The Role of Academic Pressure On The Relationship Between Self Efficacy and Fear of Failure of Students

The Role of Academic Pressure on the Relationship between Fear of Failure and
SelfEfficacy of Students
Zildjan M. Berin1,2,3,4, Alliah G. Ledesma1,2,3,4, Kurt Christian M. Diaz1,2,3,4, Anroe O.
Lameza1,2,3,4, Kristan Jen O. Pareña1,2,3,4, Bryan Jules C. Rebollido 1,2,3,4, Kimberly P. Tejones1,2,3,4,
Judy Anne M. Dela Cruz1,2,3,4,5
1
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
2
Senior High School Department
3
Research Development and Innovation Center
4
Our Lady of Fatima University Cabanatuan City Campus
5
Research Adviser
May 2021
THE ROLE OF ACADEMIC PRESSURE ON THE RELATIONSHIP... ii
Endorsement
This research study entitled “The Role of Academic Pressure on the Relationship between
Fear of Failure and Self-Efficacy of Students” prepared by Zildjan Berin et al., of STEM 12-1A, in
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the strand Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics, has been examined and now recommended for Oral Examination.
This is to certify that Zildjan Berin et al., are ready for the Oral Examination.
Judy Anne M. Dela Cruz

Research Adviser
This is to certify that the research study entitled “The Role of Academic Pressure on the
Relationship between Fear of Failure and Self-Efficacy of Students” prepared and submitted by
Zildjan Berin et al., of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics 12-1A, is recommended
for Oral Examination.
Dr. Corazon A. Esluzar

Chair/SHS Principal
Campus Research Coordinator
Member Member
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

THE ROLE OF ACADEMIC PRESSURE ON THE RELATIONSHIP... iii
Engr. Roel D. Trinidad

Administrative Dean
OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY

Certificate of Originality
We hereby declare that this research study is our own work and that, to the best of our knowledge
and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material
to which to a substantial extent has been accepted for award of any other degree or diploma of a
university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgment is made in the
study.
We also declare that the intellectual content of this research study is the product of our hard work,
even though we asked for assistance and guidance from others on style, presentation, and language
expression.
Zildjan M. Berin
Principal Investigator
Alliah G. Ledesma
Kurt Christian M. Diaz
Anroe O. Lameza
Kristan Jen O. Pareña
Bryan Jules C. Rebollido
Kimberly P. Tejones
Researchers
______________________
Judy Anne M. Dela Cruz
Research Adviser
OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

THE ROLE OF ACADEMIC PRESSURE ON THE RELATIONSHIP... iv
___/___/2021
Date Signed
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

THE ROLE OF ACADEMIC PRESSURE ON THE RELATIONSHIP... v
Table of Contents
Endorsement ii
Certificate of Originality iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
List of Appendices vii
Abstract viii
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Background 2
2.1 Theoretical Framework 2
2.2 Literature Review 2
2.2.1 Academic Pressure 2
2.2.2 Fear of failure 3
2.2.3 Self-efficacy 3
2.3 Research Simulacrum 5
Research Questions 5
Hypotheses 6
3.0 Research Method 7
3.1 Research Design 7
3.2 Research Locale 7
3.3 Population and Sampling 7
3.4 Research Ethics 7
3.5 Research Instruments 8 3.6 Data Collection 8
3.7 Data Analysis 9
4.0 Results 11
Socio-demographic Profiles 11
Descriptive Measures of the Data of the Scales 12

THE ROLE OF ACADEMIC PRESSURE ON THE RELATIONSHIP... vi
Correlation and Regression 15

5.0 Discussion 17
Conclusion 19
Recommendations 20
Acknowledgement 21
References 22
List of Tables
Table 1. Strength of the relationship based on r value 10

Table 2. Descriptive Measures of the Age of the Respondents 11
Table 3. Measures of the Sex, Academic Strand, and Learning Modality of the Respondents 12
Table 4. Weighted Mean and Standard Deviation of Academic Stress Scores 12
Table 5. Weighted Mean and Standard Deviation of Self-Efficacy Scores 13

THE ROLE OF ACADEMIC PRESSURE ON THE RELATIONSHIP... vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Relationships between academic pressure, self-efficacy, and fear of failure. 5

Figure 2. Relative percentages of the age of the respondents 11

THE ROLE OF ACADEMIC PRESSURE ON THE RELATIONSHIP... viii
List of Appendices
APPENDIX A: Title Proposal 23

APPENDIX B: Letter of Permission 24
APPENDIX C: Informed Consent Form 25
APPENDIX D: Research Instrument 28
APPENDIX E: Research Tally 31
APPENDIX F: About the Researchers 33

THE ROLE OF ACADEMIC PRESSURE ON THE RELATIONSHIP... ix
Abstract
This study investigated the relationship of academic pressure on the perceived academic
selfefficacy and fear of failure of students. This also aims to determine correlation between the
response variables; self-efficacy and fear of failure of students. The research design was descriptive
correlational and used random sampling procedure. Pearson’s r correlation coefficient was used to
determine the strength and direction of the relationship of the variables; and was computed
automatically through statistical softwares, i.e., jamovi and XLSTAT. The data was collected using
online survey for a span of two days. A total of 240 senior high school students of a recognized
private school in the province of Nueva Ecija participated in the survey. Among the participants,
the majority are female (50.83%), 18 years of age (56.30%), STEM (75%), and Online learners
(63.75%). Using jamovi and XLSTAT, the correlation matrix indicated that the academic pressure
and self-efficacy have weak and positive relationship (r = 0.370, p = 0.292); the relationship
between academic pressure and fear of failure have moderate and negative relationship (r = -0.412,
p = 0.237); and the correlation between self-efficacy and fear failure have very weak and positive
relationship (r = 0.103, p = 0.777). All p-values of the measures are greater than α = 0.05, which
indicates that the results of this study are statistically insignificant. The null hypotheses of the study
cannot be rejected. This means that the results can only be associated in the sample population; and
is not significant to be generalized on larger populations.
Keywords: academic pressure, stress, self-efficacy, fear of failure, senior high school,
correlation, behaviour, attitude, perceptions, students, pearson’s r correlation

