Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research (Print ISSN: 1533-3590; Online ISSN: 1533-3604)

Research Article: 2020 Vol: 21 Issue: 4

Path Model on Student Self-Efficacy as Influenced by Parenting Practices, Classroom Learning Environment and Interpersonal Support

Eugenio S. Guhao, University of Mindanao Professional Schools Matina, Davao City, Philippines

Ruby P. Cabalda, University of Mindanao Professional Schools Matina, Davao City, Philippines

Carmelita B. Chavez, University of Mindanao Professional Schools Matina, Davao City, Philippines

Evelyn P. Saludes, University of Mindanao Professional Schools Matina, Davao City, Philippines


The main objective of the study was to determine the best-fit path model on student selfefficacy in a quantitative, non-experimental research design utilizing the goodness of fit statistics. There were three exogenous variables, namely: parenting practices, classroom learning environment, and interpersonal support while the endogenous variable was self-efficacy administered to 300 randomly selected senior high school (grade 12) students in Southern Mindanao Region, Philippines. Findings showed very high level of parenting practices, very high level of classroom learning environment, high level interpersonal support, and high level in selfefficacy. Further, significant correlations were obtained between parenting practices and selfefficacy, classroom learning practices and self-efficacy, and interpersonal support and selfefficacy. Comparatively, among the three generated path models, model 3 was considered the best-fit path model considering that all the eight indices were within the standard threshold. Among the three exogenous variables, only two, namely: parenting practices and interpersonal support, had direct causal relationship with student self-efficacy. However, the exogenous variable, classroom learning environment, was being influenced by parenting practices and interpersonal support. The present study emphasizes the need for students to be provided with external support, be it, parental and/or interpersonal, to attain the self-efficacy for better scholastic performance. School administrators should bear in mind to enhance school-parentalcommunity partnerships to create a conducive learning environment.


Parental Practices, Classroom Learning Environment, Interpersonal Support, Self- Efficacy, Education, Philippines


Students who have low social connections with their parents, friends, and classmates have low self-effcacy level that would result to poor academic performance Valentine, et al. (2007). Family and peer support is very important for children to overcome difficulties and obstacles in life. Students develop timidities because they experienced low parental, peer, and social interactions Bandura, et al. (2008). This situation is exacerbated by the fact that students from poor families have low self-efficacy and thereby have greater chance of dropping out of school (Suraya & Yunus, 2017). It has been stressed that self-efficacy has a great impact on student achievement because it stimulates them them to risks and helps them to develop self-confidence to self-regulate and become independent learners (Lambros, 2017).

Student self-efficacy can be influenced by several factors. Parenting practices is one of the correlates of student self-efficacy. Authoritative and authoritarian parenting practices tend to increase students’ self-efficacy Gota, (2012); Masud, et al. (2016); Seifi, (2016). Parents seem to have great influence on their children’s motivation to learn (Wagner, 2006) and parents are cognizant that responsible parenthood can help develop their children’s academic performance and success Taran, et al. (2014). Furthermore, parenting practices influenced a significant extent to the incremental variance in explaining student self-efficacy (Rivers, 2008).

Meanwhile, classroom learning environment has also been found out to have an effect on student self-efficacy Claiborne, (2016); Daemi, et al. (2017) Hicks, (2012) which can promote positive or negative self-efficacy of students (Croissant, 2014). Schools have seen the need to provide positive classroom learning environment to foster good teaching-learning climate to both students and teachers (Barr, 2016; McGhee, Lowell, & Lemire, 2007). Therefore, the association of classroom learning environment and parenting practices enhance self-efficacy among students Claiborne, (2001); Schunk & Meece, (2006).

Another factor that has been identified to enhance student self-efficacy is interpersonal support. It is the perceptions of general and/or specific supportive behaviors from people in their social environment which enhances their personal positive or negative behavior outcomes (Malecki, 2012). Students with adequate support from peers, teachers, parents and other family members are more academically motivated with high level of school engagement resulting to a better performance at school (Holt, 2013) and with higher level of life satisfaction (Coffman & Gilligan, 2012).

Research Objectives

The study has the following objectives:

1. To describe the level of parenting practices in terms of: religious identity; love and discipline; family responsibilities; family values; sexual relationships; and friendships.

2. Tascertain the level of classroom learning environment in terms of: classroom; diversity values; personal; and persistence.

