240) = 1.242; p = 0.095 > 0.05); and factor-3 (F(4.240) = 0.133; p = 0.177 > 0.05) (Table 8).

3.4.3. Regression Analysis

Three stepwise regression analyses were carried out in order to identify whether the independent variable describing the teachers’ employment status could be predictive. This analysis was performed due to the fact that this was the only variable that could explain a reasonable proportion of variance in the inferential analysis.
In the case of factor 1 (“need for students to be study oriented”), the linear regression analysis showed that the only variable with potential predictive value, teachers’ employment status, was not predictive in this case.
None of the considered independent variables appears to be predictive. Considering the employment status of teachers (F = 1.135; p = 0.095; R2adjus = 0.020), in this case, only 2% of total variance could be explained (F(4,218)= 1.135; p = 0.341 > 0.05; R2adjus = 0.017).
With regards to factor 2 (“lack of teacher engagement to ensure that students study effectively”), teachers’ employment status was observed to differ significantly from zero and explained 7.1% of the overall variance in the dependent variables (F(5,241) = 5.241; p = 0.000 < 0.05; R2adjus = 0.071).
With regards to factor 3 (“level of students’ knowledge about their own disposition towards studying”), the best model explained 9.6% of all variances in this factor and integrated the variable describing teachers’ employment status (F(4,218) = 6.881; p < 0.000; R2adjus = 0.096).

4. Discussion

The aim of the present study was to identify baccalaureate teachers’ perceptions regarding the need to guide students when it comes to studying, teacher engagement in this process, and the knowledge of students about their own disposition towards studying.
Teachers unanimously agreed that it was necessary to orient students towards studying, showing a high degree of homogeneity in their responses. This orientation was considered to revolve around the need to help students create an appropriate study climate. This is understood as a central part of this process, allowing for potential shortcomings to be detected, which may stand in the way of achieving the proposed objectives [19,22]. In addition, it facilitates the performance and monitoring of tasks, which allows for the effort to be consolidated around pre-defined goals, with these being indicators of appropriate time management by the students [18]. To this end, appropriate methodological training is necessary for teachers as this will help students to increase their interest and positive attitudes towards studying, whilst also enabling them to reach new goals. This, at the same time, breeds an appropriate work climate and the motivation needed for students to orientate towards learning [30]. In this same sense, as stated by Wolf et al. [32], it is necessary to urge families, teachers, and other social agents to assume responsibility, not only for achieving targets, but also for the personal and social consequences that lead to school failure.
Nonetheless, the homogeneity of opinions is not enough, given that student orientations towards studying demand the commitment of teachers to ensure that pedagogical beliefs fit into the culture in which training activities are carried out [39].
Given that strategies are necessary for developing intellectual work techniques and habits through activity monitoring, teachers in the present study considered that students must receive moral reinforcement from their families and teachers. In addition, it was deemed important to facilitate interaction between teachers and students. All of this is based on a more humanistic stance that favours teacher commitment to students.
Teachers considered that the actions they described were not only relevant to guidance, but also, when performed appropriately from the end of primary education, would permit the development of preventive processes. These, in turn, as a means of achieving the goals set by the students, facilitate better student self-perceptions [9,10] and a greater capacity to take on challenges and actions that require effort [11].
The need to deepen knowledge about guidance relative to the indicators outlined in the present study raises the need for teacher training to move from one that is saturated by content, to another that is based on the execution of skills, as described by Ubieto [30]. Hence, the need to upscale the execution of reasoning through the development of intellectual work techniques is shown. This must be accompanied by the monitoring of these same activities [24].
However, as argued by participating teaching staff, the lack of alignment between the content that must be learned and skill development, alongside deficiencies in teacher training around provident student guidance, has led to a lack of commitment amongst teachers [25], and, above all, a lack of teamwork due to the absence of professional commitment [27]. The circumstances alluded to were shared by teachers, regardless of their academic qualification, whether they delivered teaching in urban or rural populations, and, most interestingly, regardless of their academic training. The latter of these findings leads us to reflect on the appropriateness and quality of the current training received by teachers. Further reflection will help to discern what works and what does not, and to offer solutions.
Furthermore, teachers considered that their lack of engagement was due to the lack of time availability, although greater time availability arises when the performance of classroom activities is balanced with monitoring [28]. This occurs not only because it optimises time use, but also because monitoring work enables erroneous reasoning processes to be deconstructed, helping those involved to learn through reasoning [29].
It is important to highlight that teachers working at private or mixed funded schools have less free time available and so more often make the link between commitment and engagement with students that help them to study. In this sense, these teachers considered their students to be more creative, more aware of their limitations, and more likely to consider learning to be a central aspect of studying. This finding may be rooted in more in-depth tutoring processes that would encourage students to face up to their own reality [30].

