International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 11, Issue 12 (December 2024), Pages: 108-115

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

The relationship between self-efficacy, attitudes, and business students' quantitative skills performance: A case for including quantitative methods in the BSBA curriculum

 Author(s): 

 Jaynelle G. Domingo *, Jennilyn C. Mina, Romeo Campos

 Affiliation(s):

 College of Management and Business Technology, Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology, Cabanatuan City, Philippines

 Full text

  Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6667-0954

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2024.12.013

 Abstract

Developing strong quantitative skills is crucial for the career success of college business students. However, there is limited understanding of the quantitative abilities, self-confidence, and attitudes of Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (BSBA) students. This descriptive-correlational study examines these aspects in fourth-year BSBA students, with 231 participants selected through purposive sampling. The research framework is based on the Theory of Reasoned Action/Planned Behavior and Social Cognitive Theory. Data was collected using a researcher-designed questionnaire, validated by experts, that measured quantitative skills, self-efficacy, and attitudes. Findings show that while students perform well in certain areas like numeracy and market return analysis, they have weaknesses in statistical analysis, quantitative reasoning, and financial data analysis. Their self-confidence in mathematical analysis is moderate but needs improvement. Despite this, students generally have a positive outlook on quantitative courses. The correlation analysis reveals a significant positive relationship between their attitudes toward quantitative courses and their performance in quantitative skills. It is recommended that the BSBA curriculum be revised by including a dedicated Quantitative Methods Course to address skill gaps and boost students' self-confidence and attitudes, better equipping them for the evolving business world.

 © 2024 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Quantitative skills, Self-efficacy, Attitudes, Curriculum review, Business students

 Article history

 Received 5 July 2024, Received in revised form 8 November 2024, Accepted 20 November 2024

 Acknowledgment

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

This study adhered to ethical standards, ensuring participants' confidentiality, anonymity, and voluntary participation with informed consent.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Domingo JG, Mina JC, and Campos R (2024). The relationship between self-efficacy, attitudes, and business students' quantitative skills performance: A case for including quantitative methods in the BSBA curriculum. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 11(12): 108-115

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 No Figure

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

----------------------------------------------   

 References (52)

  1. Abrami PC, Bernard RM, Borokhovski E, Waddington DI, Wade CA, and Persson T (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2): 275-314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063   [Google Scholar]
  2. Abulibdeh A, Zaidan E, and Abulibdeh R (2024). Navigating the confluence of artificial intelligence and education for sustainable development in the era of industry 4.0: Challenges, opportunities, and ethical dimensions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 437: 140527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140527   [Google Scholar]
  3. Acquah A (2017). Implications of the achievement motivation theory for school management in Ghana: A literature review. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 7(5): 10-15.   [Google Scholar]
  4. Alam A and Mohanty A (2023). Cultural beliefs and equity in educational institutions: Exploring the social and philosophical notions of ability groupings in teaching and learning of mathematics. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 28(1): 2270662. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2023.2270662   [Google Scholar]
  5. Awotunde OM and Westhuizen TVD (2021). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy development: An effective intervention for sustainable student entrepreneurial intentions. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 15(4): 475-495. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2021.118424   [Google Scholar]
  6. Bandura A (1977). Social learning theory. General Learning Press, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Bean JC and Melzer D (2021). Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Bhowmick S, Young JA, Clark PW, and Bhowmick N (2017). Marketing students’ mathematics performance: The mediating role of math anxiety on math self-concept and math self-efficacy. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 17(9): 104-117. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v17i9.1426   [Google Scholar]
  9. Carillo KDA (2017). Let’s stop trying to be “sexy”–Preparing managers for the (big) data-driven business era. Business Process Management Journal, 23(3): 598-622. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-09-2016-0188   [Google Scholar]
  10. Chae H and Choi JN (2018). Contextualizing the effects of job complexity on creativity and task performance: Extending job design theory with social and contextual contingencies. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91: 316-339. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12204   [Google Scholar]
  11. Deslauriers L, McCarty LS, Miller K, Callaghan K, and Kestin G (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39): 19251-19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116   [Google Scholar] PMid:31484770 PMCid:PMC6765278
  12. Donohoo J (2018). Collective teacher efficacy research: Productive patterns of behaviour and other positive consequences. Journal of Educational Change, 19: 323-345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9319-2   [Google Scholar]
  13. Dweck CS, Walton GM, and Cohen GL (2014). Academic tenacity: Mindsets and skills that promote long-term learning. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  14. Engelbrecht J, Bergsten C, and Kågesten O (2017). Conceptual and procedural approaches to mathematics in the engineering curriculum: Views of qualified engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(5): 570-586. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1343278   [Google Scholar]
  15. Fishbein M and Ajzen I (1977). Belief attitude intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 10(2): 130-132.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Fong CJ and Krause JM (2014). Lost confidence and potential: A mixed methods study of underachieving college students’ sources of self-efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 17: 249-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9239-1   [Google Scholar]
  17. Fonseca D, Redondo E, and Villagrasa S (2015). Mixed-methods research: A new approach to evaluating the motivation and satisfaction of university students using advanced visual technologies. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14: 311-332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0361-4   [Google Scholar]
  18. Fredricks JA, Hofkens T, Wang MT, Mortenson E, and Scott P (2018). Supporting girls’ and boys’ engagement in math and science learning: A mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55: 271-298. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21419   [Google Scholar]
  19. Galigao AP (2022). Mathematics performance of Tagbilaran city. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 7(6): 114-129.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Ganyaupfu EM (2013). Factors influencing academic achievement in quantitative courses among business students of private higher education institutions. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(15): 57-65.   [Google Scholar]
  21. Garofalo AE (2016). Teaching the character competencies of growth mindset and grit to increase student motivation in the classroom. Ph.D. Dissertation, New England College, Henniker USA.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Golann JW (2015). The paradox of success at a no-excuses school. Sociology of Education, 88(2): 103-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040714567866   [Google Scholar] PMid:27226655 PMCid:PMC4877134
  23. Grigg S, Perera HN, McIlveen P, and Svetleff Z (2018). Relations among math self-efficacy interest intentions and achievement: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53: 73-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.01.007   [Google Scholar]
  24. Harris A, Clithero JA, and Hutcherson CA (2018). Accounting for taste: A multi-attribute neurocomputational model explains the neural dynamics of choices for self and others. Journal of Neuroscience, 38(37): 7952-7968. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3327-17.2018   [Google Scholar] PMid:30076214 PMCid:PMC6596143
  25. Hayat AA, Shateri K, Amini M, and Shokrpour N (2020). Relationships between academic self-efficacy learning-related emotions and metacognitive learning strategies with academic performance in medical students: A structural equation model. BMC Medical Education, 20: 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-01995-9   [Google Scholar] PMid:32183804 PMCid:PMC7079530
  26. Heijltjes A, Van Gog T, Leppink J, and Paas F (2014). Improving critical thinking: Effects of dispositions and instructions on economics students' reasoning skills. Learning and Instruction, 29: 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.003   [Google Scholar]
  27. Herfort M, Kunz R, and Düren P (2021). Value co-creation in knowledge-intensive media businesses: Conceptualizing the integrative dyadic-triadic-network-knowledge shop framework. Nordic Journal of Media Management, 2(2): 93-108.   [Google Scholar]
  28. Hoerl RW and Snee RD (2020). Statistical thinking: Improving business performance. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  29. Jameson MM and Fusco BR (2014). Math anxiety math self-concept and math self-efficacy in adult learners compared to traditional undergraduate students. Adult Education Quarterly, 64(4): 306-322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713614541461   [Google Scholar]
  30. Kyauta AMA and Dachia AD (2018). Study habits and academic performance among students of Umar Suleiman College of Education Gashua Yobe State Nigeria. NIU Journal of Humanities, 3(1): 187-195.   [Google Scholar]
  31. LaForce M, Noble E, and Blackwell C (2017). Problem-based learning (PBL) and student interest in STEM careers: The roles of motivation and ability beliefs. Education Sciences, 7(4): 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7040092   [Google Scholar]
  32. Luszczynska A and Schwarzer R (2015). Social cognitive theory. In: Conner M and Norman P (Eds.), Predicting and changing health behaviour: Research and practice with social cognition models: 225-251. McGraw-Hill Education, London, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  33. Mazana YM, Suero Montero C, and Olifage CR (2019). Investigating students' attitude towards learning mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(1): 207-231. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/3997   [Google Scholar]
  34. McGee EO (2015). Robust and fragile mathematical identities: A framework for exploring racialized experiences and high achievement among black college students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(5): 599-625. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.46.5.0599   [Google Scholar]
  35. Mina JC (2022). Reliability of the result of the keys in combing challenges and constraints of the Philippine slipper industry using mathematical analysis. International Journal of Applied Engineering and Technology, 4(1): 71-76.   [Google Scholar]
  36. Mina JC (2023). Application of supervised learning algorithm to determine the quality of slippers in WEKA. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(8): 106–111. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2023.08.012   [Google Scholar]
  37. Mitra S (2023). How are students learning in a business statistics course? Evidence from both direct and indirect assessment. INFORMS Transactions on Education, 23(2): 95-103. https://doi.org/10.1287/ited.2022.0270   [Google Scholar]
  38. Mulyani DF and Arif S (2021). Implementation of project based learning (PjBL) based on science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) to improve metacognitive thinking ability. Integrative Science Education and Teaching Activity Journal, 2(1): 117-129. https://doi.org/10.21154/insecta.v2i1.2931   [Google Scholar]
  39. Park J and Yang JS (2019). Moderating effects of the timing of reward determination and performance standards between rewards and self-efficacy for sustainable intrinsic motivation. Sustainability, 11(17): 4619. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174619   [Google Scholar]
  40. Piperopoulos P and Dimov D (2015). Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship education entrepreneurial self‐efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4): 970-985. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12116   [Google Scholar]
  41. Prescott E (2017). Examining the relationship between math achievement and self-efficacy in developmental math students. Ph.D. Dissertations, Walden University, Minneapolis, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  42. Roick J and Ringeisen T (2018). Students' math performance in higher education: Examining the role of self-regulated learning and self-efficacy. Learning and Individual Differences, 65: 148-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.018   [Google Scholar]
  43. Rutherford T, Long JJ, and Farkas G (2017). Teacher value for professional development self-efficacy and student outcomes within a digital mathematics intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51: 22-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.05.005   [Google Scholar]
  44. Seeram E (2019). An overview of correlational research. Radiologic Technology, 91: 176-179.   [Google Scholar]
  45. Shapiro HB, Lee CH, Roth NEW, Li K, Çetinkaya-Rundel M, and Canelas DA (2017). Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: An examination of attitudes motivations and barriers. Computers and Education, 110: 35-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.003   [Google Scholar]
  46. Steen-Utheim AT and Foldnes N (2018). A qualitative investigation of student engagement in a flipped classroom. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(3): 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1379481   [Google Scholar]
  47. Suri ME, Wardoyo C, and Pujiningsih S (2020). The meta analysis of career selection by accounting students to be a professional accountant. International Journal of Business Economics and Law, 21(5): 149-160.   [Google Scholar]
  48. Toland MD and Usher EL (2016). Assessing mathematics self-efficacy: How many categories do we really need? The Journal of Early Adolescence, 36(7): 932-960. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431615588952   [Google Scholar]
  49. Trassi AP, Leonard SJ, Rodrigues LD, Rodas JA, and Santos FH (2022). Mediating factors of statistics anxiety in university students: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1512(1): 76-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14746   [Google Scholar] PMid:35211989
  50. Trenholm S and Peschke J (2020). Teaching undergraduate mathematics fully online: A review from the perspective of communities of practice. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17: 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00215-0   [Google Scholar]
  51. Wardana LW, Narmaditya BS, Wibowo A, Mahendra AM, Wibowo NA, Harwida G, and Rohman AN (2020). The impact of entrepreneurship education and students' entrepreneurial mindset: The mediating role of attitude and self-efficacy. Heliyon, 6(9): e04922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04922   [Google Scholar] PMid:32995616 PMCid:PMC7502346
  52. Wong B and Chiu YLT (2019). ‘Swallow your pride and fear’: The educational strategies of high-achieving non-traditional university students. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40(7): 868-882. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2019.1604209   [Google Scholar]