3. To identify the level of interpersonal support in terms of: tangible support; belonging support; self-esteem; and appraisal support.

4. To describe the level of self-efficacy of students in terms of: academic, social; and emotional self-efficacy.

5. To determine the significant correlations between: parenting practices and self-efficacy; classroom learning environment and self-efficacy; and interpersonal support and self-efficacy.

6. To determine the best-fit path model on student self-efficacy.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

This study is anchored on Bandura’s Theory of Social Cognitive Theory which is important to its contribution to human functioning (Bandura, 1977) specifically to academic achievement, motivation, and learning (Pajares, 1996; 2004). Further, it was found out that generally, academic self-efficacy was the strongest single predictor of academic performance among psychosocial constructs (Artino,2012).

The study also recommends that in order to increase students’ self-efficacy, instructional practices may be designed to provide students with honest and explicit feedback from peers, teachers, and parents. Moreover, Bandura’s contentions extend that classroom environment promotes interaction and influence student behavior which affects the students’ scholastic performance (Grubaugh & Houston, 1990).

Additionally, the quality of classroom learning environment impacts instructors and students’ self-image towards learning areas Chen, et al. (2017). It builds individuals’ selfconfidence to learn and perform tasks. Learning environment affects one’s behavior in learning (Bandura 1986; 1997). This means that students want an inviting classroom environment where teachers have a motivating character towards students and where they can feely express their ideas towards better learning. Students as observed and perceived by teachers become interested in learning when they can feel that they are being given importance inside the school. Further, Self-efficacy is characterized by Bandura (1994; 1997) who considered both parents’ practices and classroom learning environment which may affect performance in teaching and students’ achievements.

Figure 1 shows the conceptual paradigm of the study showing the exogenous variables, namely: parenting practices, classroom learning environment, and interpersonal support while the endogenous variable is student self-efficacy. Parenting practices variable is determined by six indicators, namely: religious identity, love and discipline, family responsibilities, family values, sexual relationships, and friendships Horwath, et al. (2008). There are four indicators to measure classroom learning environment: classroom, diversity values, personal, and persistence McGhee, et al. (2007). Interpersonal support is determined by four indicators, namely: tangible, belonging, self-esteem, and appraisal support Cohen, et al. (1985). On the other hand, the indicators of student self-efficacy are: academic, social, and emotional (Muris, 2001).

Figure 1 The Conceptual Paradigm of the Study Showing the Exogenous Variables

Materials and Methods

The study utilized a quantitative, non-experimental research design using Path Analysis. Path analysis was used in this study to determine the best-fit model. It is a form of multiple regression statistical analysis to evaluate causal models by examining the relationships between an endogenous variable and two or more exogenous variables. In this case, there were three exogenous variables and one endogenous variable. All the indicators were averaged and considered as one indicator per variable in the identified three generated path models in this study (Figures 2-4).

Figure 2 Path Analysis Model 1 In Standardized Solution
Parenting Practices – Parenting Practices
Class Learning Environ – Classroom Learning Environment
Interpersonal Support – Interpersonal Support
SELFeffica –Self-Efficacy

Figure 3 Path Analysis Model 2 in Standardized Solution
Parenting Practices - Parenting Practices
Classroom Learning Environment - Classroom Learning Environment
Interpersonal Support - Interpersonal Support
SELFeffica - Self-Efficac

Figure 4 Path Analysis Model 2 in Standardized Solution
Parenting Practices - Parenting Practices
Classroom Learning Environment - Classroom Learning Environment
Interpersonal Support - Interpersonal Support
SELFeffica - Self-Efficac

The respondents of the study were the 300 public senior high school students in Southern Mindanao Region, Philippines, from 11 public school divisions selected randomly in 2019-2020. The instruments used in the study were adapted from different sources which were modified to contextualized to school setting. The first set of questionnaire on parenting practices was adapted from (Horwath, Lees, Sidebotham, Higgins & Imtiaz (2008). The second set was the questionnaire on classroom learning environment adapted from McGhee, Lowell & Lemire (2007). The third set was on interpersonal support adapyrf from Cohen, Mermelstein, Kamarck & Hoberman (1985). Finally, the modified questionnaire on student self-efficacy was taken from the survey instrument of Muris (2001).