5. Conclusions

The information provided by participating teaching staff was fairly unanimous and homogeneous. An opinion shared by all teachers, regardless of their employment status, was that there is a need to guide students so that they could acquire study tools. Nonetheless, significant differences emerged in some cases with regards to the commitment of teachers to orient students towards engaging in appropriate studying techniques, in addition to their perceptions of student knowledge about their own disposition towards studying. However, the differences were marginal and favoured teachers working at private or mixed funded schools.
More tutoring actions were observed among teachers who were hired indefinitely at private or mixed funded schools. This came with greater knowledge of students and favoured students’ own knowledge about themselves. In this sense, preventative actions, such as tutoring and the monitoring of student intellectual activity, were judged to act as preventative processes that moved students away from an outcome orientation.
Tutoring is not only linked with student knowledge of methodological tools, but its importance is also highlighted through the need for support from families and teachers, in the sense that the primary source of social support for students changes at this life stage [7].
It is important to reflect on the fact that teachers’ academic training (university degree, PhD) and professional training were not high-quality discriminative indicators when it came to reflecting on and deepening knowledge about the reasons behind the lack of teacher engagement (no statistically significant differences were found). Nonetheless, teachers associated greater engagement with using up more teaching time, when in reality this should not be the case. This encourages further reflection about the orientation and purpose of ongoing teacher training.
Other important outcomes include the “nods” of teachers towards the need for leadership to be shown by school management. This was seen as capable of energising work teams who subscribe to the same shared culture and have students as their central focus. Combining, in a coordinated way, that which is legislated in regulatory frameworks with that which is then carried out in real life was also seen as a challenging demand. An example of this comes from the exams used to evaluate students and grant access to university, which are almost always based on content learning, and yet juxtapose with baccalaureate curricula which are determined by skill execution. In a tacit way, teachers demand for solutions to be found in order to bring these two highly different realities in line with actual needs.
All of the matters discussed above could provide a point of reflection to orient students more towards learning than outcomes.