THE ROLE OF ACADEMIC PRESSURE ON THE RELATIONSHIP... 1
1.0 Introduction
Students carry academic responsibilities that gradually increase in school level. The
demands of requirements and conditions such as academic workload, expectations, balancing
schedules, and environmental aspects impact the pressure exerted upon the students in pursuit of
educational attainment. The academic pressure that students generally experience is formally
defined as the circumstance in which the students were burdened by strains of time and energy to
achieve specific academic goals. This term is used interchangeably with “academic stress”.
According to Academic Counselor Laura Heidel, “it can come from a variety of potential sources
and have a myriad of impacts on students both emotionally and academically.” The stress it leads
to can be instigated by internal and external factors. Internal factors mainly correspond to the
students’ perceptions, beliefs, and psychological traits which will be the focus of this research. On
the other hand, the external factors relate to socio-environmental conditions, social issues, etc.
(Alsulami, et al., 2018).
Academic pressure can either be a negative or a positive force, which mainly depends on
the students’ personality and behavioral traits. This pressure can cause students to provoke
themselves and exert efforts to achieve goals, or on the opposite, it can cause anxiety that may result
in concentration problems or ‘test anxiety’. This is the dimension where the terms ‘selfefficacy’
and ‘fear of failure’ will be examined in the study. Self-efficacy, as mentioned by Bandura
(1977) in his earlier theory, is the “perceived capabilities for learning or performing actions at
designated levels.” It is simply the belief about what a person can attain or the trust in one’s abilities.
Meanwhile, the fear of failure according to Atkinson (1964), involves a “capacity for reacting with
shame and embarrassment when the outcome of performance is a failure which results in anxiety
and a tendency to withdraw from the situation.” It reveals the students’ behavior when frightened
of experiencing failure or the emotional setbacks it endows.
When faced with perceived academic pressure, self-efficacy and fear of failure are two
important factors that will be associated with the constraints the students undergo. Whether these
two perceptive elements are significantly affected and in what manner are questions that still have
no direct answers from conducted studies and researches in the past. Hence, this study aims to
investigate how academic pressure affects the students’ self-efficacy and fear of failure and to
examine the relationship between them.
The importance of this study remains on providing empirical knowledge that will
significantly contribute to educational purposes and may yield new ways of imparting learnings to
students. This study extends the area of knowledge our field of expertise currently possess to
explore this matter further.

2.0 Background
2.1 Theoretical Framework
This research study was inclined to the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) earlier developed
by Albert Bandura in 1960s which was comprehensively reviewed by Schunk in 2012.
This theory emphasizes social influence and its impacts on internal and external
reinforcements. It is considered as a distinct way of maintaining behaviours while considering the
social environment where the individuals perform. It involves six constructs: (1) Reciprocal
Determinism which refers to reciprocal interaction of the person, environment, and behavior; (2)
Behavioral Capability which refers to a person’s actual ability to perform a behavior; (3)
Observational Learning that asserts learning through observations and ‘modelling’ behaviors; (4)
Reinforcements that are comprised of internal and external responses; (5) Expectations that
anticipates consequences of the behavior; and (6) Self-efficacy that refers to the level of a person’s
self-confidence (LaMorte, 2019).
The Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) in an educational context, is a perspective in which it

is believed that learning is affected by its surrounding environment, the behavior in response to it,
and involved internal factors. In a stressful setting, students’ perceptions of themselves in response
to the situation they were in can change, and subsequently affects other noncognitive factors such
as their self-efficacy and fear of failure (Hassan, Alasmari, & Ahmed, 2015). Given the above
framework, this study attempts to find a relationship between the experienced academic pressure of
Grade 12 senior high school students to their levels of self-efficacy and fear of failure in response
to it. The changes in these noncognitive factors may affect their behavior towards learning which
may also establish a correlation between self-efficacy and fear of failure.
2.2 Literature Review

2.2.1 Academic Pressure
Academic pressure or ‘stress’ was significantly related to academic self-efficacy, in the
way that an increase in academic stress among the students led to a decrease in their self-efficacy
(Alsulami, et al., 2018). Academic factors were seen as one of the primary reasons of stress in most
students, followed by physical, social, and emotional. Majority of students experiencing stress or
pressure reported high scores of poor self-esteems, and about half of them scored high on depression
scales (Bedewy & Gabriel, 2015).

Perceived academic pressure was reported in some research to be influenced by

sociodemographic profiles. However, clear suggestions are yet to be established as conflicting
results were produced. In some studies, academic pressure was related to psychosocial external
factors such as parental expectations, university standards, heavy requirements, and perceived
capabilities (Bedewy & Gabriel, 2015). Most of the studies reviewed by the researchers were the
association of academic pressure to learning motivations, as well as negative factors like anxiety
and depression.
2.2.2 Fear of failure

The term ‘fear of failure’ concerns itself in people’s expectations and lack of
selfconfidence. Fear of failure or one’s fear of shortcomings and disappointments may lead to
avoidance of situations involving performance evaluation. It is also a construct related to
achievement motivation. This was associated with negative outcomes, one of which is the
aforementioned avoidant behavior. According to Bandura (1977), low self-efficacy is associated
with feelings of helplessness, anxiety, and depression in addition to low self-esteem. Furthermore,
Bandura (1977) notes that individuals who lack self-efficacy results in fear of failure as they fear
difficult situations and avoid them, viewing the situation as a threat rather than a challenge (Schunk,
2012).
The students’ achievement both directly and indirectly affected by their responses to
failure: their mindset, goal orientation, fear of failure, attributions, and coping responses. Other
researchers studied the responses of the students when confronted with challenges which includes
their self-efficacy and failure mindset. In the conducted study reviewed by Henry, et al. (2019), fear
of failure was defined as “a noncognitive factor which has a strong influence on how students might
approach an academic challenge.” It has been associated with emotional/affective-related
personality which is a trait turned towards avoiding situations that have the prospects of failure.
The impact of fear of failure leads to ‘self-handicap’ (“the creation of assertion of obstacles that
might explain away poor performance on a task”). It commonly involves (1) making excuses and
(2) reducing effort, which may not always be the case (Henry, Shorter, Charkoudian, Heemstra, &
Corwin, 2019).
2.2.3 Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is outlined by dictionaries and common knowledge to be an individual’s belief
in one’s capacity to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainments. The