The modified questionnaires were pilot tested to define their reliability and validity by determining the Cronbach alpha coefficients of all the variables. The overall Cronbach Alpha Coefficient obtained as the result of pilot testing the instrument was 0.919. The rules of thumb for Cronbach alpha values are as follows: Cronbach’s Alpha > .9 – Excellent; Cronbach’s Alpha > .8 – Good; Cronbach’s Alpha > .7 – Acceptable; Cronbach’s Alpha > .6 – Questionable; Cronbach’s Alpha > .5 – Poor; and Cronbach’s Alpha < .5 – Unacceptable (George and Mallery (2003). Furthermore, since people are involved in the study, ethical issues were considered. The University of Mindanao Ethics Review Committee (UMERC) has approved to conduct the study to its respondents. Finally, the manuscript was tested for similarity index using turnitin software and obtained an index of 3%.

The selection of the best-fit path model was based on the Goodness of Fit Statistics for the Alternative Model thru Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS). In order to identify the best fit model, all the values of the given indices must fall with each criterion.

Results and Discussion

Table 1 shows the level of parenting practices as perceived by senior high school students. Findings revealed a very high mean rating of 4.20 with standard deviation of 0.512 in terms of religious practices, love and discipline, family responsibilities, family values, sexual relationships, and friendships.

Table 1 Level of Parenting Practices
Items SD Mean DE
Religious Identity 0.646 4.34 Very High
Love and Discipline 0.648 4.15 High
Family Responsibilities 0.764 4.09 High
Family Values 0.877 4.02 High
Sexual Relationships 0.612 4.31 Very High
Friendships 0.700 4.30 Very High
Overall 0.512 4.20 Very High

The results were in consonance of the study of Taran, Kalantari, Dahaghin, and Abhari (2015) that parental influence had a great effect on the scholarship performance of their children. Furthermore, the study has been affirmed by Hazel (2014) that children with high parent-child relationship usually less likely to yield to stress-related behavior problems.

Table 2 reveals the overall level of classroom learning environment in public senior high schools with mean rating of 4.42 with standard deviation of 0.533. The very high level was contributed by the following indicators: classroom, diversity values, personal, and persistence.

Table 2 Level of Classroom Learning Environment
Items SD Mean DE
Classroom 0.572 4.51 Very High
Diversity Values 0.592 4.36 Very High
Personal 0.671 4.43 Very High
Persistence 0.936 4.39 Very High
Overall 0.533 4.42 Very High

The findings were aligned with Dewey’s (2008) pronouncement that the main responsibility of schools is to provide a stimulating school setting that is safe, respectful, open, caring, and conducive learning environment that promotes student wellbeing. Moreover, Grubaugh & Houston (2013) also confirmed that students are diverse and they can be grouped with diverse cognitive abilities to promote teaching-learning process.

Another variable of the study is interpersonal support. The overall mean of 4.04 with standard deviation of 0.595 shows a high level of interpersonal support experienced by senior high school students in public schools contributed by the following indicators: tangible support, 4.21 or very high; belonging support, 3.98 or high; self-esteem support, 4.11 or high; and appraisal support, 3.86 or high.

This is in conjunction to the statements of Bruno, & Njoku (2014) and Danielsen, Wiium, Wilhelmsen, & Wold (2010) that offering of support in terms of material service and other concrete assistance to another person can elicit positive recognition from the receiver which, according to Hurtado, Kawachi, & Sudarsky (2011) promotes mental wellbeing as well as physical wellbeing as affirmed by Umberson & Montez (2010).

Shown in Table 3 is the level of self-efficacy with an overall mean of 3.97 or high with standard deviation of 0.524 which is backed by the following indicators: academic self-efficacy, 4.17 or high; social self-efficacy, 3.94 or high; and emotional self-efficacy, 3.79 or high.

Table 3 Level of Interpersonal Support
Items SD Mean DE
Tangible Support 0.665 4.21 Very High
Belonging Support 0.778 3.98 High
Self-Esteem Support 0.713 4.11 High
Appraisal Support 0.914 3.86 High
Overall 0.595 4.04 High

Self-Efficacy is very important in the learning process of students as acknowledged by the research findings of Yazon (2015) which bring awareness among students that their self-esteem and self-efficacy can enhance the educational and psychological growth of the students for him to become an effective and efficient member of the society. Moreover, students’ self-efficacy can influence choice of activities, effort expenditure, persistence, and task accomplishments. Without a sufficient level of self-confidence, a person will not have courage to try new things and will most likely settle for mediocrity. Thus, there is a need to reform the educational system to improve and secure the future of the students to address the depressing situation of the learners (Andaya, 2015).