Study Limitations

Access to teaching staff was not a challenge with regards to the administration of the scale. However, collaboration was not very strong given that, out of a population of 1779 teachers, only 317 participated. Limitations also arose with regards to knowledge about teachers’ professional culture. It is possible that this led to a degree of bias at the time of completing the scale.
In the same way, following data analysis, it could also be observed that it would have been possible to propose a number of other items which were not foreseen a priori, but that the information provided by the research suggested as being opportune.
In conclusion, some additional independent variables were included which were not easily delimited prospectively. It is also important to consider the potential effects of social desirability, which can sometimes cause informants to respond in a way that contrasts with the way they truly think.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.Q.-L. and M.P.-F.; methodology, R.Q.-L. and M.P.-F.; software, R.Q.-L. and M.P.-F.; validation, M.P.-F.; formal analysis, M.P.-F.; investigation, R.Q.-L. and M.P.-F.; resources, R.Q.-L. and M.P.-F.; data curation, R.Q.-L. and M.P.-F.; writing—original draft preparation, R.Q.-L. and M.P.-F.; writing—review and editing, R.Q.-L.; visualization, R.Q.-L. and M.P.-F.; supervision, R.Q.-L. and M.P.-F.; project administration, R.Q.-L. and M.P.-F.; funding acquisition, R.Q.-L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sobrado-Fernández, L.M.; Cauce-Santalla, A.I.; Rial-Sánchez, R. Las habilidades de aprendizaje y estudio en la educación secundaria: Estrategias orientadoras de mejora. Tendencias Pedagógicas 2002, 7, 155–177. [Google Scholar]
  2. Sierra-Arizmendiarrieta, B.; Pérez-Ferra, M. La comprensión de la relación teoría-práctica: Una clave epistemológica de la didáctica. Rev. Educ. 2007, 343, 553–576. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hernández-González, M.; Pérez-Ferra, M.; González-Ornelas, V. El crecimiento moral docente: La relación con actitudes vinculadas a valores. Percepción de normalistas de Michoacán (México). Magister 2020, 32, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ibáñez-Martín, J.A. Horizontes Para Los Educadores. Las Profesiones Educativas y la Promoción de la Plenitud Humana; Dykinson: Madrid, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hurtado-Hurtado, C.A. Las Causas del Fracaso Escolar en Estudiantes de Secundaria: Validación de un Modelo Psicosocial con Educaciones Estructurales; Universidad Complutense de Madrid: Madrid, Sapin, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hernández-Armentero, J.; Pérez-García, J.A. La Universidad Española en Cifras; CRUE: Madrid, Spain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  7. Romo-Torres, T.M. Una mirada sobre el fracaso escolar en la transición al bachillerato. Revista Historia de la Educación Colombiana 2018, 21, 119–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Miranda-López, F. Abandono escolar en educación media superior: Conocimiento y aportaciones de política pública. Sinéctica 2018, 51, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Vega-Fuente, A. La inserción laboral de los jóvenes: A propósitos de los PCPI. Rev. Educ. Soc. 2016, 23, 75–99. [Google Scholar]
  10. Zamfir, A.M.; Militaru, E.; Mocanu, C.; Lungu, E.O. School-to-Work Transition of Higher Education Graduates in Four European Countries. J. Comp. Int. Educ. 2020, 50, 36–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Verdugo, L.; Freire, T.; Sánchez Sandoval, Y. Understandign the Connections between Self-perceptions and Future Expectations. A Study with Spanish and Portuguese Early Adolescents. J. Psychodid. 2018, 23, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Abiétar-López, M.; Navas-Saurin, A.A.; Marhuenda-Fluixá, F.; Salvà-Mut, F. Subjectivity construction in school faiture paths. Transition pattheays provided for labour insertion for adolescents et risk. Psicho. Interv. 2017, 26, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Musitu, G.; Jiménez, T.; Murgui, S. Funcionamiento familiar, autoestima y consumo de sustancias en adolescentes: Un modelo de mediación. Rev. Salud Pública México 2012, 49, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Usán-Supervía, P.; Salavera-Bordás, C. School Motivation, Emotional Intelligence and Academic Performance in Students of Secondary Education. Actual. Psico. 