How Self-Concept, Self-Efficacy and Self-
Evaluation Relate to Relate to Achievement
Outcomes
New Technology-Based learning Models for Science and Technology Universities
Students
Sy-Yi Tzeng
Department of Industrial Education
National Taiwan Normal University
Taipei City, Taiwan
siyi0507@gmail.com
AbstractThe purpose of this study is to explore about the
influence of connected learnings significant cause on science and
technology universities students. On the basic of Dede &
Grimsons theory of new technology- based models, a self-made
achievement outcomes of self-evaluation questionnaire was
developed and presented. To achieve the purpose, we implement
the blended learning experimental teaching for one semester and
survey on 85 students at the end of the course. In this research, we
applied structural equation modeling as statistical analysis method.
The results showed that achievement outcomes of self-evaluation
have positive impact on domain-specific self-concept and new
technology-based learning self-efficacy, and new technology-based
learning self-efficacy has significant mediating effect between
domain-specific self-concept and achievement outcomes of self-
evaluation. It was found that learners domain-specific evaluation
can help to increase learners self-evaluation of capabilities and
progress in skill acquisition, yet, through new technology-based
learning self-efficacy for performing well, it helps learners to
develop self-evaluation in cognitive strategies, critical thinking,
and positive self-evaluation, also helps learning on teamwork
communication, leadership and conflict resolution.
Keywordsnew technology- based learning models; science and
technology universities students; self-concept; self-efficacy;
achievement outcome; self evaluation
I. INTRODUCTION
New media, insights from research, and alterations in
organizational structures are changing longstanding
assumptions that have shaped postsecondary learning (Dede &
Grimson, 2013). According to reports by the US National
Science Foundation (as cited in Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012),
using emerging technology-based teaching models in
postsecondary learning can increase the efficiency of learning.
At Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dede and Grimson
(2013) established new technology-based models and
maintained that learning by using information technology such
as e-learning, a method referred to as connected learning, has
become a trend in educational reform. Thus, learners no longer
receive and react to teaching unidirectionally; information
978-1-4799-8706-1/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE
Proceedings of 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL)
Hwa-Ming Nieh
Institute of Service Industries and Management
Minghsin University of Science and Technology
Hsinchu, Taiwan
nhm@must.edu.tw
technology is applied appropriately to enhance the learning
environment and link educator teaching to the intrapersonal
learning motivation of learners.
However, these ideas have not been consistently supported
by research. Cator & Adam (2013) reviewed many research
studies and developed in U.S. Department of Education report.
The general new technology-based learning assessments are
Common Core State Standard (CCSS) and standardized test
making sure learning resource promote achievement outcomes
(e.g., grade point, score test or A/B testing). High achievement
outcome does not imply sustained learning, so it cannot be
determined whether new technology-based learning referred to
as connected learning.
Recent studies on learning theories have revealed such a
trend, and those on achievement motivation theories have
shifted focus from simple perspectives based on stimuli and
responses to more complex cognitive models (Schunk, 2012).
Such complex models emphasize human thought and beliefs,
which affect behavior. Moreover, these contemporary studies
have steered their perspectives on intrapersonal motivation (e.g.,
self-efficacy) and environmental factors toward viewpoints
based on the subjective mind. Its not enough for us to figure
out the cause of connect learning. If learner with high self-
efficacy will sustain learning, how do we explain that the student
also has high self-efficacy and failed to motivate?
Therefore, by using an empirical study design, we explored
the effect of learners intrapersonal motivation on their
achievement outcomes of self-evaluation in the new technology-
based models proposed by Dede and Grimson (2013).
Specifically, content appropriate for students at science and
technology universities in the new technology-based models
was analyzed, the new technology-based models were applied in
teaching, and a science and technology university students
achievement outcome of self-evaluation model (STUS-AOSEM)
involving self-concept, self-efficacy, and achievement outcomes
of self-evaluation was verified. In the last, we also verified the
model with students sustained learning intention.
20-24 September 2015, Florence, Italy
 II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. New Technology-Based Models and Connecting Learning
New technology-based models incorporate teaching
methods based on information technology such as e-learning.
Such teaching methods are referred to as connected learning.
To explore this type of learning method, educators must
continue linking schooling to interdisciplinary problems and
teamwork beyond classrooms (Dede & Grimson, 2013).
Specifically, connected learning enables educators to engage
learners as prosumers in seeking, exploring, and solving
