How does preparation for CXC affect students?

            This study examined the relationship between academic stress and self esteem and its extension to self efficacy among fifth form secondary school students. Academic stress pertains to stress that is experienced as a results of stressors that emanate from the school environment or academic concerns (Jones, 1992). Similarly, self esteem relates to a person’s feeling that they are good enough or worthy (Rosenberg, 1965, 1979), while self efficacy relates to the levels of confidence individuals have in their own ability to execute specific courses of action or achieve specific outcomes (Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1987). Simply put, self efficacy is an individual’s beliefs about their abilities to achieve goals and overcome obstacles in daily living (Shelton, 1990).

 Research has shown that students on a whole are quite vulnerable to experiencing stress and stress associated with academic activities seems to arise because students are being increasingly expected to cope with increasing workloads, which may lead to self doubt with regard to their aptitude (Jones, 1992). Academic stress as been linked to various negative outcomes (Aldwin & Greenberger, 1987; Linn & Zeppa, 1984), but the existence of a significant negative relationship between self esteem and academic stress (Abouserie, 1994) is most pertinent to this study. However, it also appears that self esteem has a mediating influence on academic stress, thus making the establishment of a causal relationship practically impossible (Zuckerman, 1989). At the same time, researchers have also proclaimed that self efficacy is necessary for healthy self esteem (Vancouver Community Network, 1998), but most researchers argue that the establishment of the direction of the relationship and causation between self esteem and self efficacy is a very contentious issue (Lane, Lane & Kyprianov, 2004).

A model of continuous and subsequent consequential relationships between academic stress, self esteem and self efficacy in an academic setting was investigated. This proposed model postulated that academic stress levels will affect levels of self esteem, which will in turn affect levels of self efficacy, however, a the possibility of a direct link between academic stress and self efficacy was not ignored. As with previous studies examining these three variables (eg. Abouserie, 1994; Lane et al., 2004), the study was correlational in design and only attempted to establish the strength and direction of relationships. As such, psychometric instruments specifically; the Academic Stress Questionnaire (ASQ) (Abouserie, 1994) for academic stress, the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) for self esteem and the General Self Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) for self efficacy were administered to a sample of fifth form students and the results analyzed using different correlational indices.

In the Caribbean setting, Fifth form level is where students take the all important Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) examinations. These examinations determine, essentially the outcome of an individual’s life. CSEC examinations are similar to the British GCE O’ Level and is a standard qualification in the Caribbean. In fact it affects every household in the Caribbean (Sam, 2009), as it is the gold standard of educational accomplishment in the Caribbean. It is also the ‘currency’ which high school graduates spend to enter the world of work or tertiary education in the Caribbean. Quintessentially, it is the window to their world (Sam, 2009). Every advertisement in the Caribbean for a job vacancy in the government service, the private sector or security services, calls for a minimum of ‘CXC passes’. Additionally, employers use it as their standard for providing employment to school leavers (Sam, 2009).

            At the age of fifteen or sixteen when these exams are taken, students are all too cognizant of the importance of these exams and when paired with the expectations of peers and parents they are bound to exert stress upon these fifth formers. The stress from these pending exams has the potential to impact self esteem and self efficacy which can ultimately affect academic performance (Clark & Rieker, 1986; Linn et al., 1984). The research is therefore being conducted with a view towards syllabus reform in order to curb the declining quality of CSCE results (CXC, 2008). Additionally, gaining an understanding of the relationships between academic stress self esteem and self efficacy could facilitate the design of interventions to raise performance through increasing self esteem and self efficacy. 

Method

In an attempt to scrutinize the relationship between academic stress and self esteem and its extension to self efficacy among fifth form students, each variable was assigned a situationally specific meaning. Academic stress as the independent variable was taken to pertain to any stress or discomfort that emanates from the academic arena, i.e. stress that results from the school environment or academic concerns (Jones, 1992). Self esteem was taken to pertain to feelings that one is simply good enough (Rosenberg, 1965, 1979) and self efficacy was taken to represent beliefs about abilities to achieve goals and overcome obstacles in daily living (Shelton, 1990).

At the time of the study, the researcher had not discovered an existing model that examines the relationships among and between the variables of academic stress, self esteem and self efficacy, hence such a model was proposed. Consequently, it was proposed that academic stress levels will affect self esteem levels, which will in turn affect levels of self efficacy in academic settings. However, the possibility that academic stress could directly affect self efficacy was not ignored. As such, the model was examined using a correlational design and the research questions focused on examining the sources and causes of academic stress in an academic setting and the resulting relationships among academic stress, self esteem and self efficacy.
Research questions

1. What are the sources of academic stress among fifth form students?
2. Do gender differences exist in levels of academic stress, self esteem and self efficacy respectively?
3. What is the relationship between academic stress and self esteem among fifth form students?
4. What is the relationship between academic stress and self efficacy among fifth form students?
5. What is the relationship between self esteem and self efficacy among fifth form students?