first one to explain this noncognitive factor was Bandura (1977) with his constructed self-efficacy
theory. This theory stated that “what we believe about ourselves strongly influences our task choice,
level of effort, persistence, and resilience, and how we subsequently perform on that task.” Self-
efficacy affects all manner of experiences, including the goal to strive for, the amount of expended
energy, and the likelihood of attaining particular levels of behavioral performance (Bandura, 1977).
It has been seen as one of the strongest factors as a predictor of performance in a wide range
of domains, pronouncedly in academic context. In educational setting, it is a factor of academic
functioning and productivity. Recent researchers have found that self-efficacy influences
individual’s learning, motivation, and self-regulation. It is grounded in Bandura’s social cognitive
theory (1996) that postulated self-efficacy and fear of failure as personal factors which affects
achievement behaviors such as task choice, effort, persistence, and use of effective learning
strategies. From instructional and social/environmental sources, students acquire information that
affects their self-efficacy, and in turn, self-efficacy influences various achievement behaviors.
(Schunk, 2012).
According to Furlong (2014), “students with high self-efficacy for learning are apt to be
motivated to learn, engage in self-regulated learning (set goals, use effective learning strategies,
monitor their comprehension, evaluate their goal progress), and create effective environments for
learning (eliminate or minimize distractions).” Individuals acquire self-efficacy information from
physiological and emotional states such as anxiety and stress (Bandura, 1977). Strong emotional
reactions to a task provide cues about anticipated success or failure. When students experience
negative thoughts and fears about their capabilities (e.g. feeling nervous thinking about taking a
test), those reactions can lower self-efficacy and trigger additional stress that helps bring about the
feared inadequate performance. On the other hand, when learners feel less anxious about academic
outcomes, they ought to be more efficacious (Furlong, Gilman, & Huebner (EdS.), 2014).

2.3 Research Simulacrum
Self-Efficacy
Academic Pressure
Fear of Failure
Figure 1. Relationships between academic pressure, self-efficacy, and fear of failure.
The figure above shows the projected connections between the three variables, instituting
academic pressure as the predictor variable, whereas self-efficacy and fear of failure as the response
variables. The diagram signifies that the pressure in an academic environment affects the
noncognitive factors—self-efficacy and fear of failure of the students. In line with this, the
correlation between self-efficacy and fear of failure is also the concern of the study. Accordingly,
this study intends to investigate the relationship between the three aforesaid variables and their
influences on one another.
Research Questions
This study aims to examine the role of academic pressure on the relationship between
selfefficacy and fear of failure of university students. This study sought to answer the following
questions:
1. How may the characteristics of the student-respondents be described in terms of:
a. Age c. Academic strand
b. Sex d. Learning modality
2 What are the statuses of academic pressure, self-efficacy, and fear of failure among students?
3 Is there a relationship between academic pressure and academic self-efficacy among students?
4 Is there a relationship between academic pressure and fear of failure among students?
5 Is there a significant correlation between the students’ self-efficacy and fear of failure?
Hypotheses
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between academic pressure and academic self-efficacy
among students.

Ho2: There is no significant relationship between academic pressure and fear of failure among
students.
Ho3: There is no significant correlation between the students’ academic self-efficacy and fear of
failure.

3.0 Research Method
3.1 Research Design

This study is descriptive correlational—a non-experimental design to gather data using an
electronic survey. Data is collected in relation to the students’ own perceived academic pressure,
self-efficacy, and fear of failure. This study is consisting of one predictor (independent variable)
and two responses (dependent variable), in which the researchers aim to find associations or
relationships among the three using a correlational design. This type of analysis is commonly used
to investigate problems on social sciences, i.e., psychology to produce useful findings. Its
advantages include the capability to be used on multiple variable in a study and give information
regarding the degree of the relationships between the variables being researched (Jackson, 2012).
3.2 Research Locale

This study was conducted at the senior high school department of one of the recognized
private medical universities in the Philippines, specifically in its campus located in the province of
Nueva Ecija. The accumulation of data from the enrolled students has been done through online
platforms. This will allow the researchers to gather necessary data while being particular about the
proximity and familiarity of the location.
3.3 Population and Sampling

The respondents of the study are random samples of senior high school students through
the application of simple random sampling which is a form of probability sampling technique. The
target respondents are Grade 12 SHS students across different strands of the university. Their
sociodemographic profile will be described in terms of age, sex, academic strand, and learning
modality. To calculate the sample size, a certain percentage of the population will be considered as
the total number of participants. From 799 Grade 12 students, the researchers will acquire survey
responses from 30% of the total population. Hence, 240 respondents will be needed to participate
in the study.
3.4 Research Ethics

To conduct this research responsibly and ethically without violating any regulations is of
concern to the researchers of the study. The researchers made sure to be guided by the ethical
guidelines provided by the Research Development and Innovation Center (RDIC) of the university
and the American Psychological Association (APA) 6th Edition in research formatting to prevent

plagiarism and to make sure that proper accreditation is observed. Information consent rules will
be strictly followed to give assurance that the individuals have given their consent and are in free
will to participate in the study. The researchers will also maintain the respondents’ anonymity and
will therefore refrain from the acquisition of personal data that is beyond what is needed. This
research respects the confidentiality and privacy of the participants. Their provided information is
highly observed and ensured to be used only for this study.
3.5 Research Instruments