problems.
Pellegrino and Hilton (2012) reported that using emerging
technology-based teaching models in postsecondary learning
generates achievement outcomes related to advanced knowledge
and skills, which are divided into cognitive, intrapersonal, and
interpersonal dimensions. The cognitive dimension involves
cognitive processes and strategies, knowledge, creativity,
critical thinking, information literacy, reasoning, and innovation;
the intrapersonal dimension concerns intellectual openness,
work ethics and conscientiousness, positive core self-evaluation,
metacognition, flexibility, and appreciation of diversity; and the
interpersonal dimension includes teamwork and collaboration,
leadership, communication, responsibility, and conflict
resolution.
However, the general new technology-based learning
assessments are Common Core State Standard (CCSS) and
standardized test making sure the achievement outcomes (Cator
& Adam, 2013) but learners self-evaluation and learning
motivation. Connected learning with meaning of learners as
prosumers depend on self-judgments whether they can engage
himself in seeking, exploring, and solving problems. Its
unworthy that learner with high achievement outcomes
determines himself without enough capability to continue
learning.
B. Theory Perspectives in Connecting Learning
Connecting learning is a motivation learning with sustained
learning intention that acquire new knowledge, skills, strategies,
and continue to learning, rather than merely to compete activities.
From human cognitive neuroscience emphasis, motivation is
neural representations of the expected value of future events
predict decisions to invest effort (Braver, Krug, Chiew, Kool,
Westbrook, Clement, Adcock, Barch, Botvinick, Carver, Cools,
Custers, Dickinson, Dweck, Fishbach, Gollwitzer, Hess,
Isaacowitz, Mather, Murayama, Pessoa, Samanez-Larkin,
Somerville, 2014). A key assumption of social cognitive theory
is that people desire to control the events that affect their lives
and to perceive themselves as agents (Bandura, 1977). From a
behavioral theory perspective, self-regulation involves choosing
among different behavior (Schunk, 2012).
Research perspectives viewed self-regulation process as
comprising different process (i.e., self-observation, self-
judgment, and self-reaction) or phases (i.e., forethought,
performance control, and self-reflection (Bandura, 1986; Cleary,
Zimmerman, & Keating, 2006). In the fist process, learner set
goals, engage in strategic planning, and hold a sense of self-
efficacy for attaining their goals. Second process involves
implementing learning strategies that affect motivation and
978-1-4799-8706-1/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE
Proceedings of 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL)
learning, as well as observing and recording ones performances.
At last, learner engages in self-evaluation and makes attributions
for their performance.
Therefore, research substantiates the hypothesis that self-
efficacy and self-evaluation predict motivation and skill
acquisition. Learners self-perceptions construct the expected
value and predict the learning engagement. As the cited,
technology-based learning generates achievement outcomes
related to advanced knowledge and skills that would be self-
regulated by learners self-efficacy and self-evaluation.
C. Difinitions of Achievement Outcomes of Self-Evaluation
Positive self-evaluations lead students to feel efficacious
about learning and motivated to continue to work diligently
because they believe they are capable of making further
progress (Schunk, 1991). Low self-judgments of progress and
negative self-reactions will not necessarily diminish self-
efficacy and motivation if students believe they are capable of
succeeding but that their present approach is ineffective
(Bandura, 1986). Such students may alter their self-regulatory
process by work harder, persisting longer, adopting what they
believe is a better strategy, or seeking help from teachers and
peers (Schunk, 1990). Achievement outcomes of self-
evaluation such as progress toward goals, motivational indices
(choice of activity, effort, and persistence), and learning
processes are affected by social and self-influences, which are
in turn defined by learner behavior.
D. Difinitions of Technological Learning Self-Efficacy
Studies conducted by psychologists and educators on self-
concept and self-efficacy, which are components of
intrapersonal motivation, have indicated that these two factors
affect achievement outcomes positively (Hattie, 1992; Pajares
& Schunk, 2001, 2002; Rosenberg & Kaplan, 1982; Schunk &
Pajares, 2009). However, no studies have examined the effects
of self-concept and self-efficacy on achievement outcomes of
self-evaluation.
In new technology-based learning models, teaching and
learning activities are involved in digital learning,
interdisciplinary problem-solving, and teamwork. Technology
learning self-efficacy is a crucial influence on motivation and
achievement. Research studies considered that self-efficacy is
assumed to be more situationally specific, dynamic, and
changeable than the more static and stable measures of self-
concept and general self-competence (Multon, Brown, & Lent,
1991; Pajares, 1996, 1997; Schunk & Pajares, 2002; 2005, 2009;
Valentine, Dubois, & Cooper, 2004). Self-efficacy related to a
specific task on a certain day may fluctuate because of a
persons preparation for the task, physical condition (sickness,
fatigue), and affective mood, as well as external conditions such