With these questions in mind and reference to the pertinent literature, it was hypothesized that:

1.      The highest levels of academic stress among fifth form students will emanate from sources directly pertaining to the academic arena.

2.      There will be significant gender differences in levels of academic stress, self esteem and self efficacy.

3.      There will be a significant, negative relationship between academic stress and self esteem among fifth form students.

4.      There will be a significant negative relationship between academic stress and self efficacy among fifth form students.

5.      There will be a significant positive relationship between self esteem and self efficacy.

Participants

The sample consisted of 81 (males; n = 37, females; n = 44) fifth form students with an average age of 16.68 years (SD = 0.892 years).  

Measures

Data was collected by means of a three part questionnaire that sought to measure sources and levels of academic stress, self esteem and self efficacy .
Academic stress

In order to measure academic stress a modified version of the Academic Stress Questionnaire (ASQ) (Abouserie, 1994) was used. The original questionnaire consisted of 34 potential causes of stress covering students' learning, examinations and results, conflict with lecturers and such situational variables as accommodation, financial problems, family crisis and conflict with peers. However, in the modified version items pertaining to financial problems, housing problems, conflicts with spouses/partners, loneliness, home sickness, and sexual problems were removed because they were more pertinent to the college/ university setting. The modified 28 item questionnaire asked respondents to indicate the degree of stress experienced in response to each item on a scale of 0-7, with 0 indicating 'no stress' and 7 indicating 'extreme stress'. These scores were then summed in order to obtain academic stress levels and ranged from 32-161, with higher scores representing elevated levels of stress.

The reliability of the original questionnaire proved to be 0.915 and 0.746 using alpha coefficient and split half methods, respectively, which indicates high reliability. Item analysis of the questionnaire using correlation item with total of score showed significant correlations at the 0.01 level (Abouserie, 1994). On the modified version, item analysis show significant correlation and the measure proved to be multidimensional.

Self Esteem

Self esteem was assessed using the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Respondents completed a 10-item Likert scale by indicating their agreement with each item (e.g. ‘On the whole I am satisfied with myself’, ‘I certainly feel useless at times’) on a four-point response scale ranging from strongly agree (scored 3) to strongly disagree (scored 0) for positive items, and the scores reversed for the five negatively worded items. A total self esteem score was then obtained by summing the 10 responses. The range of scores using this procedure was 12-29 with higher scores representing higher levels of self esteem.

The scale has been shown to have reproducibility of .92 and scalability of .72 (Rosenberg, 1989). Furthermore, the original scale was developed using a sample of consisting of 5,024 High School Juniors and Seniors from 10 randomly selected schools in New York State, which makes it age appropriate. The scale generally has high reliability: test-retest correlations are typically in the range of .82 to .88, and Cronbach's alpha for various samples are in the range of .77 to .88 (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1993; Rosenberg, 1986). Studies have demonstrated both a unidimensional and a two-factor (self-confidence and self-deprecation) structure to the scale.
Self Efficacy

To measure self efficacy, the General Self Efficacy Scale was used (Schwarzer et al., 1995). This scale looks at self efficacy as a prospective and operative construct that facilitates goal-setting (e.g. ‘It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals’), effort investment (e.g. ‘I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort’), persistence in face of barriers (e.g. ’If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution’) and recovery from setbacks (e.g. ‘I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events’). Respondents completed this 10-item Likert measure by indicating their agreement with each item using a four point response scale ranging from not at all true (scored 1) to exactly true (scored 4). A total self efficacy score was then obtained by summing these responses with the scores ranging from 17-37, with higher scores representing higher levels of self efficacy.

The measure is deemed to be highly reliable as shown by samples from 23 nations, where Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .76 to .90, with the majority in the high .80s; however, the scale is unidimensional. Furthermore, the measure is highly valid because criterion-related validity is documented in numerous correlation studies (Schwarzer et al., 1995).
Results

The ASQ sought to identify the academic sources of stress in fifth form secondary school students. Table 1 shows the means for students’ ratings of each item on the ASQ in terms of the degree of stress associated with it. The means are in descending order and show that essays and projects (M = 4.43) followed by examination and their results (M = 4.30), too much to do (M = 4.30), worry over future (M = 4.16), unclear assignments (M = 3.95) and studying for exams (M = 3.93) are the most significant stressors affecting students. The bottom of the table contains items which received low ratings such as personal health problems, peer pressure and personal health problems.