Correlations between Measures

Table 4 depicts the results of the correlations between parenting practices and selfefficacy of students. It was found out that parenting practices was significantly correlated with self-efficacy of senior high school students with r=0.624 and p<0.001. This implies that there exists a significant relationship between parenting practices and self-efficacy. Further, when the indicators of parenting practices in their individual capacities were correlated with self-efficacy, results showed that r values ranged from 0.378 to 0.524 with all p values less than 0.05 showing significant correlations. The findings affirmed the study of Griffith (2012) that high parental engagement with their children enhances self-efficacy of their children.

Table 4 Level of Self Efficacy
Items SD Mean DE
Academic Self-Efficacy 0.658 4.17 High
Social Self-Efficacy 0.597 3.94 High
Emotional Self-Efficacy 0.823 3.79 High
Overall 0.524 3.97 High

Table 5 describes the significance of the relationship between classroom learning environment and student self-efficacy with overall r value of 0.440 with p<0.001 which signifies significant correlation. Correlating further the indicators of classroom learning environment with the indicators of self-efficacy in their singular capacities, r values with p<0.001. The findings of the study is in congruence with the findings of Barr (2016); Croissant (2014) and McGhee, (2007) that classroom environment can influence positive and/ or negative self-efficacy and therefore, schools need to provide positive classroom environment climate to hasten teachinglearning process.

Table 5 Significance on the Relationship Between Levels of Parenting Practices and Self-Efficacy
Parenting Practices Self-Efficacy  
Religious Identity 0.437*
Love and Discipline 0.231*
Family Responsibilities 0.075*
Family Values 0.098*
Sexual Relationships 0.371*
Friendships 0.160*
Overall Parenting Practices 0.297*

Table 6 defines the significance of the relationship between interpersonal support and selfefficacy of senior high school students. As shown, the overall r value is 0.574 with p<0.001. Again, when the indicators of interpersonal support were correlated with the indicators of selfefficacy, results showed significant relationships with p<0.001, hence, significant relationship has been established between the two variables. The findings were aligned with the study of Valentine, DuBois and Cooper (2007) who confirmed that students who have limited social connections with their parents, friends, classmates have low self-effcacy level that would result to poor academic performance. Moreover, Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, and Pastorelli (2008) averred that family and peer support is very important for children to overcome difficulties and obstacles in life. Students develop timidities because they experienced low parental, peer, and social interactions in Table 7.

Table 6 Signlficance on the Relationship Between Levels of Classroom Learning Environment and Self-Efficacy
Classroom Learning Environment Self-Efficacy
Social self-Efficacy Emotional
Overall Self-
Classroom 0.28* 0.317* 0.259* 0.374*
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Diversity Values 0.359* 0.433* 0.271* 0.457*
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Personal 0.118* 0.301* 0.278* 0.313*
(0.041) 0.000 0.000 0.000
Persistence 0.022 0.296* 0.360* 0.310*
(0.706) 0.000 0.000 0.000
Overall Classroom Leaming
0.207* 0.414* 0.375* 0.440*
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Table 7 Significance on the Relationship Between Levels of Interpersonal Support and Self-Efficacy
Interpersonal Support Self-Efficacy  
Academic Self-Efficacy Social Self-Efficacy Emotional Self-Efficacy Overall Self-Efficacy
Tangible Support 0.194*
Belonging Support 0.273*
Self-Esteem Support 0.240*
Appraisal Support 0.260*
Overall Interpersonal Support 0.315*

Generated Path Model 1

The evaluation of the best fit path model was based on the Goodness of Fit Statistics for the Alternative Model thru Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS). In order to identify the best fit model, all the values of the given indices must fall with each criterion. Table 8 shows the goodness of fit measures of Generated Path Model 1 as illustrated in Figure 2. Results showed that all the criterion indices did not fall within the model fit value Table 8 further shows that PClose is less than 0.05; CMIN/DF greater than 2; P-Value is less than 0.05; All the values of GFI, CFI, NFI, and TLI are less than 0.950; and RMSEA value is greater than 0.05, hence the model is poor and unacceptable.

Table 8 Goodness of fit Measures of Generated Path Model 1
P-Close > 0.05 0.000
CMIN/DF 0 < value < 2 111.149
P-value > 0.05 0.000
GFI > 0.95 0.866
CFI > 0.95 0.766
NFI > 0.95 0.767
TLI > 0.95 -0.402
RMSEA < 0.05 0.607

Generated Path Model 2

As shown in Table 9 as illustrated in Figure 3, P-Close remains the same (0.000) as compared to Model 1; decrease in CMIN/DF value from 111.149 to 65.897 and RMSEA from 0.607 to 0.466; and increase in the values of GFI, CFI, NFI, and TLI but still less than 0.950 for model fit values. Therefore, Model 2 is still unfit to be the best model.

Table 9 Goodness of Fit Measures of Path Analysis Model 2
P-Close > 0.05 0.000
CMINIDF O < value< 2 65.897
P vatue > 0.05 0.000
GFI > 0.95 0.910
CFI > 0.95 0.862
tlfl > 0.95 0.862
TLI > 0.95 0.174
R MSEA < 0.05 0.466

Generated Path Model 3

Table 10 shows the goodness of fit measures of generated path model 3 as demonstrated in Figure 4. Results show the following goodness of fit measures: P-Close = 0.508; CMIN/DF = 0.873; P-Value = 0.350; GFI = 0.999; CFI = 1.000; NFI = 0.998; TLI = 1.002; and RMSEA = 0.000. Analyzing further based on each criterion, P-Close is greater than 0.05; CMIN/DF within the range of 0 to 2; P-Value is greater than 0.05; the values of GFI, CFI, NFI, and TLI are all greater than 0.95; and the RMSEA value is less than 0.05. Therefore, findings reveal that the generated model 3 satisfies the standard set for the goodness of fit measures, hence, the best-fit path model.

Table 10 Goodness or Fit Measures of Path Analysis Model 3
P-Close > 0.05 0.508
CMIN/DF 0 < value < 2 0.873
P-value > 0.05 0.350
GFI > 0.95 0.999
CFI > 0.95 1.000
NFI > 0.95 0.998
TLI > 0.95 1.002
RMSEA < 0.05 0.000

With reference to Figure 4, Table 11 shows the estimates of variable regression weight in path analysis of generated model 3. Path Parenting Practices to SELFeffica gave p<0.001 which implies a significant prediction of parenting practices on self-efficacy. The beta value of .452 signifies that for every unit level increase in parenting practices corresponds to .452-unit increase in the level of student self-efficacy. With standard error of 0.052.

Table 11 Estimates of Variable Regression Weights in Path Analysis Model 3
      B S.E. C.R. BETA P
SELF effica <---- Parenting Practices 0.452 0.052 8.655 0.442 ***
SELF effica <---- Interpersonal Support 0.289 0.045 6.420 0.328 ***
Class Learning Environ <---- Parenting Practices 0.467 0.054 8.586 0.443 ***
Class Learning Environ <---- Interpersonal Support 0.286 0.047 6.098 0.315 ***

The result is in consonance with the studies of Gota (2012); Masud, et al. (2016); Seifi (2016) that parenting practices influence self-effcacy of their children. Further, findings also corroborated with the statement of Rivers (2008) that parenting practices is very vital to the development of the children’s self-efficacy.

Table 11 further shows, Path InterpersonalSupport to SELFeffica revealed p<0.001 indicating a significant predictor of self-efficacy. Beta value of .289 shows that for every unit increase in the level of interpersonal support is equivalent to .289-unit increase in self-efficacy of students. This result is aligned with the findings of Erozkan (2013) which concludes that interpersonal support greatly affects self-efficacy.

Figure 4 indicates that classroom learning environment has no direct impact on student self-efficacy; however, it further discloses that parenting practices and interpersonal support are significant predictors of learning environment. It was found out with beta values of 0.467 and 0.286, signifies that for every unit-increase in parenting practices and interpersonal support correspond to .467 and .286 increase, respectively, in the level of classroom learning environment. Moreover, Figure 4 further shows that there is a correlation between parenting practices and interpersonal support. This result is aligned with the statement of Đurišić & Bunijevac (2017) that parenting practices specifically parental involvement in schools can effectively promote successful partnerships to improve school environment that is conducive to student learning. Similarly, the finding is also corroborated by Gablinske, (2014) that interpersonal support such as positive student-teacher relationship can promote learning through enhanced learning environment.

Implications of the Study

Schools need to stimulate the active involvement of everyone surrounding the students, the family, peers, teachers, administrators, in order to create a school community as social support to the students. It brings a sense of belongingness, caring, self-esteem, and confidence to the child as an independent learner having a higher social, emotional and academic self-efficacy needed for life’s success.

School administrators may strengthen parental involvement in school activities and encourage them to participate in panel discussions and forums on counselling, child rearing, family communication, as well as monitoring of their children’s school activities.

Moreover, schools through their guidance office may train students as well as teachers on social skills. There is also a need to provide teachers a regular training on advising, coaching, and counseling of students as part of the faculty development program. Future research may be conducted to determine other factors that may enhance student self-efficacy.


  1. Andaya, O.J.F. (2015). Factors that affect that academic performance of Indigenous People (IP) students of Philippine Normal University-North Luzon. Asia Pacific Journal of Research, 2(37).
  2. Artino, A.R. (2012). Academic self-efficacy: from educational theory to instructional practice. Perspectives on medical education, 1(2), 76-85.
  3. Bandura A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 84:191–215. DOI: 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191
  4. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of   self-efficacy theory. Self-Efficacy Theory in contemporary Psychology, 4,359-373. Retrieved from https://doi.orp/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359
  5. Bandura, A. (1997).  Self-efficacy:  The  exercise  of  control.  Retrieved  from  https://
  6. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.V., &  Pastorelli, C. (2008). Longitudinal analysis   of the role   of perceived self-efficacy for self-regulated learning  in academic continuance and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 525-534. Retrieved from
  7. Barr, J. J. (2016). Developing a Positive Classroom Climate. IDEA Paper# 61. IDEA Center, Inc.
  8. Bruno, U.D.O., &  Njoku, J.  (2014). The role of the teacher in improving students’ self-esteem. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 3(1).Retrieved from http://
  9. Claiborne, S. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the Virginia State University. Teacher education program’s effectiveness. https://eric.ed. gov/ ?id=ED572126.
  10. Claiborne, T.T. (2001). Home and classroom learning environment correlates of academic self-efficacy in Middle School Mathematics. (Historical Dissertations and Theses). Louisiana State University. Retrieved from
  11. Coffman, D., & Gilligan, T. (2012). Social support, stress, and self-efficacy: Effects on students' satisfaction. Retrieved from
  12. Cohen S., Mermelstein R., Kamarck T., & Hoberman, H.M. (1985). Measuring the functional components of social support. In Sarason,  I.G. & Sarason,  B.R. (Eds), Social support: theory, research, and applications. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Niijhoff.
  13. Croissant, H. P. (2014). Classroom environment influence on student self-efficacy in mathematics.
  14. Commerce ProQuest  Dissertations Publishing.
  15. Retrieved from e862c0f5ea5/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
  16. Daemi, M.N., Tahriri, A., & Zafarghandi, A.M. (2017). The relationship between classroom environment and EFL learners' academic self-efficacy. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 5(4), 16-23.
  17. Danielsen, A.G., Wiium, N., Wilhelmsen, B.U., & Wold, B. (2010).  Perceived support provided by teachers and classmates and students’ self-reported academic initiative.  Journal of School Psychology, 48(3), 247-267.  DOI: 10.1016/j.jsp.2010.02.002
  18. Dewey, J. (2008). The impact of John Dewey on the teacher education system in Turkey. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 36(4), 291-307. doi:10.1080/1359866080295808
  19. Erozkan, A. (2013). The  effect  of  communication  skills  and  interpersonal  problem solving skills on social self-efficacy.  Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice,13(2), 739-745. Retrieved from ?id=EJ 101 7303
  20. Gablinske, P.B. (2014). "A case study of student and teacher relationships and the effect on student learning”. Open Access Dissertations. Paper 266.
  21. George, R., & Mallery, P. (2003). The relationship between motivation and job satisfaction of a group of information specialists. Africa:Rand Afrikaans University.
  22. Gota, A.A. (2012). Effects of parenting styles, academic self-efficacy, and achievement motivation on the academic achievement of university students in Ethiopia.
  23. Griffith, C. N. (2012). Parental engagement on student academic self-efficacy and educational attainment expectation for immigrant youth.
  24. Grubaugh, S., & Houston, R. (1990). Establishing a classroom environment that promotes interaction and improved student behavior. The Clearing House, 63(8), 375-378.
  25. Hazel, M.R. (2014).Psychological ownership in small family firms: Family and non-family employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. Retrieved from
  26. Hicks, S.D. (2012). Self-efficacy and classroom management: A correlation study regarding the factor that influence management. Retrieved from
  27. Holt, L. (2013). Interpersonal relationships and the association with athlete’s motivation, self-efficacy and fear of failure.  (Master’s Thesis). Ithaca College. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar. org/c454/4712 a5caefe3a0587ebaf92faf4d4586812c.pdf
  28. Horwath, J., Lees, J., Sidebotham, P., Higgins, J., & Imtiaz, A. (2008). Religion, beliefs and parenting practices. A descriptive study. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 66.
  29. Hurtado, D., Kawachi, I., & Sudarsky, J. (2011). Social capital and self-rated health in Colombia: the good, the bad and the ugly. Social Science & Medicine, 72(4), 584-590.
  30. Lambros, L. (2017). Face-to-face bullying and cyber bullying in adolescents: Trans-contextual effects and role overlap. Retrieved from
  31. Malecki, C.K., Demaray, M.K., & Lyndsay J.N. (2012).  Social Support: How    to assess and include it in research prevention and youth outcomes. Retrieved from 9780203866412/ chapters/10.4324/9780203866412-12
  32. Masud, H.,  Ahmad, M., &  Jamil, A. (2016). Relationship between parenting styles and academic performance of adolescents: Mediating role of self-efficacy. Retrieved from https://link.springer. com/article/10. 1007/ s12564-015-9413-6.
  33. McGhee, D. E., Lowell, N., & Lemire, S. (2007). The classroom learning environment (CLE) questionnaire: Preliminary development. Retrieved from https://
  34. Muris, P. (2001). A brief questionnaire for measuring self-efficacy in youths. Journal of Psychopathology and behavioral Assessment, 23(3), 145-149.
  35. Pajares F (2004) Albert Bandura: Biographical sketch. Retrieved March 13, 2006 from
  36. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of educational research, 66(4), 543-578.
  37. Rivers, J. (2008). The relationship between parenting style and academic achievement and the mediating influences of motivation, goal-orientation and academic self-efficacy. Retrieved from
  38. Schunk ,  D.H.,  &  Meece, J.L.  (2006).    Self-efficacy  development  adolescence. Retrieved from sdt =0, 5&as_vis=1&q=schunk+meece+2006
  39. Seifi, M. (2016). The effects of parenting styles on students' self-efficacy. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies (IJHCS)​ ISSN 2356-5926, 1(1), 2193-2200.
  40. Suraya,  W. H., & Yunus, J.N. (2017).  Self-efficacy and academic performance  of  Secondary  schools  students in Perak: An  exploratory  outlook. International Journal  of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development6(3).
  41. Chen, X., Tan, J., Liu, Z., & Xie, J. (2017). Approximation of functions by a new family of generalized Bernstein operators. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 450(1), 244-261.
  42. Taran, H.,  Kalantari, S., Dahaghin, F., &  Abhari, Z. S. (2014). The relationship among parenting styles, self-efficacy, and academic achievement among students. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 4(1), 219-222. Retrieved from
  43. Umberson, D., & Montez, J.K. (2010). Social relationship and health: A flash for health policy. Journal of Health Soc Behavior., 51, 54-66.    doi: 10.1177/ 0022146510383501
  44. Valentine, J.C., DuBois, D.L., &  Cooper, H. (2007). The relation between self-belief and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 111-133. Retrieved from 10.1207/s15326985ep3902_3
  45. Wagner, K.D. (2006). Youths’ and their parents attitude and experiences about participation in psychopharmacology treatment research. Retrieved from
  46. Yazon, A.D. (2015). Self-esteem, self-efficacy and academic performance of the College of Teacher Education students at the Laguna State Polytechnic University, Los Ba ños campus, AY 2013-2014 Global Summit on Education (pp. 437-453). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Get the App