2018, 32, 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mondragón-Albarrán, C.M.; Cardoso-Jiménez, D.; Bobadilla-Bentrán, S. Hábitos de estudio y rendimiento académico. Caso estudiantes de la licenciatura en Administración de la Unidad Académica Profesional Tejupilco. RIDE. Rev. Iberoam. Para La Invest. Des. Educa. 2017, 8, 661–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Kapur, R. Factors Influencing the Students Academic Performance in Secondary Schools in India; University Of Delhi: Delhi, India, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  17. Adresen, L.; Bpud, D.; Cohen, R. Learning Base Don Experience; Griff Foley: Sydney, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim, C.; Park, S.W.; Cozart, J.; Lee, H. From Motivation to Engagement: The Role of Effort Regulation of Virtual High School Students in Mathematics Courses. Educa. Techn. Soc. 2015, 18, 262–272. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ros-Morente, A.; Fillella, G.; Ribes, R.; Pérez-Escoda, N. Análisis de la relación entre competencias emocionales, autoestima, clima de aula, rendimiento académico y nivel de bienestar en educación primaria. Rev. Españ. Orient. Psicoped. 2017, 28, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  20. Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T.; Holubec, E.J. Cooperative Learning in the Classroom; Paidós: Barcelona, Spain, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  21. Nasimba, Q.; Marcela, L. Propuesta de Intervención Para Mejorar el Clima de Aula en el Séptimo de Básica de la Unidad Educativa San Luis Gonzaga 2016–2017; UTPL: Loja, Ecuador, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  22. Sun, Z.; Xie, K.; Anderman, L.H. The role of self-regulated learning in students’ success in flipped undergraduate math courses. Internet High. Educ. 2018, 36, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ubieto, A. Las Técnicas de Trabajo Intelectual, Proscritas. Available online: https://redined.mecd.gob.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11162/73136/00820073008110.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 28 July 2021).
  24. Newmann, F.M.; Marks, H.M.; Gamorán, A. Authentic Pedagogy and Studen Achievement. Am. J. Educ. 1966, 104, 343–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Grillo, M.; Kier, M. Why do they stay? An exploratory analysis of identities and commitment factors associated with teacher retention in hingh-need school context. Teach. Teach. Train. 2021, 105, 76–91. [Google Scholar]
  26. Guarino, C.M.; Santibañez, L.; Daley, G.A. Teacher recruitment and retentión: A review of the recent empirical literatura. Educ. Res. Rev. 2006, 76, 173–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Miller, J.M.; Youngs, P. Pearson-organization fit and first.year teacher retention in the United Stated. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 97, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nguyen, T.D. Linking school organizational characteristics and teacher retention: Evidence from repeated cross-sectional national data. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 97, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Montero, M.; García, G. ¿Qué hacen los profesores cuando los alumnos se equivocan? Un análisis de la interacción verbal en el aula de apoyo. Infanc. Aprendiz. 2005, 28, 141–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dudley, P.; Xu, H.; Vermunt, J.D.; Lang, J. Empirical evidence of the impact of lesson study on students’ achievement, teachers’ professional learning and on institutional and system evolution. Euro. J. Educ. Res. Develop. Policy 2019, 54, 202–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Aravena, C.; Maureira, F.; Flores-Ferro, E.; González-Flores, P. Incidencia del coeficiente intelectual, estilos de aprendizaje, motivos, actitudes y estrategias para el estudio sobre el rendimiento académico de los estudiantes de un colegio de Santiago. Foro Educacional 2017, 29, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Wolf, C.W.; Kupchik, A. School Suspensions and Adverse Experiences in Adulthood. Justice Q. 2017, 34, 407–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. García-Sánchez, J.; Aguilera-Terrants, J.R.; Castillo-Rosas, A. Guía técnica para la construcción de escalas de actitud. Odisea. Revista Electronica de Pedagogía 2011, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lawshe, C.H. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers. Psychol. 1975, 28, 563–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Orgás, M.B. Introducción a la metodología SEM, conceptos y propósitos fundamentales. In Metodología en la Investigación Sobre Discapacidad. Introducción al Uso de Las Ecuaciones Estructurales; Verdugo, M.A., Crespo, M., Badía, M., Arias, B., Eds.; INICO: Salamanca, Spain, 2008; pp. 12–28. [Google Scholar]