The questionnaire used in this study was designed by the researchers after consulting
various works of literature and studies. The survey questionnaire that served as the research
instrument of this study is consisting of three parts. The first part includes information consent,
wherein the description, objectives, as well as terms of the research study, are indicated. The second
part of the survey includes questions regarding the socio-demographic profile of the participants
based on age, sex, academic strand, and learning modality. The third part of the survey
questionnaire is comprised of three standard scales to assess the students’ based on the variables of
the study. This instrument is consisting of 30 items; each of the three scales will be comprised of
10 items.
The researchers of the study used three standard scales namely: the Student Academic
Stress Scale (SASS) test used to measure academic stress or pressure by indicating how much stress
they experience academically due to pressure, with overall internal consistency reliability of 70%
(Bedewy & Gabriel, 2015); the Academic Self-Efficacy Scale for Students developed by Owen and
Froman in 1988 devised to examine the academic self-efficacy levels of the students with a
reliability score of 91% as used in various studies (Jenaabadi, Nastiezaie, & Safarzaie , 2017); to
measure the fear of failure, a scale based on Herman’s Fear of Failure Measure (1990) was used.
The scales utilize the use of a five-point Likert scale system based on the students’
experiences ranging from Always (5) to Never (1) for the SASS test; and perceptions ranging from
Strongly Agree (5) to Strongly Disagree (1) for the Academic Self-Efficacy Scale and Fear of
Failure Measure.
3.6 Data Collection

The data was collected by administering online survey questionnaires with the application
of Google Forms. The random Grade 12 participants were asked to fill their demographic profiles
in the first part of the survey. The survey questionnaire is composed of three parts comprising of
the three scales to measure the identified variables. The respondents answered a 5-point Likert scale

system based on their perceptions and experiences. Information consent was observed and the
participants have the right to not continue answering the survey. When the desired number of
respondents had accomplished the survey questionnaires with a 10% possible loss of data, the
survey forms were then closed.
3.7 Data Analysis

Procedures for the statistical analysis were based on the given research questions.
Descriptive statistics help in summarizing the characteristics of the respondents in their
sociodemographic profiles. The statistics include frequency distribution table and measures of
central tendency, including the mean, median, mode; and dispersion of variation including the
variance and standard deviation of the samples. Statistical treatments were automated using Excel
software application with the assistance of XLSTAT extension and jamovi. XLSTAT is a statistical
software for Excel that provides data analysis add-ons and allows the researchers to efficiently
analyze the results within Microsoft Excel. Jamovi, on the other hand, is a free and open statistical
software spreadsheet, which provides functions similar to SPSS, and the like.
To determine the weighted mean of the scores of each item in the Likert scale, this formula
was used:
5𝑎+4𝑏+3𝑐+2𝑑+𝑒
𝑁
where: N = total number of respondents a =
number of respondents who answered 5 b
= number of respondents who answered 4 c
= number of respondents who answered 3
d = number of respondents who answered
2 e = number of respondents who answered
1
The weighted mean will be used in the computation of the Pearson’s r correlation. The
interval scores of the Likert scale items are converted into continuous data; to test the hypotheses
and analyze the variables. Pearson’s correlation coefficient is used to measure the strength
relationship between the predictor and the response variables of the study, conducted using jamovi
and XLSTAT (for validation purposes). It assumes the linear relationship between the cases of the
variables. The treatment uses the probability value (p-value), wherein the p-value must be less than
5% (p < 0.05), in determining whether the null hypotheses can be rejected. The correlational

analysis yields r-value that will be used as an indicator of positive, negative, or no relationship and
the relationship’s intensity with reference on standard ranges of interpretations (Murray, 2013). The
following table will be used as reference for the interpretation of magnitude of the relationship:
Table 1.
Strength of the relationship based on r value
Value of r Interpretation
0 No relationship
±0.01 - ±0.20 Very weak relationship
±0.21 - ±0.40 Weak relationship
±0.41 - ±0.70 Moderate relationship
±0.71 – 0.80 Strong relationship
±0.81 - ±0.99 Very strong relationship
±1 Perfect relationship
The Table 1 above displays the strengths of correlation between positive (+) 1 to negative
(-) 1. The sign indicates the direction of the relationship: the positive sign signifies that the increase
or decrease in one variable leads to the same direction, i.e., increase or decrease; while, the negative
sign signifies that the relationship of the variables goes in opposite directions, i.e., if one variable
decreases, then the other variable will also decrease (Murray, 2013).

4.0 Results
Socio-demographic Profiles
Frequency (Age)
0.80% 0.40% 1.70%
8.30% 16
17
32.50%
18
19
56.30% 20
21
Figure 2. Relative percentages of the age of the respondents
In the Figure 2 above, using descriptive measures of frequencies, the percent of the age of
the respondents are shown. The total number of the respondents (N = 240) involves 0.4% (N = 1)
21 years old, 0.8% (N = 2) 20-year-olds, 8.3% (N = 20) 19-year-olds, 56.3% (N = 135) 18-yearolds,
32.5% (N = 78) 17-year-olds, and 1.7% (N = 4) 16-year-olds. The age with the highest frequency
(mode) is 18, followed by 17.
Table 2.
Descriptive Measures of the Age of the Respondents
Variance SD
Statistic N Minimum Maximum Median Mean (n) (n)
Age 240 16 21 18 17.75 0.49 0.70
The Table 2 displays the minimum and maximum value of the age of the respondents,
including the mean, median, variance and standard deviation. The average age of the participants
of the study is 18; and have a minimum and maximum value of 16 and 21, respectively. The
dispersion of variation of the ages of the sample population has the variance of 0.49 and a standard
deviation of 0.70.
Table 3.
Measures of the Sex, Academic Strand, and Learning Modality of the Respondents

Rel.
N of
Statistic N Mode Categories Frequency frequency
categories
(%)
Female 122 50.83