as the nature of the task (length, difficulty) and social milieu
(general classroom conditions). Numerous studies have
maintained that self-efficacy predicts achievement outcomes
(Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996; Schunk, 1995; Schunk &
Pajares, 2009). Self-efficacy is strongly related to persistence at
work and in tasks (Bandura & Cevone, 1983, 1986; Schunk,
1995). Learner with a strong sense of technology learning self-
efficacy typically possess the skills required to accomplish
20-24 September 2015, Florence, Italy
tasks and are more likely to exert extra effort and persist in Ideally, we suppose that students ought to have positive
accomplishing difficult tasks. specific domain self-concept or he will not choice the specific
domain to attend. Sustained learning intention will be summed
E. Difinitions of Specific Domain Self-Concept up with technology learning self-efficacy and achievement
Self-concept like beliefs that become crystallized with outcome self-evaluation. If both two causes were positive,
development and repeated experiences (Schunk, 2012). Self- connect learning will occur (Table I). But most of situations
concept has stability and refers to not ease in changing. When were not so optimism. As an educator, we must to find the causes
self-concept is defined more specifically, it resembles self- and to lead student to connect and sustain learning.
efficacy more closely. Relevant studies (Pajares & Schunk, 2001,
2002; Schunk & Pajares, 2005, 2009) have indicated that when TABLE I. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF SELF-CONCEPT, SELF-
general self-concepts are compared with achievement outcomes, EFFICACY, SELF-EVALUATION, AND SUSTAINED LEARNING INTENTION
the relationship is moderate; conversely, when domain-specific Specific Technology Achieveme Sustained
self-concept measures are compared with achievement domain learning self- nt outcome learning intention
outcomes, the relationship is positive and strong. Therefore, self- efficacy of self- probability
specific domain self-concept (e.g., technology learning literature) concept evaluation
affects self-efficacy, and self-efficacy may mediate the effect of
self-concept on achievement outcomes of self-evaluation. + + + + Ideally,
p>0
F. Theories, Variables and Sustained Learning Intention
+ - + +(-) p>0, p<0
In this study, we reviewed the literature to investigate new
technology-based models applicable for science and technology + + - +(-) p>0, p<0
universities. According to the theories proposed by Dede and
Grimson (2013), a teaching model that incorporated both + - - +(-) p>0, p<0
conventional and digital learning was adopted, and a course - + + +(-) p>0, p<0
involving interdisciplinary problem-solving and teamwork was
designed. This course, which was taught for one semester and - - + +(-) p>0, p<0
involved a teaching method that incorporated blended learning, - + - +(-) p>0, p<0
had the following three characteristics: (a) Course instruction
was based on e-book applications, and students used new media - - - - Worst,
technology to create the content of e-book applications; (b) the p<0
course adopted new equipment and cloud technology, such as
tablet computers, cloud libraries, and online communication
platforms; and (c) both conventional and virtual teaching III. METHODOLOGY
methods were used, and students not only attended conventional
The study participants comprised 85 students who attended
classes, but also discussed with teachers and classmate online
courses incorporating new technology-based models at a science
through social media.
and technology university in Taiwan. A self-developed
Technology learning self-efficacy scale and specific domain achievement outcome of self-evaluation questionnaire was
self-concept scale were developed according to the theories of distributed to the participants after they completed the
Schunk and Pajares (2009) and the e-book course. An expert experimental course designed in this study. By using structural
validity questionnaire for the two scales was designed. In equation modeling (SEM), we analyzed the returned
addition, specific domain self-concept variables were questionnaires to analyze the research model.
categorized into three dimensions, namely plans, literature, and
graphics. Technology learning self-efficacy variables were A. The Research Model
divided into three dimensions, namely system applications, According to the purpose of this study, we designed the
software operation, and cross-media integration. The STUS-AOSEM and framework (i.e., specific domain self-
achievement outcome of self-evaluation variables were concept, technology learning self-efficacy, achievement
designed according to the study conducted by Pellegrino and outcomes of self-evaluation, and sustained learning intention) as
Hilton (2012) and consisted of cognitive, intrapersonal, and shown in Figure 1:
interpersonal dimensions.
When performing tasks, learners assess their own learning
progress. Learners perception of their own improvement, which
is facilitated by the feedback regarding progress, verifies their
self-efficacy in learning, thus maintaining learner motivation to
learn (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Schunk, 1995). Therefore,
learners who perceive potential learning capabilities and
personal experiences of success exhibit higher levels of interest
in and motivation to learn and acquire enhanced sustained
learning intention. Sustained learning intention variables were
contained three items, i.e., specialization choice, learning
attempt, and advanced learning.

978-1-4799-8706-1/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE 20-24 September 2015, Florence, Italy

Proceedings of 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL)

Figure 1. The research model
In Figure 1, specific domain self-concept and technology
learning self-efficacy are defined as factors affecting
achievement outcomes of self-evaluation. Relationships
between the independent and dependent variables are illustrated
in the figure as solid lines (Because the sample size, the SEM
model that was only used three variable and not including
sustained learning intention. The report was substituted for
frequency statistic). The research hypotheses were established
as follows:
H01: Specific domain self-concept and technology learning
self-efficacy exert no significant effect on achievement
outcomes of self-evaluation.
H02: Technology learning self-efficacy exerts no significant
mediating effect on the STUS-AOSEM (specific domain self-
concept, technology learning self-efficacy, and achievement
outcomes of self-evaluation).
H03: There wont be optimism ideal model that occurs
sustained learning intention.
B. Research Instrument and Variable Use
The instrument used in this study was a STUS-AOSEM
questionnaire, developed according to the new technology-
based models established by Schunk and Pajares (2009) and
Pellegrino and Hilton (2012). This questionnaire was revised
and verified by experts to assess content validity. The
questionnaire consisted of two parts: the first part (six items)
pertained to participant demographic information, including sex,
age, and duration of course participation, and the second part (36
items) concerned the scales and question items regarding each
dimension of the STUS-AOSEM. The content, pretest reliability,
and validity were evaluated and verified by two experts. In total,
the questionnaire comprised 45 question items.
The question items, ranked on a 5-point Likert scale, were
designed according to the research theories to investigate the key
factors affecting the achievement outcomes of self-evaluation of
the science and technology university students. The self-concept
dimension involved domain-specific self-concepts as the basis
for establishing influencing factors, which comprised plans,
literature, and graphics. The self-efficacy dimension involved
using new technology learning as the basis for establishing
influencing factors, which comprised system applications,
978-1-4799-8706-1/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE
Proceedings of 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL)
software operation, and cross-media integration. These
influencing factors were used to design the questions for the
questionnaire. The dimension regarding achievement outcomes
of self-evaluation was designed according to the theoretical
prototype, and question items were based on the three
influencing factors of cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal
outcomes.
C. Survey
The questionnaire survey was administered to the 85
participants, who attended the aforementioned courses at a
science and technology university in Taiwan during September
2013January 2014. Paper-based questionnaires were
distributed to the participants over a period of approximately 3
weeks. SPSS 17.0 and AMOS 18.0 software were applied to
conduct statistical analysis of the data. The skewness, kurtosis,
and variance of the question items were examined using a pretest
involving 30 questionnaires. The items were analyzed to obtain
critical ratios for each item, and the items that did not achieve
statistical significance (a mean value of 6 or 2) were
eliminated. In the formal survey, 82 valid questionnaires were
returned. Regarding the demographic information, the male to
female ratio was 21 (25.6%):61 (74.4%), 76 of the participants
were 20 or 21 years-old (92.7%), five of the participants were
2225 years-old (6.1%), and one participant was 19 years-old
(1.2%). Of the participants, 65 expressed that operating the
software was easy or moderately easy (79.3%), and 17 found
difficulty operating the software (20.7%). Twenty-five
participants (30.5%) spent 1 hr doing the coursework weekly, 41
participants (51%) spent 1-3 hr, and 16 participants (18.5%)
spent more than 3 hr. Regarding the course assignments, 25 of
the participants (30.5%) preferred individual assignments, 12
(14.6%) preferred teamwork, and 45 (54.9%) enjoyed both types
of assignments. Fifty-three participants (64.6%) preferred to
work on their assignments in their place of residence, 25
participants (30.5%) preferred to complete assignments on
campus, and four (4.9%) preferred to perform assignments at
locations other than the aforementioned areas.
IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
The applicability of the theoretical model for measuring the
achievement outcomes was verified using confirmatory factor
analysis and the model goodness-of-fit test. The STUS-AOSEM
was then analyzed.
A. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to examine the
representativeness of the question items to their respective
dimensions. The standardized factor loadings and squared
multiple correlations must exceed .7 and .5, respectively. The
composite reliability was the sum of the reliability of all the
measured variables and indicated the internal consistency of the
constructs; a higher reliability implied greater internal
consistency among the constructs, and .7 was the threshold for
reliability. Table I lists the respective composite reliability
values of .61, .87, and .84 for specific domain self-concept,
technology learning self-efficacy, and achievement outcomes of
self-evaluation, all of which were between .6 and .90. Thus, the
internal consistency in each dimension was ideal, exceeding the
standard of .6. The average variance extracted (AVE) showed
the variation explained by the latent variables for each measured
20-24 September 2015, Florence, Italy
 item; a higher AVE indicated that the latent variables had greater variables to provide a reference for further model evaluation. A
reliability and convergent validity. The respective AVE values Pearson correlation analysis was conducted on the mean of each
for specific domain self-concept, technology learning self- variable, yielding the correlation coefficients among the
efficacy, and achievement outcomes of self-evaluation variables (Table III). The correlation matrix revealed significant
were .40, .69, and .64, all of which were between .40 and .70. and positive correlations among the variables; the dimensions in
Except for specific domain self-concept, the other two the same scale exhibited moderate to high correlations with one
dimensions had AVE values exceeding .5, satisfying the another, whereas those in different scales displayed low to
standard for convergent validity and indicating that the moderate correlations with one another.
dimensions explained the variation effectively (Table II).
The model goodness of fit represents the level of consistency
TABLE II. CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE STUS-AOSEM between the expected covariance matrix () and the sample
covariance matrix (S); the greater the goodness of fit is, the more
Observed Standardized factor
Squared
Composite
Average consistent the two matrices are. The crucial indices included the
multiple variance 2 test, 2-to-df (degree of freedom) ratios, goodness-of-fit
variable loadings reliability
correlations extracted
indices (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit indices (AGFI), root
SC .61 .40 mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), non-normed fit
SC1 .54 .30 index (NNFI), incremental fit index (IFI), and comparative fit
indices (CFI). Table III presents the goodness-of-fit test results;
SC2 .75 .56 the 2-to-df ratio was 1.377 (<.5), the GFI was .93 (>.8), the
SC3 .46 .21 AGFI was .86 (>.8), and the CFI was .97 (>.9), indicating that
SE .87 .69
the STUS-AOSEM fulfilled the requirements of the theoretical
model (Table IV). According to the SEM sample estimation
SE1 .79 .62 requirement, if the data present a normal distribution and no
SE2 .84 .70 missing or exceptional values are identified (Bentler & Chou,
1987), then the minimal sample size should be five or 10 times
SE3 .86 .73 larger (ideally) than the estimated parameter (Mitchell, 1993).
AO .84 .64 The number of samples in this study was 82, and the number of
AO1 .75 .57
model variables was 12, indicating that the samples were
representative of the dimensions of the participant achievement
AO2 .97 .94 outcomes. Therefore, this model was employed for further
AO3 .65 .42
analysis.

TABLE III. MATRIX OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS IN THE STUS-AOSEM

NOTE: *P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001

TABLE IV. GOODNESS-OF-FIT INDEX COMPARISON OF THE VARIOUS MODELS

B. Model Goodness-of-Fit Test (N = 82)
Before we examined the predictive relationship between the
independent and the dependent variables, we performed a
correlation analysis on the linear relationships among the

978-1-4799-8706-1/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE 20-24 September 2015, Florence, Italy

Proceedings of 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL)
 Goodness-of- Two-factor Second- efficacy affected achievement outcomes of self-evaluation
Single Overall significantly. Similarly, H02 was rejected because self-efficacy
fit index oblique order
factor model mediated the STUS-AOSEM significantly. Table V and Figure
(ideal value) rotation factor
3 indicate that the STUS-AOSEM had three significant path
2 (small is
24.10 13.816 33.05 33.05 coefficients, namely AOSC (.27), AOSE (.76), and SE
ideal)
SC (.62).
df 9 8 24 24
p value (>.05) 0 .09 .10 .10 TABLE V. STRUCTURAL MODEL PATH ANALYSIS
2df (<3) 2.68 1.73 1.38 1.38
RMSEA
.14 .10 .07 .07
(<.08) Path correlation Path coefficient
GFI (>.8) .91 .95 .93 .93
AGFI (>.8) .80 .86 .86 .86 AO SC .27*
NFI (>.9) .86 .92 .92 .92
STUS-AOM AO SE .76***
NNFI
(Tucker SE SC .62**
.84 .93 .96 .96
Lewis index, *p < .05, ***p < .001

>.9)
CFI (>.9) .91 .96 .97 .97
IFI (>.9) .91 .97 .98 .98
PNFI (>.5) .52 .49 .61 .61
PGFI (>.5) .39 .36 .49 .49
ECVI* .59 .49 .93 .93
AIC* 48.10 39.82 75.05 75.05
BCC* 50.37 42.28 80.97 80.97
Statistical
.22
power test**
Note: PNFI, parsimony NFI; PGFI, parsimony GFI; ECVI, expected cross validation
index; AIC, Akaike information criterion; BCC, BrowneCudeck criterion. *A
small value is ideal. ** A large value is ideal.

C. Structural Equation Modeling and Path Analysis

SEM analysis was performed using AMOS 18.0, and the
model evaluation and path analysis were conducted using data
collected from the participants. These analyses were conducted
to test the hypotheses, which is one of the primary focuses of
this study. The results of SEM analysis are presented in Figure
2, in which the latent and observed variables are denoted by Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the STUS-AOSEM
ovals and rectangles, respectively.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the SEM analysis

Note: SC, self-concept; SC1, plans; SC2, literature; SC3, graphics; SE, self-efficacy;
SE1, system application; SE2, software operation; SE3, cross-media
integration; AO, achievement outcomes; AO1, cognitive outcomes; AO2,
intrapersonal outcomes; AO3, interpersonal outcomes.
The analysis results revealed that H01 was rejected because Last, we verified H03 that was neither rejected because there
specific domain self-concept and technology learning self- is an optimism ideal model that occur sustained learning

978-1-4799-8706-1/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE 20-24 September 2015, Florence, Italy

Proceedings of 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL)
intention. Table VI indicates that 3 items of sustained learning The results was optimism and shown as the ideal model. We
intention assumption that students have positive causes related to
connect learning behavior. It do mean that the class teacher
TABLE VI. FREQUENCY STATISTIC OF SUSTAINED LEARNING INTENTION was good in teaching and leading student to sustained learning
but it doesnt mean that all the class students were in ideally
learning situation but great majority. Statistic methods always
Percentage
help us to find the 95% confidence interval. We should try to
Frequency (Cumulative inquiry and concern the small part students who might not to
percentage) sustained learning and find the causes and to lead student to
very agree 29 35.4 (35.4)
connect learning. Future studies can investigate the changes in
the effects of self-concept and self-efficacy on self-evaluation
agree 32 39 (74.4) during the early, middle, and late phases of new technology-
specialization based model implementation. In addition, participant interviews
ordinary agree 18 22 (96.3)
choice can be employed to further understand the psychological
disagree 2 2.4 (98.8) changes of participants.
strongly disagree 1 1.2 (100)
REFERENCES
very agree 31 37.8 (37.8)
[1] Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
agree 34 41.5 (79.3) cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
learning [2] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
ordinary agree 15 18.3 (97.6) Freeman.
attempt
disagree 2 2.4 (100) [3] Bandura, A., & Cevone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy
mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal
strongly disagree 0 0 (100) of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017-1028.
very agree 25 30.5 (30.5) [4] Bandura, A., & Cevone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-
reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and
agree 34 41.5 (72.0) Human Decision Processes, 38, 92-113.
advanced [5] Braver, T.S., Krug, M.K., Chiew, K.S., Kool, W., Westbrook, J.A.,
ordinary agree 21 25.6 (97.6)
learning Clement, N.J., Adcock, R.A., Barch, D.M., Botvinick, M.M., Carver, C.S.,
disagree 1 1.2 (98.8) Cools, R., Custers, R., Dickinson, A.R., Dweck, C.S., Fishbach, A.,
Gollwitzer, P.M., Hess, T.M., Isaacowitz, D.M., Mather, M., Murayama,
strongly disagree 1 1.2 (100) K., Pessoa, L., Samanez-Larkin, G.R., Somerville, L.H. (2014).
Mechanisms of motivation-cognition interaction: challenges and
opportunities. Cognitive Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 14 (2),
D. SEM and Path Analysis 443472.
[6] Cator, K. & Adam, B. (2013). Expanding evidence approaches for
On the basis of the new technology-based models proposed learning in a digital world. DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
by Dede and Grimson (2013) and Pellegrino and Hilton (2012), Educational Technology.
the results of the present study were consistent with those of [7] Cleary, T. J., Zimmerman, B. J., & Keating, T. (2006). Training physical
Schunk and Pajares (2002, 2009). The results confirm was education students to self-regulate during basketball free throw practice.
shown as the ideal model that specific domain self-concept and Research Quarterly for Exercise and sport, 77, 251-262.
technology learning self-efficacy significantly affected [8] Dede, C., & Grimson, E. (2013). New technology-based models for
achievement outcomes of self-evaluation, technology learning postsecondary learning: Conceptual frameworks and research agendas. In
C. Dede & E. Grimson (Eds.), Report of a National Science Foundation-
self-efficacy significantly mediated the STUS-AOSEM (self- Sponsored Computing Research Association Workshop (pp. 1-47). MA:
concept, self-efficacy, and achievement outcomes), and Cambridge.
achievement outcomes of self-evaluation occurs that most of [9] Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
students with sustained learning intention. [10] Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of
Educational Research, 77, 81-112.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS [11] Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-
The results confirm that employing the new technology- efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation.
based models in the science and technology university courses Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38.
enables students to develop motivation to learn and facilitates [12] Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement setting. Review of
Educational Research, 66, 543-578.
connected learning. Furthermore, previous successes are
critical factors enabling learners to develop positive technology [13] Pajares, F. (1997).Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M.
Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement
learning self-efficacy and thereby improve achievement (vol. 10, pp. 1-49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
outcomes, such as developed cognitive strategies, established [14] Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-
critical thinking, and positive self-evaluation. In addition, efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement. In R. J. Riding & S. G.
positive specific domain self-concepts allow learners to improve Rayner (Eds.), Self-perception (pp.239-265). Westport, CT: Ablex.
technology learning self-efficacy and achievement outcomes of [15] Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Self and self-beliefs in psychology
self-evaluation simultaneously, particularly in the external and education: A historical perspective. In J. Aronson (Eds.), Improving
environment. For example, encouragement from classmates academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education
(pp.3-21). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.
promotes learning behaviors that involve teamwork
communication, leadership, and conflict resolution.

978-1-4799-8706-1/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE 20-24 September 2015, Florence, Italy

Proceedings of 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL)
[16] Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for life and work:
Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century.
Washington: The national academic press.
[17] Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
[18] Rosenberg, M., & Kaplan, H. B. (1982). Social psychological of the self-
concept. Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson.
[19] Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self regulated
learning. Educational Psychologist, 25, 71-86.
[20] Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation.
Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.
[21] Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E.
Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory,
research, and applications (pp. 281-303). New York: Plenum.
[22] Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theory: An educational perspective. MA:
Pearson.
[23] Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-
efficacy. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of academic
motivation (pp. 15-31). San Diego: Academic Press.
978-1-4799-8706-1/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE
Proceedings of 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL)
[24] Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2005). Competence perceptions and
academic functioning. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of
competence and motivation (pp. 85-104). New York: Guilford Press.
[25] Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R.
Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 35-
53). New York: Routledge.
[26] Valentine, J. C., Dubois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relation between
self-beliefs and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review.
Educational Psychologist, 39, 111-133.
[27] Wylie, R. C. (1979). The self-concept (vol. 2). Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology of the
Republic of China, Taiwan, for their financial support for this research
under Contract No. MOST-103-2514-S-159-001 and MOST 103-2511-S-
159-002-MY3.
20-24 September 2015, Florence, Italy