Table 1

Means for 81 Students' Ratings for Each Item of the ASQ

	Stressor	Mean
1	Essays, projects	4.43
2	Examinations and their results	4.30
3	Too much to do	4.30
4	Worry over future	4.16
5	Unclear assignments	3.95
6	Studying for exams	3.93
7	Need to do well (imposed by others)	3.84
8	Forgotten assignments	3.78
9	Timing, spacing of assignments	3.73
10	Amount to learn	3.72
11	Need to do well (self imposed)	3.72
12	Making choices about career	3.72
13	Lack of time for study	3.70
14	Boring classes	3.47
15	Family crisis	3.46
16	Conflict with school system	3.28
17	Conflict with teachers	3.22
18	Interpersonal difficulties	3.06
19	Conflict with people you live with	3.06
20	Unclear course objectives	2.93
21	Lack of time for own interests	2.90
22	Learning new skills	2.84
23	Conflict with peer(s)	2.83
24	Uninteresting curriculum	2.81
25	Lack of time for family and friends	2.69
26	Knowing what is important to study	2.40
27	Peer pressures	2.27
28	Personal health problems	2.07

It was postulated that significant gender differences would exist in the levels of academic stress, self esteem and self efficacy among fifth form secondary school students. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine whether there were significant differences in males and females in relation to their levels of academic stress, self esteem and self efficacy. The tests, whose results are shown in Table 2, did not reveal any significant differences between males and females in any of the three variables.

Table 2

Independent Samples t-test Investigating Gender Differences in Academic Stress, Self Esteem and Self Efficacy

Independent Samples t-test
		Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances		t-test for Equality of Means
		F	Sig.	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
									Lower	Upper
Total Academic Stress	Equal variances assumed	.115	.736	.692	79	.491	-4.91	7.097	-19.034	9.218
	Equal variances not assumed			-.686	73.912	.495	-4.91	7.151	-19.158	9.342
Self Esteem	Equal variances assumed	2.388	.126	-1.334	79	.186	-1.30	.972	-3.232	.639
	Equal variances not assumed			-1.318	72.100	.192	-1.30	.984	-3.258	.665
Self Efficacy	Equal variances assumed	.010	.920	.081	79	.936	.09	1.058	-2.020	2.191
	Equal variances not assumed			.080	75.474	.936	.09	1.062	-2.029	2.200

Examination of the relationship between academic stress and self esteem among fifth form secondary school students led to the hypothesis that a significant negative relationship would exist between these two variables. As such, a Pearson correlation was conducted to determine whether a significant relationship existed between academic stress and self esteem. The results revealed that there was a moderate, negative relationship between academic stress and self esteem (r = -.382, n = 81, p < 0.001), as academic stress increases, self esteem decreases.

Further regression analysis using the enter method revealed that academic stress in itself was not a significant predictor of self esteem: F (1, 79) = 13.491, p < .001. This is because academic stress only explains 13.5 % of the variance in self esteem (Adjusted R² = .135). Furthermore, the standardized ß coefficient shows that for a change of 1SD in academic stress will result in a .382 SD decrease in self esteem.

It was hypothesized that there would be a significant negative relationship between academic stress and self efficacy among fifth form secondary school students. This hypothesis was evaluated by conducting a Pearson’s correlation to determine whether a significant relationship existed between academic stress and self efficacy. The results, shown in Table 3, revealed that there was not a significant relationship between academic stress and self efficacy i.e. academic stress has no bearing on self efficacy.

Table 3

 Pearson Correlation between Academic Stress and Self Efficacy

		Total Academic Stress	Self Efficacy
Total Academic Stress	Pearson Correlation	1	-.168
	Sig. (1-tailed)	.	.067
	N	81	81
Self Efficacy	Pearson Correlation	-.168	1
	Sig. (1-tailed)	.067	.
	N	81	81

Research question five sought to examine the relationship between self esteem and self efficacy and the hypothesis was made that a significant positive relationship existed between self esteem and self efficacy. A Pearson correlation was conducted to determine whether this relationship existed. The results revealed that there was a moderate and positive relationship between self esteem and self efficacy (r = .498, n = 81, p < .001), as self esteem increases so does self efficacy.

Further regression analysis using the enter method revealed that self esteem in itself was not a significant predictor of levels of self efficacy: F (1, 79) = 26.004, p < .001. This is because, academic stress only explains 23.8 % of the variance in self efficacy (Adjusted R² = .238). Furthermore, the standardized ß coefficient shows that a change of 1SD in self esteem will result in a .498 SD increase in self efficacy levels.Summary

The research confirmed the existence of a model linking academic stress, self esteem and self efficacy among fifth form secondary school students. It has determined that academic stress has a significant negative relationship with self esteem and self esteem in turn, also has a significant negative relationship with self efficacy. These findings are quite significant because the research is pointing to the rigorous curriculum demands that students have to cope with at this level of secondary school as being the major source of academic stress. The findings hint at the existence of a larger problem because the correlations were established between academic stress and self esteem and later self esteem and self efficacy even though general measures of the constructs of self esteem and self efficacy were used in the study. This is quite worrying because more specific scales would more than likely establish larger and stronger relationships between the variables that were examined.

Bearing in mind that all these relationships emanate form academic stress and academic stress emanates from student’s inability to cope with the rigorous demands place on them by the curriculum content, it is only logical that there should be some review of the curriculum. As such, the curriculum being referred to, that of the CSEC, needs to be examined and possibly revamped in order to reduce the demands that it places on students and consequently the academic stress that these students experience. Any review of the present situation would be in the best interest of the development of the Caribbean as a region because it would boost our human capital and allow us to be in a better position to compete in a world that is being rapidly globalised.