  36. Escobedo, M.T.; Hernández-Gómez, J.A.; Estebané, V.; Martínez-Moreno, G. Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales: Características, fases, construcción, aplicación y resultados. Ciencia Trabajo 2016, 18, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Lévy-Mangin, J.P.; Varela-Mallou, J. Modelización Con Estructuras de Covarianzas en Ciencias Sociales; Netbiblo: La Coruña, Spain, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hair, J.F.; Babin, B.; Money, A.H.; Samouel, P. Fundamentos de Métodos de Pesquisa em Administração; Bookman: Gerona, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  39. Dos Santos, L.M. The Cultural Cognitive Development of Personal Beliefs and Classroom Behaviours of Adult Language Instructors: A Qualitative Inquiry. Brain Sci. 2018, 8, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Education 11 00732 g001 550
Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis. Model produced using Lisrel 8.8.
Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis. Model produced using Lisrel 8.8.
Education 11 00732 g001
Table
Table 1. KMO and Bartlett sphericity tests.
Table 1. KMO and Bartlett sphericity tests.
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy0.773
Bartlett sphericity testApprox. Chi-squared1938.019
df351
Sig.0.000
Table
Table 2. Distribution of variables according to factors and rotation through principal components.
Table 2. Distribution of variables according to factors and rotation through principal components.
Variable NameItems Comprised
F-1: Need for students to orient towards studying.7, 11, 14, 17, 21, 22, 24, 25
F-2: Lack of teacher engagement with regards to students studying effectively.8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18
F-3: Self-knowledge of students about their disposition towards studying.1, 6
Table
Table 3. Explained variance according to factors and in relation to the overall scale.
Table 3. Explained variance according to factors and in relation to the overall scale.
Explained VariancePercentage of Explained Variance
F-1: Need for students to orient towards studying.21.621%
F-2: Lack of teacher engagement with regards to students studying effectively.9.265%
F-3: Self-knowledge of students about their disposition towards studying.7.577%
Variance explained by the overall set of items. Rotation performed according to principal components. 38.463%
Table
Table 4. Descriptive analysis according to means and standard deviations.
Table 4. Descriptive analysis according to means and standard deviations.
VariableM.D.T.
7. The consequences of poor results push students to study. 3.370.840
11. Effort determines, to a large extent, student performance. 2.810.828
14. Organising work increases motivation towards learning. 4.400.690
17. Reinforcing achievement facilitates motivation towards learning.4.280.736
21. An appropriate work climate means that work is more likely to be performed correctly. 4.360.769
22. An appropriate work climate enables students to be oriented towards specific goals. 4.480.624
24. During study, new content is reviewed, organised, and integrated with knowledge that has already been acquired. 3.380.840
25. Student interest motivates them towards new learning. 3.990.835
F-1. Need for students to be oriented towards studying.4.020.464
8. Students are prepared to use intellectual work techniques. 3.460.867
10. Lack of guidance to learn content through reasoning. 3.660.850
12. There is a lack of activity monitoring for learning to be meaningful. 3.950.797
13. There is a lack of guidance around organising study time. 4,270.739
16. At their school or institute, teachers reinforce the achievements made by students. 3.850.805
18. There is a fluid relationship between teachers and students that increases the motivation to study. 4.320.713