Sex 240 2 Female
Male 118 49.17
STEM 180 75.00
Academic ABM 28 11.67

240 4 STEM
Strand HUMSS 17 7.08
GAS 15 6.25
Learning Online 153 63.75

Modality 240 2 Online
Modular 87 36.25
The Table 3 displays description of the respondents based on sex, academic strand and
learning modality. Most of the participants of the study are female. It has been determined that
among 240 of the respondents, 50.83% (N = 122) are female and 49.17% (N = 188) are male. The
mode for academic strand is STEM, and the frequency for this demographic characteristic includes;
75% (N = 180) STEM students, 11.67% (N = 28) ABM students, 7.08% (N = 17) HUMSS students,
6.25% (N = 15) GAS students. Meanwhile, the most frequent for learning modality of the
participants is through online. The frequency involves 63.75% (N = 153) online learners, and
36.25% (N = 87) modular learners.
Descriptive Measures of the Data of the Scales
Table 4.
Weighted Mean and Standard Deviation of Academic Stress Scores
Weighted SD
Academic Pressure
Mean (n-1)
[My works piled up so much that I feel like crying.] 3.21 1.15
[I feel emotionally drained by academic institution.] 3.73 1.03
[I feel lazy when it comes to academic work.] 3.73 1.01
[I procrastinated on assignments/activities.] 3.66 1.07

[I am unable to study as required.] 3.22 1.06

[I have trouble concentrating in school/class.] 3.52 0.99
[I feel overwhelmed by the demands of study.] 3.54 1.02
[There is so much going on that I can't think straight.] 3.55 1.12
[There are times that I don't feel like studying.] 3.77 1.05
[I worried too much about my scores/grades.] 3.93 1.13
The computed weighted mean and standard deviation for the scores of Academic Stress
Scale is indicated in the Table 4 above. The scale of 1-5 of the Likert scale system was assigned
with different relative significance to each value comparison. The responses for the items of this
scale was nearly dispersed through intervals of 1 and the weighted mean for the scale ranges from
3.21 to 3.93.
Table 5.
Weighted Mean and Standard Deviation of Self-Efficacy Scores
Weighted SD
Self-Efficacy
Mean (n-1)
[I can learn what is being taught in class this year.] 3.33 0.87
[I can figure out anything if I try hard enough.] 3.98 0.81
[I am confident that I will achieve the goals that I set for myself.] 3.99 0.87
[I will succeed in whatever career path I choose.] 4.04 0.86
[I believe my hard work pays off.] 4.30 0.80
[When I am struggling, I focus on my progress instead of feeling

3.95 0.89
discouraged.]
[Once I've decided my goal, I keep trying to accomplish it even if it's
4.29 0.73
hard.]
[I believe I can grow and improve more.] 4.53 0.63
[If I practiced every day, I could develop just about any skill.] 4.28 0.78
[I think that no matter who you are, you can significantly change
4.26 0.85
your level of talent.]
The Table 5 above shows the weighted mean and standard deviation for the second scale,
which is the Students’ Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (SASS) that describes the level of efficacy of
the respondents in their academic performance. The weighted mean of the scale ranges from 3.33

to 4.53; and is more narrowly dispersed than the Academic Stress Scale. This indicates that the
responses for this scale are clustered towards higher scale-intervals.
Table 6.
Weighted Mean and Standard Deviation of Fear of Failure Scores
Weighted SD
Fear of Failure Mean (n-1)
[I find it difficult to measure up to the standards I set up for myself.] 3.72 0.87
[My achievements are not enough for me.] 3.17 1.09
[I often find myself disappointed with my scores/grades.] 3.25 1.15
[I find it difficult to answer during class recitations.] 3.37 1.07
[I am worried about the quality of my work when I passed them.] 3.83 1.06
[My mind went blank when I try to study or to listen to class
3.36 1.01
discussions.]
[I overplan my work before actually doing it.] 3.62 0.95
[I feel I need someone/something to push me to do things that I am
3.69 1.04
required to do.]
[I compare myself or my work to others in class.] 3.10 1.31
[I wish I was a little bit smarter than I was.] 3.88 1.17
Table 6 above shows that the weighted mean and standard deviation for Fear of Failure
scale. This scale describes the level of failure-fright of the respondents. The weighted mean ranges
from 3.10 to 3.88. The dispersion of data for this scale has a close approximate to 1.
Table 7.
Summary Statistics of the Scale Scores of the Three Variables
Grand
Variable Observations Minimum Maximum SD
Mean
Academic Pressure 10 3.21 3.93 3.59 0.23
Self-Efficacy 10 3.33 4.53 4.10 0.33
Fear of Failure 10 3.10 3.88 3.50 0.28
The Table 7 above summarizes the presented data from tables 4, 5, and 6. It displays the
number of observations, which are the data-scores of each item of the scales. Each scale were

comprised of 10 items, each were computed for the weighted mean and standard deviation. For the
whole scale of academic pressure, a grand weighted mean (GWM) of 3.59 and a standard deviation
(SD) of 0.23 was computed. The self-efficacy scale has a GWM of 4.10 (SD = 0.33). While the fear
of failure scale has a GWM of 3.50 (SD = 0.28).
Correlation and Regression

Table 8.
Correlation Matrix
Academic Self- Fear of

Pressure Efficacy Failure
Academic
Pressure Pearson's r —
p-value —
95% CI
—
Upper
95% CI Lower —
N —
Self-Efficacy Pearson's r 0.370 —
p-value 0.292 —
95% CI
0.811 —
Upper
95% CI Lower -0.338 —
N 10 —
Fear of Failure Pearson's r -0.412 0.103 —
p-value 0.237 0.777 —

95% CI
0.294 0.688 —
Upper
95% CI Lower -0.827 -0.563 —
N 10 10 —
Note. * p < .05 = reject null hypothesis
The correlation matrix displayed on Table 8 above was computed using jamovi (and
double-checked with XLSTAT). It gives the information about the Pearson’s r correlation
coefficient, p-value, upper and lower-bound confidence intervals, and the total number of
observations per variable. Based on the interpretation given in table 1, the level of self-efficacy of
students and the experienced academic pressure exhibit a weak, positive correlation (r = 0.370, p =
0.292) with 95% confidence interval that the population parameter exists between the lower limit
of -0.338 and an upper limit of 0.811. The computed p-value is greater than 0.05 (p-value = 0.292,
p > 0.05 = null hypothesis cannot be rejected); hence, the findings for the relationship between
academic pressure and self-efficacy of the respondents is not significant, and cannot be generalized
to a larger population.
Moderate, negative correlation is determined between the fear of failure and the academic
pressure (r = -0.412, p = 0.237) 95% CI [-0.827, 0.294]. The p-value of 0.237 (p > 0.05 = null
hypothesis cannot be rejected), which means that the null hypothesis is failed to be rejected; there
is no significant relationship between academic pressure and fear of failure of students, and the
findings cannot be readily generalized outside the sample population.
The correlation between self-efficacy and fear of failure of the students demonstrate very
weak, positive relationship (r = 0.103, p = 0.777) 95% CI [-0.563, 0.688]. This correlation between
self-efficacy and fear of failure is not significant and cannot be generalized to a larger population
(p > 0.05 = null hypothesis cannot be rejected).

5.0 Discussion
The primary objective of this research study is to investigate the relationship between the
variables academic pressure, self-efficacy, and fear of failure of students. The academic pressure is
perceived in this study as the explanatory variable of the two responses: self-efficacy and fear of
failure; therefore, the study also attempts to determine how academic pressure affects the levels of
self-efficacy and fear of failure of the students. This study tests assumptions on correlation of the
variables.
To briefly discuss the sociodemographic profile; among the 240 respondents, the average
participant of the study can be described as Female (50.83%), 18 years of age (56.30%), STEM
student (75%), and an Online class learner (63.75%). Meanwhile, to further discuss the results of
the Pearson’s r correlation matrix; academic pressure and self-efficacy exhibit a weak, positive
relationship (r = 0.370), which means that as the academic pressure increases, the self-efficacy of
the students also increases with only a weak connection and it cannot be certainly applied to the
general population (p = 0.292, p > 0.05 = no significant relationship). This is opposed to the
suggestions of the study conducted by Alsulami, et al., (2018), which stated that academic pressure
significantly affects the academic self-efficacy of students. In addition, the researchers of the study
indicated that an increase in academic stress leads to a decrease in the self-efficacy of the students
(Alsulami, et al., 2018). Furthermore, Bedewy & Gabriel (2015), suggested in their study that
experienced pressure reported elevated scores of poor self-esteem among students, which they also
asserted to be associated with depression scales (Bedewy & Gabriel, 2015). Both of these studies
suggest contradictions to the interpreted correlation of this study.
However, the positive direction of the relationship between self-efficacy and pressure can
imply that as the pressure increases, the higher self-efficacy is needed by the students as response
to the challenge that they are facing in order to be able to handle the situation. This is where
academic motivation is reviewed from other related literatures and researches but will not be
discussed in this study. From the actual observation of the distribution of the responses of the
participants, those who scored high in Academic Stress Scale, also scored high on the Students’
Academic Self-Efficacy Scale. This supported that the positive reinforcement of the self-efficacy
of students persist even in the event of academic pressure. But generalizations cannot be made as
the findings are not significant and can only be applied to the sample population of this study.
On the other hand, fear of failure and academic pressure scores indicated statistically
insignificant moderate, negative relationship (r = -0.412, p = 0.237). This means that as the levels

of academic pressure increases, the fear of failure of the students decreases, insignificantly. Fear of
failure, according to Schunk (2012) is characterized by the avoidance of difficult situations
(Schunk, 2012). Moreover, Henry, et al., (2019) stated that fear of failure has a strong influence on
how students might handle a stressful academic circumstance (Henry, Shorter, Charkoudian,
Heemstra, & Corwin, 2019). In this instance, the fear of failure levels of the participants were not
significantly affected by the academic pressure; and behaviors and attitudes like avoidance and
anxiety were not significantly correlated to stress. In line with fear of failure, the academic
motivation, expended energy, and expectations of the students is moderately affected by the
pressure; which may imply that as the stress increases, the students lowers their expectations in
their performance hence the fear of failure decreases (Furlong, Gilman, & Huebner (EdS.), 2014).
Further, investigating the correlation between the response variables, self-efficacy and fear
of failure, yielded very weak, positive relationship (r = 0.103, p = 0.777). This means that, although
the relationship is weak, it has been observed that an increase in self-efficacy resulted to also an
increase in the fear of failure levels of the students. It has been reviewed by the researchers that
according to Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy (1977), a lack in self-efficacy results in fear of
failure as individuals tend to fear difficult situations and avoid them. This fear of failure commonly
involves reduction in efforts and anxiety (Bandura, 1977). Contrastingly, the results of the
correlation test indicated that as the students perceived capability is high, the more they fear failing
due to expectations and set standards; and a low self-efficacy suggests lowered standards about
one’s achievements and therefore lower fear of failure.
Conclusion
The variables of the study: academic pressure, self-efficacy, and fear of failure of the
students exhibited weak to moderate connections that are deemed to be statistically insignificant.
This means that the findings of this study cannot be assumed true outside the sample population of
this study. The results can be summarized as: Academic pressure and self-efficacy tend to move in
the same relative direction, but the established relationship is weak; Academic pressure and fear of
failure have negative correlation, which means that they tend to move in the opposite direction, but
with only moderate correlation with each other; Self-efficacy and fear of failure move in the same
direction, but established a very weak relationship.
Thorough predictions and/or assumptions cannot be made as the yielded results for p-value
is relatively higher than 0.05. With that, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, and generalizations
must not be made. Moreover, the results shall only be associated within the sample population.

This indicates that the gathered evidence is not strong enough to suggest an effect between
the variables and the population. Other instances could be that the effect size is too little, the sample
size is not enough to generate reliable data, or the variability of the responses is too much to test
the hypotheses. The researchers listed possible instances for this study: The relative effect of the
indicated variables is too little in the group that participated in this study; The larger the sample
size, the smaller the chances of random error in producing the effect; hence, the sample size may
not be enough to produce reliable results on variables that have small effect sizes; The variability,
or “lack of consistency or fixed pattern” of the responses of the participants is too much to test the
hypothesis. This may be due to human error, in instances that the participants did not take the survey
seriously, hence unable to reflect the true value of the scores of the variables.
The absence of substantial evidence does not mean that this study is meaningless, but rather
the overviews cannot be made on a general population, and must only be narrowed within the
sample of this study. Nevertheless, this study can be significant in providing references for future
studies for establishing valid and reliable results.
Recommendations
Further investigation geared towards establishing accurate and precise results is highly
recommended. The researchers of this study specifically recommend to use mixed method, i.e.,
quantitative and qualitative design in order to arrive at values representing the quantifiable and
nonquantifiable observations of the variables relevant to the academic pressure, self-efficacy, and
fear of failure of students. It is also suggested to replicate the study with a larger sample size in
order to minimize the value of standard error and establish higher accuracy of results.

Acknowledgement
The researchers would like to acknowledge with sincere thanks and heartfelt gratitude and
appreciation, the following who significantly contribute to the fulfilment of this study for their
efforts, assistance, and involvement in this research undertaking:
• Above all, to our Almighty Father, the source of everything, for giving us guidance and
strength, to support us through all obstacles in conducting this research, and making us
courageous in achieving success.
• To our supportive research advisers, Mrs. Judy Anne M. Dela Cruz, LPT and Mr. Phil
Darren Agustin, RPm, for their exemplary guidance and substantial knowledge shared with
us which helped in forming the construct of this study.
• To respective Dr. Corazon A. Esluzar, the campus research coordinator and senior high
school principal, as well as, to our institution, Our Lady of Fatima University Cabanatuan
Campus in allowing us to conduct this research study.
• To the respondents who thoughtfully participated and willingly cooperated to fulfill the
objectives of this study.

References
Alsulami, S., Omar, Z. A., Binnwejim, M. S., Alhamdan, F., Aldrees, A., Al-bawardi, A., . . .
Alhabeeb, M. (2018, March 12). Perception of academic stress among Health Science
Preparatory Program students in two Saudi universities. Advances in Medical Education
and Practice, 159-164. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.2147%2FAMEP.S143151
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change (Vol. 84).
Psychological Review.
Bedewy, D., & Gabriel, A. (2015). Examining perceptions of academic stress and its sources among
university students: The Perception of Academic Stress Scale. Health Psychology Open, 1-
9. doi:10.1177/2055102915596714
Furlong, M. J., Gilman, R., & Huebner (EdS.), E. S. (2014). Handbook of positive psychology in
schools (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Hassan, A. H., Alasmari, A., & Ahmed, E. E. (2015, March). Influences of Self-Efficacy as
Predictors of Academic Achievement: A case study of special education students -
University of Jazan. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(3), 275-284.
Henry, M. A., Shorter, S., Charkoudian, L., Heemstra, J. M., & Corwin, L. A. (2019). FAIL Is Not
a Four-Letter Word: A Theoretical Framework for Exploring Undergraduate Students’
Approaches to Academic Challenge and Responses to Failure in STEM Learning
Environments. CBE-Life Sciences Education, pp. 1-17.
Jackson, D. H. (2012). Role of Academic Procrastination, Academic Self-Efficacy Beliefs, and
Prior Academic Skills on Course Outcomes for College Students in Developmental
Education. 35-118.
Jenaabadi, H., Nastiezaie, N., & Safarzaie , H. (2017). The Relationship of Academic Burnout and
Academic Stress with Academic Self-Efficacy among Graduate Students. The New
Educational Review, 65-76. doi:10.15804/tner.2017.49.3.05
LaMorte, W. W. (2019, September). The Social Cognitive Theory. (Boston University School of
Public Health) Retrieved from Behavioural Change Models:
https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-
Modules/SB/BehavioralChangeTheories/BehavioralChangeTheories5.html
Murray, J. (2013). Likert Data: What to Use, Parametric or Non-Parametric? International Journal
of Business and Social Science, 4(11), 258-264.
Schunk, D. (2012). Social cognitive theory. (I. K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (EdS.), Eds.) APA
educational psychology handbook: Theories, constructs, and critical issue, 101-123.
APPENDIX A:

Title Proposal

APPENDIX B:
Letter of Permission

APPENDIX C:
Informed Consent Form



APPENDIX D:
Research Instrument


APPENDIX E:

Research Tally
Academic Stress
Academic Stress Scale

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10
5 4 3 2 1
*exported from Google Forms
Item 5 4 3 2 1
#1 33 69 74 43 21
#2 64 79 69 23 5
#3 61 82 75 14 8
#4 59 83 65 24 9
#5 26 72 87 39 16
#6 41 83 80 31 5
#7 48 71 91 22 8
#8 55 74 70 29 12
#9 68 85 58 22 7
#10 96 70 42 24 8
Academic Self-Efficacy

Self-Efficacy Scale
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10
5 4 3 2 1
Item 5 4 3 2 1
#1 22 71 116 25 6
#2 63 122 45 8 2
#3 80 86 66 7 1
#4 83 93 56 7 1
#5 115 88 31 5 1
#6 76 87 66 10 1
#7 103 107 27 2 1
#8 141 86 12 0 1
#9 109 95 31 4 1
#10 115 82 34 8 1
Fear of Failure

Fear of Failure Scale

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10
5 4 3 2 1
Item 5 4 3 2 1
#1 41 112 69 14 4
#2 32 56 85 54 13
#3 38 68 66 53 15
#4 37 74 83 33 13
#5 76 78 62 16 8
#6 33 70 98 28 11
#7 48 80 89 19 4
#8 59 85 65 24 7
#9 36 73 46 48 37
#10 91 73 46 15 15
APPENDIX F:
About the Researchers
Name: ALLIAH G. LEDESMA

Address: Pulang Lupa, Brgy. Bulualto, San Miguel, Bulacan
Cell. No: 09564686886

Email Address: agledesma@student.fatima.edu.ph
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Age: 18
Date of Birth: February 24, 2003
Place of Birth: Gapan City, Nueva Ecija
Nationality: Filipino
Height: 4’10”
Weight: 44 kg
Religion: Roman Catholic Civil
Status: Single
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Degree: Senior High School
Year: 2019-2021
School: Our Lady of Fatima University, Cabanatuan Campus
Degree: Junior High School
Year: 2015-2019
School: San Roque National High School
Degree: Elementary
Year: 2009-2015
School: Bulualto Elementary School
Name: ZILDJAN M. BERIN

Address: Poblacion Norte, Rizal, Nueva Ecija
Cell. No: 09611918688
Email Address: zmberin@student.fatima.edu.ph
Age: 18
Date of Birth: April 29, 2003
Place of Birth: Cabanatuan City
Height: 172.5 cm

Weight: 55 kg
Religion: Roman Catholic
Civil Status: Single
Year: 2019-2021
Year: Granary Co-educational Institution
School: 2015-2019
Degree: Elementary
Year: 2014
School: Good Shepherd’s Educational Center
Name: KURT CHRISTIAN M. DIAZ

Address:
Cell. No:
Email Address: kmdiaz2@student.fatima.edu.ph
Age: 18
Date of Birth: December 20, 2002
Place of Birth: San Antonio, Nueva Ecija
Height: 5’11”
Weight: 62 kg
Religion: Catholic

Year: 2019-2021
Year: 2019
School: Sto. Niño Diocesan School
Degree: Elementary
Year: 2015
School: Bethany Ecumenical School
Name: ANROE O. LAMEZA

Address: Tartaro San Miguel Bulacan
Cell. No: 09169354042
Email Address: aolameza@student.fatima.edu.ph
Age: 17 years old
Date of Birth: August 16, 2003
Place of Birth: San Antonio, Nueva Ecija
Height: 5’5”
Weight: 55
Year: 2019-2021

Year: 2015-2019
School: San Miguel National High School
Degree: Elementary
Year: 2009-2015
School: Tartaro San Miguel Bulacan
Name: KRISTAN JEN O. PAREÑA

Address: Tikiw, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija
Cell. No: 09213533260
Email Address: koparena@student.fatima.edu.ph
Age: 18
Date of Birth: April 30, 2003
Place of Birth: Gapan District Hospital
Height: 5’4”
Weight: 46 kg
Religion: Iglesia ni Cristo
Year: 2019-2021
Year: 2018-2019
School: General De Jesus College
Name: BRYAN JULES C. REBOLLIDO

Address: 727-C Nieves, San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija
Cell. No: 09454360239

Email Address: bcrebollido@student.fatima.edu.ph
Age: 18
Date of Birth: October 30, 2002
Place of Birth: Gapan City
Height: 5’8”
Weight: 93 kg
Religion: Catholic
Year: 2019-2021
Year: 2018-2019
School: San Lorenzo Ruiz Diocesan Academy
Degree: Pre-Elementary
School: San Lorenzo Ruiz Diocesan Academy
Name: KIMBERLY P. TEJONES

Address: #54 525th Engr. Village, Camp Tinio, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
Cell. No: 09472983647
Email Address: kptejones@student.fatima.edu.ph
Age: 18 years old
Date of Birth: December 11, 2002
Place of Birth: Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

Height: 5'3"
Weight: 61
Year: 2019-2021
Year: 2015-2019
School: Camp Tinio National High School
Degree: Elementary
Year: 2009-2011
School: Escuela Royale De Montessori Inc.
Year: 2011-2012
School: St. Anthony Montessori of Zambales
Year: 2012-2013
School: Hildegarde Von Bingen Academy
Year: 2013-2012
School: Camp Tinio Elementary School

The Role of Academic Pressure On The Relationship Between Self Efficacy and Fear of Failure of Students

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Academic Pressure On The Relationship Between Self Efficacy and Fear of Failure of Students

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Academic Pressure on the Relationship between Fear of Failure and

Judy Anne M. Dela Cruz

Dr. Corazon A. Esluzar

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

Engr. Roel D. Trinidad

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

Correlation and Regression 15

Table 1. Strength of the relationship based on r value 10

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

Figure 1. Relationships between academic pressure, self-efficacy, and fear of failure. 5

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

APPENDIX A: Title Proposal 23

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

The Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) in an educational context, is a perspective in which it

2.2 Literature Review

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

Perceived academic pressure was reported in some research to be influenced by

2.2.2 Fear of failure

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

2.3 Research Simulacrum

Figure 1. Relationships between academic pressure, self-efficacy, and fear of failure.

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

3.0 Research Method

3.1 Research Design

3.2 Research Locale

3.3 Population and Sampling

3.4 Research Ethics

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

3.5 Research Instruments

3.6 Data Collection

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

3.7 Data Analysis

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

Figure 2. Relative percentages of the age of the respondents

Age 240 16 21 18 17.75 0.49 0.70

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

Female 122 50.83

STEM 180 75.00

Academic ABM 28 11.67

Learning Online 153 63.75

Descriptive Measures of the Data of the Scales

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

[I am unable to study as required.] 3.22 1.06

[I can figure out anything if I try hard enough.] 3.98 0.81

[I will succeed in whatever career path I choose.] 4.04 0.86

[I believe my hard work pays off.] 4.30 0.80

[When I am struggling, I focus on my progress instead of feeling

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

Correlation and Regression

Academic Self- Fear of

Self-Efficacy Pearson's r 0.370 —

95% CI Lower -0.338 —

Fear of Failure Pearson's r -0.412 0.103 —