F-2. Lack of teacher engagement to ensure that students study effectively.3.910.510
1. Baccalaureate students are aware of their limitations and opportunities. 3.070.854
6. Students consider learning to be the most important aspect of studying.2.790.940
F-3. Student knowledge about their own disposition towards studying.2.930.759
Table
Table 5. Analysis of mean differences according to the highest academic qualifications (Student’s t-test).
Table 5. Analysis of mean differences according to the highest academic qualifications (Student’s t-test).
Dimensions Pertaining to the Dependent VariableUniversity or Other Higher Studies
M ± SD		Doctor
M ± SD		t(df)p
Need for students to orient towards studying.4.276 ± 0.4614.229 ± 0.549t(238) = 0.7580.465
Lack of teacher engagement to ensure that students study effectively.3.321 ± 0.5653.565 ± 0.631t(238) = 0.7580.449
Student knowledge about their own disposition towards studying.3.674 ± 0.6423.543 ± 0.700t(238) = 0.7830.434
p ≤ 0.05, statistically significant difference.
Table
Table 6. Analysis of mean differences according to the centre’s location—Jaén capital or province (Student’s t-test).
Table 6. Analysis of mean differences according to the centre’s location—Jaén capital or province (Student’s t-test).
Dimensions Pertaining to the Dependent VariableJaén-Capital
M ± SD		Province
M ± SD		t(df)p
Need for student to orient towards studying.3.991 ± 0.4564.047 ± 0.473t(245) = 0.9520.342
Lack of teacher engagement to ensure that students study effectively. 3.876 ± 0.5363.957 ± 0.485t(245) = −1.2460.214
Student knowledge about their own disposition towards studying.2.907 ± 0.7702.965 ± 0.751t(245) = −0.5920.555
p ≤ 0.05, statistically significant difference.
Table
Table 7. Mean differences between teacher employment status and the factors comprised by the dependent variable. ANOVA.
Table 7. Mean differences between teacher employment status and the factors comprised by the dependent variable. ANOVA.
DVWHOLEOFAOPAMFSICPS(ST)F(df)p(1 − β)
D-14.02 ± 0.4663.99 ± 0.4704.16 ± 0.356423 ± 0.3824.05 ± 0.4904.04 ± 0.390F(5,223) = 1.8090.076---
D-23.91 ± 0.5053.84 ± 0.4873,88 ± 0.4914.39 ± 0.3694.02 ± 0.5224.19 ± 0.296F(5,223) = 1.8220.0000.106
D-32.90 ± 0.0032.85 ± 0.7392.57 ± 0.4373.47 ± 0.7903.58 ± 0.6513.11 ± 0.650F(5,223) = 1.1270.0000.114
Note: Official with final assignment (OFA); official with provisional assignment (OPA); indefinite contracts working at mixed funded schools (MFS); indefinite contracts working at private schools (ICPS); substitute teachers (ST). D-1: Need for students to be oriented towards studying; D-2: Lack of teacher engagement to ensure that students study effectively; D-3: Student knowledge about their own disposition towards studying. Dimensions of the dependent variable: DV.
Table
Table 8. Mean differences between teacher employment status and the factors comprised by the dependent variable (ANOVA).
Table 8. Mean differences between teacher employment status and the factors comprised by the dependent variable (ANOVA).
DVOVERALLTRAINING HOURSF2p(1 − β)
<0>3030 > 6161 > 121<120
D-14.02 ± 0.4644.34 ± 0.3654.10 ± 0.4574.01 ± 0.4413.97 ± 0.4554.02 ± 0.490F(4,240) = 0.4850.272---
D-23.92 ± 0.509397 ± 0.3013.90 ± 0.4714.03 ± 0.5063.79 ± 0.5263.94 ± 0.505F(4.240) = 0.1.240.095---
D-32.93 ± 0.7612.93 ± 0.7763.32 ± 0.7053.00 ± 0.7722.92 ± 0.7702.83 ± 0.745F(4,240) = 0.1330.177---
Note: Has not received training (<0); less than 30 h; between 30 and 60 h; between 61 and 120 h; less than 120 h. DV: Dimensions of the dependent variable.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Quijano-López, R.; Pérez-Ferra, M. Students Who Orient towards Studying vs. Learning: Teachers’ Perceptions. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 732. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110732

AMA Style

Quijano-López R, Pérez-Ferra M. Students Who Orient towards Studying vs. Learning: Teachers’ Perceptions. Education Sciences. 2021; 11(11):732. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110732

Chicago/Turabian Style

Quijano-López, Rocío, and Miguel Pérez-Ferra. 2021. "Students Who Orient towards Studying vs. Learning: Teachers’ Perceptions" Education Sciences 11, no. 11: 732. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110732

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop