Your Ethiopia

Addis Ababa University
School of graduate studies

The relationships among students’ adjustment to college, assertiveness and academic self efficacy

By
Adanew Diro Daba

April, 2007

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Psychology

ABSTRACT

The relationships among students’ adjustment to college, assertiveness and academic Self-efficacy, for undergraduate second year students at Addis Ababa university main campus

The present study examined the relationship among students’ adjustment to college, academic self efficacy and assertiveness among 283 (17.2% of 1642) randomly selected second year students (Male, N= 219 and Female, N= 64) in the College of Education. An adapted Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (Baker & Siryk, 1989), the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (Rathus, 1973) and the College Academic Self efficacy Scale (Owen and Froman, 1988) were employed to tap the aforementioned beliefs. The study found statistically significant relationships among Students adjustment to college, assertiveness and academic self efficacy for Addis Ababa university second year undergraduate students in the College of Education. It also found out that academic self efficacy was a better predictor (accounts for 52.9% of the variance) of student’ adjustment to college compared to assertiveness (accounts for19.36% of the variance) while together they explained 54.5% of the variance in students’ adjustment to college. The implication of these findings to university education in particular and educational practices in general was discussed. Furthermore, directions for further research were presented.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Firs and for most, I would like to thank my advisor Ato Tamirie Andualem (Assistant Professor) for his clear guidance was such a blessing and helped me grow as a person and as a professional. And I want to extend my gratitude to all regular undergraduate students who devoted their precious time in filling out the questionnaires.

I would also like to thank my incredible network of family and friends. My parents, Diro Daba and Weynitu Shiferaw – Your cheers for me have always been the loudest! Your help, love, and guidance have been such a positive force in my life. Thank you both for everything – and I mean everything!

To my brothers – Aschalew Diro and Ermias Diro and my sisters – Yetimwork Diro and Serkalem Diro – you have made this part of my journey so much fun! Your unconditional support and love has made this project achievable. I am so lucky to have found such saints. I LOVE YOU Both!

To Mr. Brian Østergarred, thank you for being the best boss and friend an employee could hope for. My real heartfelt thanks goes to you for your remarkable understanding, generous advise on my thesis, material help, and allowing me to be off duty even though my absence cost the company a lot.

Last but not least, I would like to thank all my friends in the University of Addis Ababa Psychology program, especially, Abraham Zewdie and Gedefaw Kassie who have contributed a lot to make this work a success.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF ACRONYMS

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
1.1. Background of the Problem
1.1.1. Students’ adjustment to college
1.1.2. Assertiveness
1.1.3. Self-efficacy
1.2. Statement of the Problem
1.3. Objective of the Study
1.4. Significance of the Study
1.5. Scope of the Study
1.6. Definition of Key Terms
1.7. Organization of the Study

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES
2.1. Transition and Adjustment to College
2.1.1. Cross’s theory of adaptation
2.1.2. Developmental Theories
2.1.3. Influences of Transition and Adjustment on College tudents
2.2. Assertiveness
2.2.1. What is Assertiveness?
2.2.2. Assertiveness and College Students
2.2.3. Assertiveness and Indecisive Students
2.2.4. Assertiveness and Gender
2.3. Self efficacy
2.3.1. Self efficacy and Its Development
2.3.2. Self efficacy- A Social Cognitive Theory of personality
2.3.3. Self efficacy and Agency
2.3.4. Domains of Self efficacy
2.3.5. Structure of Self efficacy
2.3.6. Self efficacy in the Educational ontext
2.3.7. Academic Self efficacy
2.3.8. Assessing Self efficacy

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Design
3.2. Description of Sample
3.3. Instrumentation
3.3.1. Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ)
3.3.2. The College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES)
3.3.3. Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS)
3.4. Variables included in the Sudy
3.5. Data Collection
3.6. Data Analysis
3.6.1. Analysis for the Pilot Study
3.6.2. Analysis for the Main Study

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
4.1. Sample Characteristics
4.2. Results of the Correlation Coefficients
4.3. Results of the Multiple Regression Analysis
4.4. Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis
4.5. Summary

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSIONS
5.1. Summary and Discussion of Findings
5.2. Implications
5.3. Limitations
5.4. Suggestions for Future Research
5.5. Summary

REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ)
APPENDIX B: The College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES)
APPENDIX C: Rathus Assertiveness Schedule RAS)
APPENDIX D: Enrollment of Regular Undergraduate Students
APPENDIX E: Inter Item Correlation Analysis for the Three Scales in the
Pilot Study

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Description of Sampling
Table 2: Summary on the Reliability Analysis of Scales
Table 3: Variables and discarded Items
Table 4: Frequency and Percentage of Students Sampled Department wise
In the College of Education
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics
Table 6: Correlation Matrix for CASES, RAS and SACQ
Table 7: Results of Multiple Regression Analysis
Table 8: Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AAU – Addis Ababa University
SACQ – The Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire
CASES – College Academic Self efficacy Scale
RAS – Rathus Assertiveness Schedule
___________________________________________________

CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

This chapter will serve to provide an overview of the study including a description of students’ adjustment to college, academic self-efficacy and assertiveness. Following will be a description of the background of the study, the purpose of the study, statement of the problem, significance of the study, scope of the study, definitions of key terms, and organization of the study.
1.1. Background of the Problem
The transition to college is usually acknowledged as a stressful time of social and academic adjustment (Tinto, 1993). During this period, students face many social challenges such as moving away from home and the support system found there as well as intellectual challenges (e.g., more demanding coursework) (Schunk, & Pajares 2002). College transition can be filled with emotional disturbances which include loneliness, homesickness, and friend sickness (Tinto, 1993), grief and substance abuse/alcohol-related risk behaviors (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994). Gerdes & Mallinckrodt (1994) identified three variables that may impact emotional distress: 1) social (e.g., parental influences, social adjustment); 2) personal-emotional (e.g., emotional adjustment, coping style); and 3) institutional (i.e., attachment to the institution). Gerdes & Mallinckrodt (1994) proposed that these factors can help predict adjustment early in a college career.
Success for college freshmen is often defined in terms of making the transition to the college student role (Tinto, 1993). Sociology-based theories identify multiple factors, both inside and outside of college, that may influence that process such as: students’ initial goals and commitments; their collegiate experiences, including their academic performance, extracurricular activities, and interactions with faculty, staff, and peer groups; their relationships with people and communities outside the college community, including parents, peers, employers, and community organizations; and their personal attributes and characteristics (Tinto, 1993).
Research about the nature of students’ transition to college offers valuable insights into the internal and external contexts and factors that can influence the process. For example, Terenzini et al (1994) exploratory study sought students’ perspectives about the college transition, including how they become involved in the college, and the people and experiences that influence the process, both positively and negatively. Using focus groups from four distinct types of institutions in terms of student demographics and institutional characteristics (i.e., urban community college, residential liberal arts college, urban commuter state university, and residential research university), the researchers concluded that the process by which students become involved is poorly mapped (Terenzini et al, 1994). In addition to classroom activities, students indicated that the real learning of the transition process included:
developing survival skills (e.g., money and time management skills, personal goal setting); developing the self-discipline to ‘just do it’ when a task or obligation was recognized; taking responsibility for one’s physical, financial, and academic well-being; and developing a clearer understanding of oneself and one’s goals through interactions with faculty and peers who held goals, attitudes, or values different from the student’s (Terenzini et al.: 68).
Though the transition period to college for students is quite demanding, it is not equally stressful for all. How are differences in adjustment among students explained? One option for investigating adjustment in this environment would be to look at the way in which a student copes with the stress of college which may also have an effect on their adjustment to the college environment (DeGrauw and Norcross, 1989). A number of studies have looked at the connection between individual coping and adaptation to college, most reporting that active coping styles were related to more positive adaptation to college. DeGrauw and Norcross (1989) found that, controlling for distress severity, more active coping strategies were positively correlated with self-reported success, whereas more avoidant strategies were negatively correlated with self-reported success.
A successful adaptation to college has typically been defined by such criteria as remaining in college, enjoying psychological well-being, and performing well academically (Baker & Siryk, 1989). For the purpose of the current study, successful adaptation is defined as being socially integrated with other students, participating in campus activities, responding to academic requirements, and being attached and committed to the educational institution.

Having an attempt in finding locally made related researches in the topic area, it is the belief of the researcher that little is known about factors influencing adaptation to college among Ethiopian students, and more research including all regional administrations is necessary to clarify different findings.
1.1.1. Students’ Adjustment to College
The students’ adjustment to college is considered to be very important and has been studied by several different researchers due to its effects on academic performance. Students especially females coming from remote area encounter many academic and cultural challenges when they come to campus life. Some of these challenges are related to adapting to new roles, academic demands, language difficulties, financial problems, decreased self-esteem, homesickness, lack of study skills, and lack of assertiveness (Charles & Steward, 1991). Researchers have shown that if the students fail to adapt to the new school culture, they will experience high levels of loneliness, depression, and increased physical health problems, which may present serious obstacles to the achievement of their educational objectives (Charles & Steward, 1991). Once students adapt to the requirements and roles of the new culture, however, their academic and psychosocial experience is likely to be successful (Charles & Stewart, 1991).
Sandhu (1994) argued that the psychosocial distress can include two major types of factors. One is associated with intrapersonal issues rooted in within self and the other type involves more external factors such as environment and cultural background. In general, both types interact and combine with each other (Ibid, 1994). “Intrapersonal distress includes profound sense of loss, sense of inferiority and sense of uncertainty, perceived discrimination, threat to cultural identity, mistrust, perceived hatred” (Sandhu, 1994: 27). “Interpersonal stressors are associated with communication barriers, culture shock, loss of social support system, academic overload and different educational expectation” (Sandhu, 1994: 28).
The aim of this study is, therefore, to bring together the literature on the role of assertiveness and academic self efficacy in understanding students’ adjustment to college. To confirm earlier work, it is hypothesized that higher levels of assertiveness and academic self efficacy would be related to more positive adjustment to college.
1.1.2. Assertiveness
Assertiveness is generally considered the ability or skill to express what an individual thinks and feels (Althen, 1991). “The assertiveness skill is usually regarded as a critical means for an individual to affirm his or her identity and succeed in the individualistic and competitive societies” (Niikura, 1999: 38). Assertiveness has been considered desirable for “mental health and has been reported as critical for self-esteem, reduced anxiety, and enhanced feelings of personal power or internal control” (Niikura, 1999: 40).
Although the research looking into college students’ assertiveness or experiences around assertiveness is very limited, lack of assertiveness and of displaying initiative is a major problem that affects many students, (Althen, 1991).
Campus students may become confused about how to interpret their environment and respond in a relatively more assertive culture. Depending on their cultural backgrounds, some of the students may not be assertive enough to search or ask for help on their own (Charles & Steward, 1991). As a result, their passivity can handicap the students in their relationships with their instructors, advisors, and classmates. Not being able to say no to friends, to inquire about an assignment with an instructor, or to stand up for themselves may also hinder the learning of survival skills in the new culture (Charles & Steward, 1991). Being assertive, initiating contact, and getting involved in social and academic interactions, however, may help college students cope with their adjustment difficulties (Charles & Steward, 1991).

1.1.3. Self efficacy
Bandura (1989) states that people are both products and producers of their environment. They are both influenced by and have the ability to influence their environment. Depending on environmental climate, a person may alter his or her behavior to best suit that environment. Conversely, the environment or climate can be changed by a person’s behavior ((Bandura, 1989).

Bandura (1994: 27) argues that “a student’s belief in his or her ability to accomplish various tasks is highly influential on whether she or he actually accomplishes the task or succeeds in an individual area”. He termed the belief in one’s abilities as personal self-efficacy. Personal self-efficacy is believed to be domain-specific and is developed throughout a person’s life in four ways: cognitive, modeling, social persuasion and mood (Bandura, 1994). Cognitive self-efficacy pertains to aspirations and is developed “by visualizing successful outcomes instead of dwelling on personal deficiencies or ways in which things might go wrong” (Bandura, 1994 p. 29). Developing this type of self-efficacy entails successful handling of a crisis or difficult situations (Bandura, 1994). It is less important whether the situation resolves itself favorably, but that the individual was able to handle the crisis (Bandura, 1994). Adverse situations and threats provide the type of stressful situations that students must overcome as they continue to develop the skills necessary to be successful in a given area (Bandura, 1994). Personally inefficacious students have often made the commitment to avoid the stress and anxiety associated with performing a difficult task; by doing so, they have eliminated the possibility of failure but also of growth and development (Bandura, 1994).

Modeling behavior or vicarious experiences allow a person to learn from the actions or behaviors of others without first-hand experience. Persuasion refers to a person being convinced of his or her ability by another person (Bandura, 1994). Finally, a person’s attitude or mood affects a person’s belief about whether he or she will be able to accomplish a task (Bandura, 1994). All these methods contribute separately and together to an individual’s development and level of personal self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994).

Bandura (1986) argued that a strong sense of self-efficacy about one’s ability and competence will help individuals with emotional adjustment. A strong self-efficacy also helps individuals deal with challenging situations without feeling overwhelmed and confused (Bandura, 1986). Perceived self efficacy reflects an optimistic self belief (Schwarzer & Jerusalem 1995). This positive self-belief can help an individual perform new and challenging tasks and overcome hardships. Perceived self-efficacy also tends to help an individual facilitate goal-setting, effort investment, persistence in face of barriers, recovery from setbacks and emotional adaptiveness (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). Bandura (1995) notes that “those who have a high sense of efficacy visualize success scenarios that provide positive guides and supports for performance. Those who doubt their efficacy visualize failure scenarios and dwell on the many things that can go wrong. It is difficult to achieve much while fighting self-doubt” (pp. 6).
More to the point, Bandura (1994) stated that students who feel more confident in specific domains will seek to improve and master learned skills in specific areas. He framed this concept of domain specific self-confidence as self-efficacy. Those who have high levels of self-efficacy are more confident that they will be able to accomplish goals in certain areas than those with low self-efficacy.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Literatures indicate that several variables affect students’ adjustment to college. Among these variables, although a theoretical basis has been presented for the importance of assertiveness and academic self-efficacy in terms of students’ adjustment to college, the empirical research looking into the relation of these variables to students’ adjustment to college has been limited. Hence, this study attempts to fill this gap in Ethiopian students’ context and examine the relation of assertiveness and academic self-efficacy to the students’ adjustment to college among second year undergraduate students of Addis Ababa University in the College of Education.
1.3. Objective of the Study
The objective of this study is to examine the relationship among students’ adjustment to college, assertiveness and academic self-efficacy for second year undergraduate students in the University of Addis Ababa. The specific research question is:
What are the correlations among adjustment to college, assertiveness, and academic self-efficacy?
1.4. Significance of the Study
Despite the various self-efficacy and assertiveness studies in foreign contexts, there is still a gap in empirical research and literature surrounding Ethiopian students. Therefore, this exploratory study sought to add to the almost untouched body of empirical research concerning undergraduate students in the main campus of Addis Ababa University. Beyond its importance of studying undergraduate university students as a separate group the knowledge could help counselors, instructors, and student offices to better understand and help this population with the foundation for the development of new interventions and programs to help undergraduate university students gain more confidence or efficacy, assertion and adaptiveness in the practical areas of university.

1.5. Scope of the Study
The study is delimitated to examining the relationships of variables stated above, among sampled second year students of the College of Education in the main campus of Addis Ababa University. Delimitation has been made because the research would not be manageable (so long as time and finance is concerned) if all Colleges in the university and/or other higher institutions were involved in the study.

1.6. Definition of Key Terms
Before progressing further into the research study, it is important to define the use of terms that are essential to the understanding of the information presented. First it is very essential to note that students’ adjustment to college and students’ adaptation to college are two terms used in the study interchangeably. Besides, the words university and college will have alternative meaning throughout the study.

Students’ adjustment to college: In this study, successful students’ adjustment to college is defined as being socially integrated with other students, participating in campus activities, responding to academic requirements, and being attached and committed to the educational institution, remaining in college, enjoying psychological well-being, and performing well academically (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994).

Assertiveness: For the purpose of this study, assertiveness is defined as the ability of the student to expressing his/her thoughts, feelings, and beliefs in a direct, honest, and appropriate way; it means that he/she has respect both for himself/herself and for others (Surdam & Collins1984).

Self efficacy: For the purpose of this study, the term self-efficacy is used to describe how well a student believes that he can obtain the desired outcome successfully in a selected area (Jerusalem & Mittag 1995).

Academic self efficacy: For the purpose of this study academic self-efficacy is defined as the ability and confidence of a student to master academic subjects and to “…make greater use of effective cognitive strategies in learning, manage their time and learning environments more effectively and…monitor and regulate their own effort” (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia 2001, p.55).

1.7. Organization of the Study
Chapter one provides with the background of the study, statement of the problem, and research questions. It also includes the purpose, significance, definitions of key terms, and organization of the study. Chapter two reviews literatures pertinent to students’ adaptation to college environment, assertiveness behavior, and self efficacy. Chapter three contains the study methodology, which describes the research design, description of sample, and instrumentation. This chapter also describes the data gathering method, and data analysis techniques used in the study. While chapter four presents about the results of the study, chapter five discusses on the findings, implications, limitations of the study. It also integrates suggestion for future researches and a brief summary.

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES

This chapter reviews literature pertinent to students’ adaptation to college environment, assertive behavior, and self efficacy.

2.1. Transition and Adjustment to College
2.1.1. Cross’ theory of adaptation
Cross (1995: 32) argues that “a transition occurs if an event or non-event results in a change in assumptions about oneself and the world therefore requiring a corresponding change in one’s behavior”. Contained in the literature, there are a variety of theories attempting to explain the transition experiences of individuals such as individual variability theory, lifespan theory, stage theory, and transitional theory (Cross, 1995). What separates (Cross, 1995) theory of adaptation to transition from the others is that it encompasses the transition experience as well as subsequent adaptation (May, 1982). It provides researchers understand how specific features and variables can influence transition and adaptation (May, 1982). Moreover, this model accounts for the wide variability and diversity of transitional experiences found between individuals. In this model, there are three important factors that can interact to influence and/or mediate the transition experience and subsequent adaptation for each individual.

The three components that are provided in this model of adaptation are 1) characteristics of the transition itself, 2) characteristics of the pre-transition and post-transition environments, and 3) characteristics of the individual (Cross, 1995).

According to (Cross, 1995), for a high school senior transitioning to college, the characteristics of the transition (i.e., leaving home and going to college) includes:

…variables such as role change, the positive/negative impact, perceptions of control of decision-making, time appropriate decision, onset, duration, and level of stress encountered. Characteristics of the pre-transition (i.e., high school and home life) and post-transition (i.e., the university) environments include variables such as interpersonal support systems, institutional supports, and physical setting. Characteristics of the individual (i.e., first semester college freshman) include variables such as psychosocial competence, gender, age, state of health, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, value orientation, and previous experience with similar transitions (p. 54).

These factors combine to shape the adaptation experience that can be influenced by the disparity between the individual’s resources and deficits as well as differences between pre-transition and post-transition environments (Cross, S. E., 1995). Cross’ model represents a theoretical framework to evaluate all kinds of transitions, positive or negative, ordinary or dramatic, while providing insight into what accounts for differences in time for the same person or the differences between two individuals as well as what mechanism might be responsible for making the transition a positive or negative one or why adaptation is easy for some individuals while difficult for others (May, G. G., 1982).

2.1.2. Developmental Theories
Relying on Cross’ theory alone cannot account for a full explanation of the experiences of high school students transitioning to college. To gain a better picture of the experience, developmental task theories must also be examined. These theories are of particular importance to this population because of the developmental stages that must be accomplished at time in a person’s life such as identity versus role confusion and intimacy versus isolation (Furnham, A., & Rawles, R., 1994). As in the transition literature, there is a vast amount of theory postulated to account for the development of an individual from an adolescent to an adult (Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M., 1989).

One of the most influential theories of college adjustment in both theory and practice is Arthur Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (1989) model of student development, which proposed a student’s psychosocial development surrounds seven vectors that link the experience of college to personal development. These seven vectors are: 1) achieving competence; 2) managing emotions; 3) becoming autonomous; 4) establishing identity; 5) developing mature interpersonal relationships; 6) clarifying purposes; and 7) developing integrity.

Baker et al., (1985) examined the four-year undergraduate college experience and established a model that focused on the developmental tasks that needed to be successfully addressed and accomplished to grow as a person and be ready for the world after college is completed. This developmental model has been labeled as a mini-life cycle and each year in school has a central developmental task that needs to be accomplished (Baker et al., 1985). These central tasks are characterized as: 1) divestment in old roles and the investment of new roles during the freshman year transition from home to college; 2) consolidation of the separation from home and choice of new interests and goals during the sophomore year; 3) mastery of and commitment to work during the junior year; and 4) the anticipation of the future during the senior year (Baker et al., 1985).

When concentrating only on the developmental tasks of first year students, Baker et al., (1985) mini-life cycle postulate it as a period of divestment in old roles and investment into the new roles of college life for all students no matter the age, gender, or any other demands in addition to those as a student. This experience includes mourning the losses of growing up, saying goodbye to old support systems, making new attachments, and coping with the role of student (Baker et al., 1985). The quality of an individual’s development depends on how successful these developmental tasks are confronted and accomplished (Baker et al., 1985). Undoubtedly, the first year of college is an important transitional time for an individual to become independent and grow as a person by successfully adapting to college through accomplishment of the divestment/investment developmental task.

Cross’s (1981) theory of adaptation to transition combined with Baker et al., (1985) mini-life cycle theory helps provide a clearer picture to conceptualize the specific transition from high school to college that these students are experiencing. Other researchers agree that the freshman year is generally acknowledged as a somewhat stressful situation and a time of social adjustment (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994). During this important transition, first-year students face many social challenges such as moving away from home and the support system found there, as well as intellectual challenges such as the academic curriculum and overall college environment (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994).

2.1.3. Influences of Transition & Adjustment on College Students
Research has shown that an individual’s transition from high school to college can be a positive and/or a negative experience in the beginning months. It is a period of divestment in old roles and investment in new ones (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994). In fact, it has been found that adjustment to college stress declines across the span of the four years as a function of adaptation (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994). Pre-college concerns about losing existing friendships and making new friends can mediate both self-esteem and friendship satisfactions (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994), which can in turn increase or decrease life satisfaction. Some common sources of problems for new college students include social and interpersonal distractions, family crises, financial stress, confused career direction, and health problems (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994). Rice, K. G. (1992) in examining the experiences of freshman students found that those with low levels of adjustment tended to 1) not to perform as well academically; 2) be more likely to seek out campus counseling services; 3) have a higher dropout rate; and 4) report less overall satisfaction with the college experience. It has been found that students who adjust well to the college environment are those who are academically ready to persist; however, less than half of freshman students have a clear sense of their future in college (Rice, K. G, 1992).

Rice, K. G. (1992) believed that research on the variables of psychosocial disturbance form three distinct categories: social (e.g., parental influences, social adjustment), personal-emotional (e.g., emotional adjustment, coping style), and institutional (e.g., attachment to the institution). In turn, these variables have great accuracy in predicting college student adjustment (Rice, K. G, 1992). Rice, K. G. (1992) has attributed a sense of belonging as necessary for students to have a positive and productive college experience The impact of an individual’s transition to college, in addition to the impact of disengagement from organized sport could greatly influence the emotional response of first semester college students and affect the retention of these students at the university level.

2.2. Assertiveness
2.2.1. What is Assertiveness?
Surdam & Collins (1984: 41) defined assertiveness as “the ability to express yourself and your rights without violating the rights of others”. It means that we have respect both for ourselves and for others (Surdam & Collins, 1984). We are consciously working toward a “win-win” solution to problems. A win-win solution means that we are trying to make sure that both parties end up with their needs met to the degree possible. An assertive person effectively influences, listens, and negotiates so that others choose to cooperate willingly (Surdam & Collins 1984).
Assertiveness is very different from aggressiveness. Aggressiveness involves “expressing our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs in a way that is inappropriate and violates the rights of others. By being aggressive, we put our wants, needs, and rights above those of others. Where assertiveness tries to find a win-win solution, aggressiveness strives for a win-lose solution: “I’ll be the winner; you’ll be the loser” ” (Surdam & Collins 1984: 53).
Assertiveness is also different from non-assertiveness. Non-assertive behavior is passive and indirect. It permits others to violate our rights and shows a lack of respect for our own needs. It communicates a message of inferiority. It creates a lose-win situation because the non-assertive person thinks his or her own needs are secondary and likely to be a victim (Surdam & Collins, 1984).
2.2.2. Assertiveness and College Students
Although the research looking into students’ assertiveness or experiences around assertiveness is very limited, lack of assertiveness and of displaying initiative is a major problem that affects many students, (Kern et al., 1985).
Research indicates that one of the cultural differences campus students are particularly concerned about is assertiveness (Kern, J. M., 1996). Campus students may become confused about how to interpret their environment and respond in a relatively more assertive culture. Depending on their cultural backgrounds, some of the students may not be assertive enough to search or ask for help on their own (Kern, J. M, 1996). As a result, their passivity can handicap the students in their relationships with their teachers, advisors, and classmates. Not being able to say no to friends, to inquire about an assignment with a professor, or to stand up for themselves may also hinder the learning of survival skills in the new culture. Being assertive, initiating contact, and getting involved in social and academic interactions, however, may help students cope with their adjustment difficulties (Chen, 1992).

2.2.3. Assertiveness and Indecisive Students
Indecisive students often present with social skills problems, which may make academic and vocational decision-making tasks difficult and complex for them. Moreover, choices regarding one’s future require the ability to gather information, to search for help and to communicate ones decisions (Phillips and Bruch 1988).
Numerous research studies have shown that academic indecision can significantly affect choice processes and can actually hinder adaptation processes (Jones, 1989). Wanberg and Muchinsky (1992), who have studied the relationship between decisional status and psychological variables in depth, have considered aspects such as anxiety, self-esteem, and self-awareness level. Their analyses have shown that indecision is associated with poor self-awareness, low knowledge of academic-vocational reality, high levels of anxiety, and low self-esteem.
A consistent relationship also seems to exist between social competencies and indecision. Phillips and Bruch (1988), for instance, found that shy students, both male and female, were more indecisive than those who were not shy. Furthermore, the authors determined that shyness was negatively correlated both with the expression of interests, particularly regarding those professions requiring interpersonal skills, and with the active search for information necessary to activate the decisional processes. In this respect, the authors stated that concerns that centered on the self and on passive behaviors in relational contexts (often associated as predictors of negative other-evaluations) combine to keep anxiety levels high and to strengthen the association between anxiety and indecision (Phillips and Bruch, 1988).
In this regard, it must not be forgotten that a career decision-making task requires the person who is making the decision to interact with many individuals who might hinder or support his or her choices. Such individuals include parents, teachers, peers, and friends, all of whom may either create barriers to or facilitate the formulation and achievement of the person’s objectives (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000). Other potential facilitators may include people who have the necessary information regarding training offered by different universities, the staff of offices and firms who might supply information and data on prospective jobs and work opportunities, people who might collaborate on and help with career decision making, and so on. One’s social skills, especially in the area of assertiveness, must be used to adequately formulate requests in different contexts, to express clearly one’s wishes and aspirations, to manage pressures and resist intrusiveness, and, ultimately, to make autonomous and conscious decisions (Furnham & Rawles, 1994).

2.2.4. Assertiveness and Gender
Gender is often thought to be a factor in assertiveness. The stereotype is that men are more assertive than women. Much has been written about male domination over females. In some countries, women are still considered men’s property, to be disposed of at will if they do not produce sons. But the inner domination in both genders of the masculine over the feminine is not as easily recognized (Eisler, 1987).

Masculinity equates with assertiveness, success, power, and self-efficacy, while femininity equates with weakness, helplessness, subordination, and lack of self-esteem. Boys learn early that maleness is the rejection of everything female within themselves (Silverman & Conarton, 1988). Boys who cry, who are sensitive, who are empathic, who are yielding rather than ready to fight, who are noncompetitive, and who have interests that are more feminine, are outcasts within the male peer group. They are often targeted in elementary school by bullies who like to make them cry, and are rejected throughout their high school years (Silverman & Conarton, 1988).

While there is somewhat more acceptance of feminine qualities within females, masculine qualities still are more valued. It is an advantage to a girl to be a “tomboy,” to be highly assertive and competitive. Studies of success in females are linked with higher scores on scales of the masculine characteristic of instrumentality (self-assertiveness), rather than the feminine characteristic of expressiveness (nurturance) (Spence & Helmreich, 1978).

Research has actually produced mixed results in the role of gender in assertiveness. Silverman & Conarton, (1988) found no gender differences in the comfort with assertive behaviors of males and females in their study of Israeli Arab and Jewish university students. Interestingly, they found that females were actually more likely to perform certain assertive behaviors than males (initiating interaction, giving negative feedback, complimenting others, and admitting personal deficiencies). They postulated that the females in their study were attending “Westernized” universities and may be more likely to assert themselves than the general population of Israeli and Arab women. On the other hand, Hubbard (1996) found that men scored higher in assertiveness than women regardless of their cultural affiliation.

2.3. Self-Efficacy
2.3.1. Self Efficacy and Its Development
“Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief that he or she will be successful at a given task or within a given construct” (Bandura, 1997: 61). Bandura contends that a student’s belief in his or her ability to accomplish various tasks is highly influential on whether she or he will actually accomplish this task or succeed in an individual area. Self-efficacy is built through four main areas: cognitive, modeling, social persuasion, and mood or attitude (Bandura, 1994). Mastery of cognitive self-efficacy pertains to an individual’s aspirations and is developed “by visualizing successful outcomes instead of dwelling on personal deficiencies or ways in which thing might go wrong” (Bandura, 94: 54). This entails successful handling of a crisis or difficult situations. It is less important whether the situation resolves itself favorably, but that the individual was able to handle the crisis. Adverse situations and threats provide the type of stressful situations that students must overcome as they continue to develop the skills necessary to be successful in a given area. Personally inefficacious students have often made the commitment to avoid the stress and anxiety associated performing a difficult task. By doing so, they have eliminated the possibility of failure but also of growth and development (Bandura: 94).

Modeling allows for an individual to learn and develop self-efficacy through living an experience vicariously through another (Bandura, 1994). This technique allows a person to imagine themselves in someone else’s situation without the possible negative outcomes. The person watching the modeling notes how situations can be addressed successfully. Observing people whom an individual may compare to him or herself achieving success in a given area may strengthen an individual’s feeling that he or she can also successfully accomplish a similar task. Modeling can help others learn essential life lessons and may help those developing self-efficacy in acquiring coping skills to help them complete tasks in the future (Bandura: 1994).

Social persuasion is the process by which individuals are convinced of their ability and their capability to accomplish certain tasks through the strengthening and support of their peers (Bandura, 1994). Individuals receiving social persuasion are more likely to continue to pursue a desired goal and succeed even when they do not believe they are able to do so (Bandura, 1994). Verbal persuasion, when coupled with action on the part of the person with low self-esteem or worth, can be a powerful tool in raising self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994). It is important to note however, that it is more difficult for students to retain self-efficacy strengthened by social persuasion and somewhat easy to cause individuals to doubt themselves and their ability (Bandura, 1994).

Lastly, mood or attitude is essential to developing high personal self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994). Negative emotional states give individuals clues to feelings of stress and anxiety which can lead to self-doubt. Positive moods give individuals good feelings about their personal self-efficacy and can increase the student’s perception of what she or he can accomplish. Emotional arousal can strengthen self-efficacy by eliciting a situation that could be considered threatening, or that otherwise requires a response from the individual (Bandura, 1994). This may provoke them to respond more strongly than if they did not feel that the situation required a response and can promote self-efficacy and self-esteem if the situation is handled correctly (Bandura, 1994).

People with high overall personal self-efficacy “look at obstacles as challenges to be overcome and mastered, and they look at failures as opportunities to learn valuable lessons” (Bandura, 1997: 14). People with high personal self-efficacy believe that failures are the result of not putting enough effort forward in order to accomplish goals (Bandura, 1997). These people are able to recover personal self-efficacy quickly after failures. Conversely, people with low personal self-efficacy find obstacles intimidating and avoid difficult tasks (Bandura, 1997). These individuals believe obstacles to be nearly intractable. They often do not set high goals and have lowered expectations of their capabilities. When these individuals do not succeed at a task or in an area, they attribute the failure to their own lack of ability. They are unable to regain and recover feelings of self-efficacy easily (Bandura, 1997).

Students will avoid difficult activities and situations believed to be too difficult or uncomfortable to successfully accomplish. Basically, students may avoid areas where they feel less efficacious (Bandura, 1994). However, students will willingly accept and face challenges and difficult tasks in areas where students believe that they are competent, capable and have high levels of personal self-efficacy. This leads students to develop personal self-efficacy in domain-specific areas (Bandura, 1994).
As students increase their accomplishments in a given area, they also increase their personal self-efficacy in that area, leading them to accept and conquer greater challenges in those designated areas (Bandura, 1994). Miscalculations in areas may have twofold effects. Should a person miscalculate in a favorable manner, they will add to their level of self-efficacy in a given area. However, should they miscalculate in a negative way, they may decrease their personal self-efficacy in an area in which they previously were efficacious (Bandura, 1994). Therefore, positive miscalculations cause students to see that they are able to go beyond what they thought were their limitations. On the other hand, should they overestimate their ability, failure could cause them not to achieve at their previous level in the future.

2.3.2. Self-efficacy – A social Cognitive Theory of Personality
Self-efficacy is a social-cognitive theory of personality which “postulates a triadic reciprocal interaction between an individual’s personal factors, environmental events and behaviour” (Maddux, 1995: 53). Introduced by Bandura, perceived self-efficacy has been defined as “a generative capability in which cognitive, social, emotional, and behavioral sub skills must be organized and effectively orchestrated to serve innumerable purposes” (Bandura, 1997: 37).

Self-efficacy “mediates between an individual’s ability and their purposive action. Perceived self efficacy influences the course of action adopted, effort invested, endurance and resilience in the face of obstacles and failures, coping, and the level of accomplishments” (Maddux, 1995, 61). Bandura states that people with high self-efficacy tend to be future orientated, take effective course of action, and in turn self-efficacy is enhanced. In its role as a mediator between task capability and action, self efficacy is dependent on one’s belief in control capability. “Perceived self-efficacy is concerned with people’s beliefs in their capabilities to perform in ways that give them some control over events that affect their lives” (Bandura, 1997, p.181).

2.3.3. Self-efficacy and Agency
Bandura (2000) considers self-efficacy as the most crucial mechanism of agency. He defines agency as an “…intentional act, with its key feature being the power to originate actions for given purposes” (p.8). “Whatever other factors may operate as guides and motivators, they are rooted in the core belief that one has the power to produce effects by one’s actions” (Bandura, 2000, p.10).

There is a functional relation between intention and action, separated in time. As Bandura’s (2000) classification, Crucial to exercising agency are: “(a) planning, (b) forethought which includes outcome expectations (c) self-evaluation, (d) motivation and (e) self-regulation” (p.64). These components are also inherent in self efficacy. Personal agency also works in cycle with “proxy agency and collective agency” (Bandura, 2000). Proxy agency is the way an individual tries to get a person or people to be agents to achieve desired goals. Collective agency refers to “people’s shared beliefs in their collective power to produce desired results” (Bandura, 2000, p.75). Thus both the belief in one’s capability (i.e. self-efficacy) to accomplish a goal (task capability), and the belief in one’s power to attain the goal through action (i.e. personal agency) are important (Bandura, 2000).

2.3.4. Domains of Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy regulates functioning through four processes: (a) cognitive (b) motivational, (c) choice and (d) emotional processes (Bandura, 1995). This regulatory role of self-efficacy in the domains of cognition, behavior and emotion is measured by assessing cognitive self-efficacy, motivational self-efficacy, behavioral self-efficacy, and emotional self-efficacy (Maddux, 1995).

2.3.4.1. Cognitive processes
These impact on choice of strategies, development of rules for predicting and influencing events, and efficiency and effectiveness in problem solving and decision-making (Maddux, 1995). Cognitive processes include one’s ability to exercise control over one’s thoughts and mental processes.

2.3.4.2. Motivation
Perceived efficacy is crucial for the development and regulation of motivation. “Cognitive motivation based on goal intentions is mediated by three types of self influences: self-evaluation, perceived self-efficacy for goal attainment, and ongoing adjustment of personal standards” (Bandura, 2000: 81). Among these three mediators of motivation, self-efficacy has a causal influence on motivation.

2.3.4.3. Choice Behavior
Perceived self-efficacy influences choice of goals, activities directed to attaining the goal, the amount of effort expended, and perseverance in the face of obstacles. High self -efficacy leads to setting higher goals and greater commitment to attaining them (Maddux, 1995).

2.3.4.4. Emotion
Self-efficacy beliefs impact on both the type and intensity of emotion, with low self-efficacy to attain a goal leading to hopelessness. Lack of self-belief in controlling disturbing thoughts results in negative affect states leading to poor self-efficacy, lowered performance, and further despondency (Maddux, 1995). Positive affect states leads to enhanced self-efficacy (Maddux, 1995). Emotional efficacy can be measured through measurement of cognitive and behavioral self-efficacy for controlling emotions, cognitive self regulation and for performing pleasant or mastery-related behaviors (Maddux, 1995).

2.3.5. Structure of Self-efficacy
Bandura (1997) has given a three-fold classification of the structure of self-efficacy which includes: (a) level/magnitude, (b) generality, and (c) strength. Level/ magnitude refers to self efficacy on tasks ranging from simple to most difficult performances. Generality of self-efficacy refers to its occurrence across behaviors and contexts. People may perceive themselves to be generally efficacious in a range of activities or only within a domain of functioning. Strength of self-efficacy refers to the firmness of one’s conviction to perform a task, and the stronger the self-efficacy expectancy the greater the likelihood of selecting challenging tasks, striving despite obstacles, and successfully attaining their goal (Bandura, 1997).

The dimensions of self-efficacy suggest that an individual can have self-efficacy on a task which is limited in its specificity to a particular level, cannot be generalised across domains, and is of limited strength. Conversely, an individual can have a high level of self-efficacy within a task, with wide generality in applicability across domains and strength of conviction to accomplish the goal despite any obstacles. Determining perceived self-efficacy involves measuring the three domains, and the dimensions within each domain (Bandura, 1997).

2.3.6. Self-efficacy in the educational context
Self efficacy research in academic settings has focused primarily in the areas of its link with college major, career choices, and with related psychological constructs of academic motivation and achievement (Pajares, 1996). While perception of self-efficacy enables participation in activities, leading to further acquisition of competencies, self-inefficacies can lead to avoidance behaviour, giving up easily discouraging the development of one’s true potential (Pajares, 1996). Pajares and Valiante (1997) report the predictive role of self efficacy in elementary students’ writing. Student self-efficacy in writing capability influenced writing apprehension and essay writing performance. “Compared with students who doubt their learning capabilities, those who feel efficacious for learning or performing a task participate more readily, persist longer when they encounter difficulties, and achieve at a higher level” (Schunk, 1994, p.75). Schunk highlights factors which impact on academic self-efficacy. These include:
1.Goal setting: This is an important cognitive process, and goal proximity, specificity, difficulty, self-setting of the goals, the nature of the goal and feedback affect self-efficacy.
2. Information processing: Self-efficacy correlates positively with competence in information processing.
3. Models: Observing models is a source of self-efficacy information.
4. Feedback: Self-efficacy is impacted by the nature and timing of feedback, the ability levels of children, and perception of credibility of the source of feedback.
5. Rewards: Rewards which are linked to student accomplishments enhances self – efficacy.
Self-efficacy and self-regulation share a reciprocal relationship. Self-efficacy contributes to the self-regulation of cognitive functioning through the use and monitoring of learning strategies, structuring the environment, regulating motivational, affective and socio cognitive skills to attain a person’s goal (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy operates during all phases of self-regulation i.e. forethought, performance and self-evaluation based on reflection (Bandura, 1997). “Self regulation is important because a major function of education is the development of life-long learning skills” (Schunk, 1994, p.84). According to Bandura (2000: 17) skills include: “(a) setting specific proximal goals, (b) adopting strategies to attain the goals, (c) monitoring progress, (d) restructuring context to suit the goal, (e) efficient use of time, (f) self -evaluation of methods, and (g) attribution”. Attribution and self-efficacy have a bi-directional causal relationship. Attributions affect appraisal of self-efficacy and perceived self-efficacy biases causal attributions (Bandura, 2000).

Bandura (2000) concludes that when intelligence is viewed as an incremental skill, effort, perseverance in the face of obstacles and task-orientation are the patterns of behaviour in attaining a goal.

Feedback is another variable which has been researched in the context of self-efficacy. Undertaking tasks for which one has high perceived self-efficacy and received informed feedback are factors crucial to enduring motivation on tasks (Bandura & Cervone, 1986). Their study found that goals enhanced effort when self-evaluation against standards was combined with performance feedback.

Reviewing research on self-efficacy in the academic context, it appears that when assessing self efficacy it is very important that the construct be considered in terms of the active interaction it shares with variables such as motivation, self-regulation, attribution, choice of strategies for attaining goals, and the teaching-learning and cultural context.

2.3.7. Academic Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy in general is “an individual’s perceived ability to perform certain goal oriented tasks” (Bandura, 2000: 24). An individual’s choices regarding what tasks to attempt, how much energy to expend, and what behaviors to enact are all influenced by self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000). For example, research on academic self-efficacy has found that college students’ performance is influenced by beliefs about academic ability (Finney & Schraw, 2003). In a meta-analysis of 109 studies, Robbins and colleagues (2004) found that among a number of psychosocial and study skills factors, academic self-efficacy was the strongest predictor of cumulative GPA and the second strongest predictor of retention. There seems to be little doubt that how an individual views himself or herself in relation to an academic task has an influence upon his or her performance (Robbins and colleagues, 2004).

Researches also indicate that self-efficacy and adjustment appear to be positively related. Maddux (1995) states that students with higher college, social, and general self-efficacy had higher college satisfaction rates. Bandura & Cervone (1986) stated that a strong sense of self-efficacy about ability and competence will help individuals to adapt emotionally. Maddux (1995) stated that a strong sense of self-efficacy will also help individuals approach challenging situations without incapacitating anxiety and confusion. Although no study has examined how self-efficacy relates to Ethiopian university students’ adjustment, one could infer that campus students who have a strong academic self-efficacy will tend to show a better adjustment.

Maddux (1995) states that self-efficacy beliefs also affect adjustment through their influence on the students’ goal setting, persistence, and emotional adaptiveness. These variables influence adjustment usually by working in an interactive fashion. Bandura & Cervone (1986) stated that a strong sense of self efficacy helps individuals to set personal goals and deal with challenges to reach these goals. In addition, when individuals have strong positive beliefs about their ability and personal competency, they tend to be emotionally more adaptive. They tend to approach challenging situations without incapacitating anxiety and confusion (Maddux, 1995). Therefore, campus students who have strong academic self efficacy beliefs will tend to set academic goals and strive for a better adaptation to reach these goals.

As to the cause effect relation, Bandura (1997) stated that academic achievement is heavily affected by feelings of self-efficacy. Factors such as “level of cognitive ability, prior education preparation and attainment, gender, and attitudes towards academic activities” (p. 216), along with the level of perceived self-efficacy, influence academic achievement. Students work more diligently at accomplishing tasks when the goals are short term, instead of establishing long term goals that allow students to postpone difficult tasks until a later time (Bandura, 1997). Using benchmarking methods and incentives to encourage students to set short time goals will help them develop academic self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).

As students increase in their cognitive complexity, they are expected to begin to think more creatively and abstractly. They are also expected to take an active part in their learning and pursue cognitive development via “self-regulated learning” (Bandura, 1997: 229). Self-regulated learning is the process by which students pursue education and topics that are of interest to them. In order to continue to build cognitive skills and academic self-efficacy, students must take what they have learned in one area and repeatedly attempt to apply learned skills in another area. Through a widening of experiences, collaboration and corroboration with knowledgeable individuals, student can transfer cognitive skills to other areas and situations and this may help to continue to build personal self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).

Generally, research has shown that higher levels of self-efficacy correlate positively with increased academic achievement (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001). Researchers found that students with higher levels of academic self-efficacy achieved higher grades and persisted in their academic major longer than those with lower perceived academic self-efficacy (Lent et al., 1984). Lent and colleagues’ study also revealed that academic self-efficacy was related to standardized tests and high school rankings; the researchers also found a significant correlation among levels of academic self-concept, self-efficacy and achievement.

In a study of self-efficacy and academic performance, Mone, Baker, and Jeffries (1995) found that academic self-efficacy was a statistically significant predictor of personal academic goal setting and academic performance. Chemers et al. (2001) also found that academic expectations were highly related to academic achievement. Mone et al. contended that academic goal setting and academic performance can be increased by effectively raising a student’s perceived sense of academic self-efficacy. Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons (1992) found that students’ current academic self-efficacy and future goal setting correlated with previous grade attainment, but only when parental expectation of academic achievement was high for their respective student. Parents’ goals for their children’s academic achievement tended to be higher than goals students set for themselves. Parental expectations were purported to influence the type of academic expectations the students set for themselves. These students relied on their academic self-efficacy and parental expectations in order to formulate and solidify goals for the future.

In relation to assertive behavior of individuals, Pajares and Valiante (1997) stated that assertive behavior has a positive impact on academic self efficacy. Thus, said the researchers, it might be inferred that an increase in the level of assertion can result in an increase in academic self-efficacy (Pajares and Valiante, 1997).

2.3.8. Assessing self-efficacy
One of the more psychometrically sound measures of academic self-efficacy was developed by Owen and Froman (1988). Their college academic self-efficacy scale (CASES; Owen & Froman, 1988) reported excellent internal consistency reliability ( ? = .90) and an eight week test-retest correlation of .85. The concurrent and factorial validity of the measure were also established using cross-validation. Overall, the CASES has been supported as a quantitatively reliable and valid measure of academic self-efficacy (Choi, 2005), in particular, a measure of domain-general academic self-efficacy. Bandura’s measure of general academic self-efficacy includes items concerning students’ “perceived efficacy to master different academic areas of coursework; to fulfill personal, parents’, and teachers’ academic expectations; and to regulate their own learning activities” (Bandura et al., 2003: 773). The items on the CASES also address these issues of general academic self-efficacy.

Measurement of academic self-efficacy involves students being administered self-efficacy scales, with ratings of confidence to perform specific tasks in the selected curriculum. Pajares (1996) states that the skills required to accomplish the outcomes in the criterial tasks should be understood by the participants. Thus when assessing self efficacy it is important to develop scales “…which are comprehensive, ensuring that all domains of self-efficacy, the three levels within each domain, the related personality constructs, and the knowledge and skills which are required to accomplish criterial tasks are included” (Pajares, 1996: 3).

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

This chapter enlightens the methodology used in conducting this study, including research design, a description of the sample, instruments that were used in conducting the study, data collection methods and strategies, and finally, techniques for the quantitative analysis of collected data.

3.1. Research Design
This study’s research design is correlational in nature. The research is targeted to specifically answer one major question: Is there a relationship between students’ adjustment to college, assertiveness and academic self efficacy among regular undergraduate students at AAU? To answer the research question, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used. A significance level was set at P? 0.05.

3.2. Description of Sample
This study was conducted at Addis Ababa University. The institution used for this study is comprised of 20,387 regular undergraduate students based on enrollment information of which 19614 and 773 students were admitted for Degree and Diploma programs respectively. There are 15 faculties (colleges) in the university whose names and number of students enrolled in listed as follows: Social Science (1274 students), Business and Economics (1535 students), Science (1589 students), Technology (1870 students), Education (4606 students), Law (625 students), Medicine (1370 students), Pharmacy (356 students), Language Studies (1285 students), Informatics (414 students), Veterinary Medicine (403 students), Music (136 students), Fine Arts and Design (104 students), Commerce (4760 students), and Journalism and Communication (100 students).

From the 15 faculties (colleges), one that is the College of Education was purposefully selected for the study. Samples were taken from second year regular undergraduate students that comprises of 1642 students, of which 1289 were males and 353 were females. Initially, it was intended to get first year students involved in the study with the basic assumption that transition to college would seem to be more challenging as number of years attended by students in a given university is lesser. But due to the fact that they haven’t been completely handed over their dormitories to pursue their study in the university at the time the data for this study should be collected, the researcher has been obliged to shift his target to the second year students who, more or less, have comparable experience in the campus life.

Using random sampling (proportional stratified sampling) method 328 students (20% of the population) were included in the study among which 283 (17%) were incorporated in the final study. Thirty three questionnaires were not returned and the rest twelve were excluded from the final analysis as they were filled improperly. The number of male students (38) exceeded their female counterparts (7) with regard to either not filling the questionnaires properly or not returning them back as far as the forty five questionnaires which were banned from the final analysis are concerned. The detail of the sampling information is depicted as in the following table:

Table: 1
Description of Sampling (n=328)
College of Education
No Department Year II1 Total No. students taken as a sample

College of Education
1	Biology	40	58	98	8	12	20
2	Business Education	49	221	270	10	44	54
3	Chemistry	18	92	101	4	18	22
4	Educ. Planning & Mgt.2	2	2	4	-	-	-
5	Educ. Planning & Mgt.	9	74	83	2	15	17
6	Ethiopian Language	78	32	110	16	6	22
7	Foreign Language	44	103	147	9	20	29
8	Geography	32	213	245	6	42	48
9	History	24	123	147	5	24	29
10	Mathematics	5	101	106	1	20	21
11	Oromigna3	-	-	-	-	-	-
12	Physical Educ.& Sports	25	90	115	5	18	23
13	Physics	5	70	75	1	14	15
14	Psychology	22	119	141	4	24	28
15	Tigrigna3	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Total				71	257	328

1 Year II Students are second year students in the university but as one year they spent studying while they were in the preparatory program was considered freshman, they are labeled 3rd year students though their actual spent only two year in the campus.
2 Not included in the sampling procedure because it is a diploma program
3 Students of these departments were not included in the study as no data were found concerning them.

3.3. Instrumentation
For the purpose of this study, the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ), The Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS), and The College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES) were adapted and used. Discussion about each instrument is followed below.

3.3.1. Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ)
It was designed by (Baker & Siryk, 1989) to measure three areas of adjustment to college: academic, social, and personal-emotional.
The full scale is a 40 item self-report measure scaled from 1 (very much inapplicable) to 6 (very much applicable). The academic subscale contains 20 items and measures the educational characteristics of the students. An example of an item from this subscale is: “Lately I have been having doubts regarding the value of a college education.” The social subscale contains 10 items and measures various aspects of interpersonal and social demands on the student. An example question from this subscale is: “I have some good friends or acquaintances at college with whom I can talk about any problems I may have.” The personal-emotional subscale contains 10 items, assessing psychological and physical state of the student. A question from this subscale is: “I haven’t been able to control my emotions very well lately.” The higher the score is on these scales, the more positive the adjustment to college. Baker and Siryk (1989) reported alpha coefficients for the full scale ranging from .92 to .95, for the Academic Adjustment subscale ranging from .81 to .90, for the Social Adjustment subscale ranging from .83 to .91, and for the Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale ranging from .77 to .86.

After conducting a pilot study for 50 students in AAU, five items whose correlation coefficients below 0.31 were rejected and the rest 35 items were used for the study. Further more, a reliability analysis was run for the instrument and the instrument reported a Cronbach’s ? of. 0.8904, i.e., the reliability of the scores on this instrument for this study.

The questionnaire solicits how students are adjusted to the college environment. These responses were measured on a Likert-type, 6 point scale ranging from 1 (very much inapplicable) to 6 (very much applicable). The instrument is scored by summing the total of the 35 items. From the total score, one can infer the level of college students’ adaptation to college. The higher the total score, the more college adaptation a student has.

3.3.2. The College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES)
To assess academic self efficacy among AAU students, the College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale, developed by Owen and Froman (1988), was adapted. The original scale was developed using three university faculty members. After being reviewed, it was revised and finally pilot tested by 93 undergraduate students majoring in education and psychology. After the pilot test, the instrument was revised once more and now consists of 30 items (Schunk & Pajares, 2002). Each question beginning with “how much confidence do you have about performing each behavior listed below?” Participants were asked to respond using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1, or “very little confidence” to 5, or “Quite a lot of confidence.” The instrument is scored by summing the total of the 30 items.

The original CASES questionnaire consists of 30 items out of which 27 items were selected for this study based on item analysis. After conducting a pilot study for 50 students in AAU, three items whose correlation coefficients below 0.30 were rejected. A reliability analysis was run for the instrument and the instrument reported a Cronbach’s ? of 0.8656, confirming the reliability of the scores on this instrument for this study.

3.3.3. Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS)
To assess the level of assertiveness of AAU Students, the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule developed by Rathus (1973), was used. The RAS was developed to discern the degree of daily assertiveness (Rathus, 1973). The RAS was originally composed of 30 items and used a six point Likert-type scale ranging from 1, or “Very much unlike me,” to 6, or “Very much like me.”The RAS has a split-half reliability of (r =.77). (Poyrazli et al, 2001).

As mentioned above, the original RAS questionnaire consists of 30 items out of which 27 items were selected for this study based on item analysis. After conducting a pilot study for 50 students in AAU, three items whose correlation coefficients below 0.31 were rejected. Further more, a reliability analysis was run for the instrument and the instrument reported a Cronbach’s ? of. 0.8532, confirming the reliability of the scores on this instrument for this study.

Table: 2
Summary on the Reliability Analysis of the Scales
Scales Sub scales No. of Sub scale items Total No. of items ? for sub-scales ? for the full scale
CASES – - 30 – 0.8656
RAS – - 30 – 0.8532

SACQ Academic 20
40 .7937
0.8904
Social 10 .8022
Personal-Emotional 10 .8683
3.4. Variables Included in the Study
The independent variables (IV) used in this study are academic self efficacy and assertiveness while the dependant variable (DV) is students’ adjustment to college.

3.5. Data Collection
Prior to administering the surveys and collecting data, the researcher submitted a formal letter to the Addis Ababa University registrar office to gain statistical information about the samples. The researcher was granted permission to administer the instruments to Addis Ababa University regular students and did collect the information accordingly.

Bearing in mind a number of its advantages, questionnaire technique was employed in this study to solicit information from sampled individuals. One is that questionnaire is acquiescent to statistical data analysis with minimal manipulation of raw data and can also access a large sample. Besides, it places minimal demands on personnel, provides for the impersonal collection of data. Unlike to interviews, it also largely minimizes bias. Additionally, questionnaire can guarantee confidentiality and this may elicit more frank and truthful responses than would be obtained with a personal interview.

The use of positively and negatively constructed items was used to checking the honesty of the respondents and to minimize response set of bias. Items of the variable were spread throughout the questionnaire so that no specific pattern could be guessed. Thus, response set (the tendency of participants to answer all questions in a specific direction regardless of the content of questions) is counteracted by breaking the monotonous sequence and format of questions.

The survey instrument was administered in the following manner: the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ) followed by the College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES) and the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS).

As mentioned above, running factor analysis to the 100 items of the pilot study (See Appendix G), eleven items had to be discarded on the bases of factor analysis result. The following table recapitulates this fact:

Table: 3
Variables and Discarded Items
Variables Number of Items No. of Discarded Items Discarded Item Number
CASES 30 3 1, 3 & 4
RAS 30 3 2, 24 & 25
SACQ 45 5 5, 6, 12, 34 & 35
3.6. Data Analysis
3.6.1. Analysis for the pilot study
The questionnaire containing 100 items was pilot tested on fifty second year undergraduate students who were randomly drawn from the population considered in the study but who were not parts of the sample and therefore not participated in the main study.

Ambiguous or poorly worded items and items lacking that of discriminatory power were pinpointed by the pilot study and hence the items that lacked discriminatory value were dropped while the poorly worded items were reworded.

Inter item correlation analysis (See Appendix G) was made for the pilot study to identify those items possessing low correlations. Consequently, items whose correlation coefficients below 0.30 were excluded from the final analysis.

3.6.2. Analysis for the main study
Data for the main study were analyzed using SPSS 10.0 for Windows. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. These included means, standard deviations, Pearson’s r correlation coefficient, multiple regression analysis and F-test.
Research Question: What are the correlations among adjustment to college, assertiveness, and academic self-efficacy?
To answer the research question, Pearson’s r Correlation coefficient was used. Three correlations were run between Students’ adjustment to college and academic self efficacy; Students’ adjustment to college and assertiveness; and finally, academic self efficacy and assertiveness to determine if there were any statistically significant relationships among any of the constructs.

Further more, to examine the combined effects of assertiveness (IV) and academic self efficacy (IV) on the level of students’ adjustment to college (DV) – multiple regression analysis, computation of R2 and T- test were employed so as to evaluate the contribution of the assertive behavior and self efficacy variables in a linear combination for the prediction of the students adjustment to college.

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

This chapter reports the results found from the statistical analyses that were described in Chapter III. It will first review the population, response rate, and characteristics of the students who participated in the study. Secondly, this chapter will address the research question based on the data analysis.

4.1. Sample Characteristics
Second year regular undergraduate AAU students in the faculty of Education were the sample used for this study. The sample consisted of 257 male (20%) and 71 (20%) female students. For the final study, however, 219male and 64female students were sampled since the remaining 45 questionnaires were not either returned or filled properly. The following table brings to your attention the brief about the frequency and percent of the students sampled in the study.

Table: 4
Frequency and Percentage of students Sampled department wise in the College of Education Faculty (n=328)
No. Department Frequency Percent
Male Female Male Female
1 Biology 12 8 20 20
2 Business Education 44 10 20 20
3 Chemistry 18 4 20 20
4 Educ. Planning & Mgt.* – - – -
5 Educ. Planning & Mgt. 15 2 20 20
6 Ethiopian Language 6 16 20 20
7 Foriegn Language 20 9 20 20
8 Geography 42 6 20 20
9 History 24 5 20 20
10 Mathematics 20 1 20 20
11 Oromigna ** – - – -
12 Physical Educ.&Soprts 18 5 20 20
13 Physics 14 1 20 20
14 Psychology 24 4 20 20
15 Tigrigna ** – - – -
Total 257 71 20 20
*not included in the sampling procedure because it is a diploma program
** Students of these departments were not included in the study as no data were found concerning them.
4.2. Results of the Correlation Coefficients
The primary investigation of this study was to determine the relationship, if one existed, among students’ adjustment to college, academic self efficacy and assertiveness among second year regular undergraduate students in AAU. As discussed in Chapter III, participants were given three survey instruments: The Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Appendix A), The College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES; Appendix B), and finally Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS; Appendix C).

The SACQ was composed of 35 questions and used a Likert-type scale. Answers for the scale ranged from 1 (totally inapplicable) to 6 (totally applicable). The variable is scored by summing the scores on each question Participants had the ability to score between a range of 35 points (the lowest amount of confidence) and 210 points (the highest amount of confidence). The mean total score of participants in this particular study was 115.24 points with a standard deviation of 30.31.

The College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES) was designed to ask students how confident they were in their ability to complete the list of behaviors associated with college success. This instrument was composed of twenty seven questions and used a Likert-type scale with a range of (5 = Quite a lot of confidence), (4 = A lot of confidence), (3 = some confidence), D (2 = A little confidence) and (1 = very little confidence). The variable is scored by summing the scores on each question. Participants had the ability to score between a range of 27 points (the lowest amount of confidence) and 135 points (the highest amount of confidence). The mean total score of participants in this particular study was 110.63 points with a standard deviation of 20.43.

Finally, the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS) used in this study was composed of 27 questions. The RAS used a Likert-type scale with a range of 1 (very much unlike me), to 6 (very much like me). The variable is scored by summing the scores on each question. Participants had the ability to score between a range of 27 (the lowest level of assertiveness) and 162 (the highest level of assertiveness).The mean total score of participants on the RAS in this particular study was 122.68 with a standard deviation of 19.79.
Table: 5
Descriptive Statistics (n=283)
Scales Mean SD Minimum Maximum
CASES 110.63 20.43 50.00 135.00
RAS 122.68 19.79 44.00 158.00
SACQ 115.24 30.31 35.00 171.00

The study sought to determine if there was a relationship among SACQ, CASES and RAS for second year regular undergraduate students of the College of Education in AAU. To determine this, three Pearson r correlations were calculated between SACQ and CASES; SACQ and RAS; and between CASES and RAS. The summary is put below:

Table: 6
Correlation Matrix for CASES, RAS and SACQ
CASES RAS SACQ
CASES 1
RAS .452** 1
SACQ .727** .442** 1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

In the first analysis, between SACQ and CASES, the Pearson’s r correlation was .73 (? =05). This would suggest a large positive correlation between SACQ and CASES, showing that the level of Students’ adjustment to college is positively related to the level of students’ academic self efficacy. This may also show that as a student’s level of Students’ adjustment to college increases, so does their academic self efficacy and as their academic self efficacy increases so will their Students’ adjustment to college. This positive correlation may also suggest that a student with a low level of Students’ adjustment to college may also have a low level of academic self efficacy.

In the second analysis, a correlation was computed between SACQ and RAS. A medium positive correlation (r = .44) was found, between Students’ adjustment to college and students assertive behaviour, suggesting that a high level of Students’ adjustment to college is moderately correlated to a high level of students assertive behaviour. This also may show that as a students’ adjustment to college increases, so will their assertion.

Lastly, the third analysis was conducted between CASES and RAS. The correlation showed an (r of .45). This would suggest that there was a medium positive correlation between academic self efficacy and the students’ assertive behaviour, indicating that a high level of academic self efficacy is moderately related to a high level of students’ assertive behaviour. This may suggest that as assertion improves so can a student’s academic self efficacy.

According to the result presented above, there are areas of shared variance among the three scales. In this study of second year regular undergraduate students of the AAU, 52.85% of the variance in Students’ adjustment to college was explained by the variance in academic self efficacy, whereas 19.54% of the variance in Students’ adjustment to college was explained by the variance in assertion. Finally, the variance in academic self efficacy explains 20.43% of the variance in assertion and vice versa.

4.3. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis
The general purpose of multiple regression is to learn more about the relationship between several independent or predictor variables and a dependant or criterion variable. It is interesting to see whether and how the independent variables (assertiveness and academic self efficacy) relate to the dependent variable (students’ college adjustment) and find out what would the best predictor be.

Put it short, to identity the combination of the independent variables which explains maximum variation in students’ adaptation to college and to find out relative contribution of each independent variable, multiple regression analysis was computed and summarized in the table below:

Table: 7
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis
Model Unstandardized Coefficients
B Standardized Coefficients R R 2 F- value
Beta (?)
CASES 0.984 0.663
RAS 0.217 0.142 F(2,280)
(Constant) -20.292 – 0.738 0.545 167.780*
Note: * p?0.05

To interpret the direction of the relationship between variables, one looks at the signs (plus or minus) of the regression of B Coefficients. As both of the B coefficients of the independent variables are positive, then the relationship of each of these variables with the dependent variable is positive (the more the assertive and self efficacy behaviors the better college adaptive behavior among students and vice versa). Besides, the regression coefficient, B, is the average amount the dependent variable (students’ college adjustment) increases when the independent variables (either assertiveness or academic self efficacy) increases one unit and other independents are held constant. Put another way, the B coefficient is the slope of the regression line i.e., the larger the B (0.984 for academic self efficacy compared to 0.217 for assertiveness), the steeper the slope, the more the dependent (students’ college adjustment) changes for each unit change in the independent variables.

Apart from multiple regression can tell the extent to which the independent variables (assertiveness and academic self efficacy) explain the proportion of the variance in a dependent variable (students’ college adjustment) at a significant level through a significance test of R2, it can also establish the relative predictive importance of the independent variables by comparing beta weights. To check this, standardized b-coefficients (beta weights) were compared to judge relative predictive power of independent variables. It was also tested the significance of difference of two R2’s to determine if adding an independent variable to the model helps significantly. To this effect, in terms of the magnitude of the standardized regression coefficients (?’s), the variables in descending order are CASES (0.663) and RAS (0.142). As regards the independent contributions of each variable to the prediction of students’ adaptation to college from the weighted combination of two variables, CASES showed higher contribution (0.663) while RAS showed the lower (0.142).

The F test was also used to test the significance of R, which is the same as testing the significance of R2, which is the same as testing the significance of the regression model as a whole. The result of the table above revealed, consequently, that the overall model was significant (F= 2,280, p?0.05) and explained 54.5 percent of the variance of the students’ college adaptation behavior.

4.4. Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis
To figure out the relative contribution of assertiveness (IV) and academic self efficacy (IV) in predicting students’ college adjustment (DV) and their combined effect, stepwise multiple regression analysis was conducted.

Stepwise multiple regression, also called statistical regression, is a way of computing ordinary least squares regression in stages. In stage one, the independent best correlated with the dependent was included in the equation. In the second stage, the remaining independent with the highest partial correlation with the dependent, controlling for the first independent, was entered. This process was repeated, at each stage partialling for previously-entered independents, until the addition of a remaining independent does not increase R-squared by a significant amount. Having done the aforementioned, the statistical analysis in SPSS revealed the following result:
Table: 8
Results of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis
Step Number Variables
Entered Unstandardized
Regression Coefficient (B) Standardized Regression Coefficient (?)

Multiple Correlation Related to Variables F-ratio P
R R2 CHR2
1 CASES 1.079 0.727 0.727 0.529 0.529 315.725 0.000
2 RAS 0.217 0.142 0.738 0.545 0.016 167.780 0.000
All F – values are significant at P? 0.05 levels

As it can be seen from Table 8, the variable which has been first entered the regression model was academic self efficacy since it has the highest zero-order correlations with the dependent variable. This predictor variable alone improved the accuracy of the prediction by 52.9 percent.

The second independent variable which entered in the second step was assertiveness. The addition of this variable to the model improved the prediction by 1.6 percent to the squared multiple correlation coefficient.

The total variance in students’ college adaptation explained by both independent variables was 54.5 percent. As noted in the above Table, the F-values (315.73 & 167.78) of the two predictor variables contributed significantly to the prediction equation.

4.5. Summary
There were significant findings for the relationships among Addis Ababa University students of Students’ adjustment to college, academic self efficacy and assertion. The data showed that Students’ adjustment to college and academic self efficacy were highly positively correlated. Students’ adjustment to college and assertion, and academic self efficacy and assertion, were moderately positively correlated. Besides, academic self efficacy was found to be the better predictor of students’ adaptation to college as compared to assertive behavior while both the variables accounted for 54.5 percent of the variance in students’ adaptation.

The implications of these results, limitations and generalizability of the study, and suggestions for future research will be discussed in the following chapter.

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSIONS

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship among students’ adjustment to college, academic self efficacy and assertive behaviour. To answer the research question correlations among students’ adjustment to college and academic self efficacy; students’ adjustment to college and assertiveness; and academic self efficacy and assertive behaviour for second year undergraduate AAU students were computed. Besides, multiple regression analysis and stepwise multiple regression analysis were computed to further interpret the variables and answer questions about how well assertion and academic self efficacy (as IVs) can predict overall students adjustment (DV) in the university, and also to answer the question of whether assertion or academic self efficacy is a better predictor of students’ adjustment.

Based on the findings in the previous chapter and the literature discussed in Chapter II, this chapter will, therefore, present a summary of the results. It will also provide implications for current practice, recognize the limitations of this investigation, and make suggestions for future research.

5.1. Summary and Discussion of Findings
Research Question: What are the correlations among adjustment to college, assertiveness, and academic self-efficacy among second year undergraduate students of AAU.
Three Pearson’s r correlations were conducted to detect if there was a statistically significant relationship between the variables. The data showed a high statistically significant positive correlation (r = .727) between levels of Students’ adjustment to college and academic self efficacy. For second year undergraduate students in this study, academic self efficacy explains 52.85% of the variance in Students’ adjustment to college. From this data, it can be inferred that the higher the students’ level of Students’ adjustment to college, the higher their academic self efficacy and conversely, a lower level of Students’ adjustment to college may be correlated with a lower level of academic self efficacy.

Academic self efficacy was also found to be the better predictor of students’ college adaptation in the model, accounting for a little more than 50%.
The results are congruent with previous researches that indicate self-efficacy and adjustment appear to be positively related. Maddux (1995) states that students with higher college, social, and general self-efficacy had higher college satisfaction rates. Bandura & Cervone (1986), as well, stated that a strong sense of self-efficacy about ability and competence will help individuals to adapt emotionally. Maddux (1995) stated that a strong sense of self-efficacy will also help individuals approach challenging situations without incapacitating anxiety and confusion. Although no study has examined how self-efficacy relates to Ethiopian university students’ adjustment (that could back up the findings here), one could infer from the results that campus students who have developed a strong academic self-efficacy will tend to show a better adjustment.
The data also showed a moderate statistically significant positive correlation (r = .442) between Students’ adjustment to college and assertiveness. The relationship, however, could also be in the inverse where a higher level of assertiveness could help elevate the students’ adjustment to college.

The result from the stepwise multiple regression analysis revealed that assertiveness is a significant predictor of students’ college adjustment improving the prediction level by 1.6 % which had already been predicted by academic self efficacy by 52.9%.

Research indicates that depending on their cultural backgrounds, some of students may not be assertive enough to search or ask for help on their own (Kern, 1996). As a result, their passivity can handicap the students in their relationships with their teachers, advisors, and classmates. Not being able to say no to friends, to inquire about an assignment with a professor, or to stand up for themselves may also hinder the learning of survival skills in the new culture. Being assertive, initiating contact, and getting involved in social and academic interactions, however, may help students cope with their adjustment difficulties (Chen, 1992). Therefore, it can be inferred that improving students’ assertive behavior would result in the betterment of their college adjustment behavior.
In addition, the data demonstrated a moderate statistically significant positive correlation (r = .452) between academic self efficacy and assertion. Though it can be deduced that there is a positive relationship between academic self efficacy and assertion, a causal relationship between the two areas cannot currently be inferred. However, according to Pajares and Valiante (1997), assertive behaviour has a positive impact on academic self efficacy. Thus, it might be inferred that an increase in the level of assertion can result in an increase in academic self-efficacy.

The two independent variables all together predicted students’ college adjustment by 54.5%. From this, it may stand to reason that second year undergraduate students in the college of Education who feel higher levels of academic self efficacy and assertiveness may have higher levels of Students’ adjustment to college and in turn feel more satisfied with their college experience. Conversely, an individual with lower levels of academic self efficacy and assertiveness could have lower college adjustment and consequently be less satisfied with their college experience.

Consequently, there is still 45.5% of the variance in student’s college adaptation that wasn’t explained by both the independent variables. Conducting further research on other factors that impact undergraduate Addis Ababa University students’ adjustment could help explain more of the variance.

5.2. Implications
Although several studies have been conducted on various areas and types of self efficacy in foreign context, this study was unique as it sought to discover if this variable has a relationship among assertiveness behaviour and Students’ adjustment to college for second year undergraduate students in the College of Education. The correlations run between these three variables determined that there were statistically significant relationships among students in the study.

In order to build self-efficacy, Bandura (1997) stated that a person must feel supported and able to take risks in order to grow in a given area. Administrators, instructors, student affairs and other concerned bodies can help increase student academic self efficacy by designing a training program that helps the individuals feel successful.

Because the data showed a positive relationship between assertiveness and Students’ adjustment to college, it may stand to reason that increased attention and support to the assertion behavior side of a student’s life might not only improve their overall confidence about being assertive in their life, but also in the adjustment skills in college life as well.

The data showed that both academic self efficacy and assertiveness to a certain extent predicted students’ adjustment to college. From this, It may be inferred that as academic self efficacy and assertiveness increases, so may the student’s college adjustment. Consequently, as academic self efficacy and assertiveness decrease, so may their college adjustment. For student affairs who seek to develop students holistically, it may be important to continue to survey students to ensure that they are having a positive university experience. It may also be beneficial to recognize whether students feel they have the necessary time to engage in university activities outside of academics. Rice, K. G. (1992) has attributed a sense of belonging as necessary for students to have a positive and productive college experience.

Lastly, open and honest communication and a partnership between departments and student-affairs may be beneficial to ensuring that students have a holistic university experience. This may assist both parties in providing the services and programs to ensure that students are provided with optimal academic and social experience in the university community and in the classroom, as well.

5.3. Limitations
Students Adaptation to College Questionnaire and the College Academic Self Efficacy Scales have some similar questions. The CASES instrument is comprised of academic and pedagogical related questions. SACQ contains some questions that are very similar to questions located in the CASES instrument. The high positive correlation (.727) between Students’ adjustment to college and academic self efficacy could possibly be due in part to the similarities of some of the questions between the two instruments.
The major conceptual limitation of all regression techniques is that one can only ascertain relationships, but never be sure about underlying casual mechanisms was also the case in this particular study. It was confirmed in previous analysis that there were high correlation between self efficacy and students’ adaptation; and medium correlations for the rest of correlations i.e. between assertiveness and self efficacy and assertiveness and students’ college adaptation. However, it is the limitation of this technique to prohibit further attempt of inferring any casual relations among the variables studied

5.4. Suggestions for Future Research
This study focused specifically on a small population (compared to all the campus students) of second year undergraduate students in the College of Education and, while the findings were statistically significant, the result of which can only be generalized to the population from which the sample was taken, i.e., the College of Education. Conducting a similar study with a large sample size may, therefore, improve the generalizability of the findings. By increasing the sample size, additionally, data can be further analyzed using demographic information such as department, year in school, and grade point average.

New data may be generated regarding this population at different institutions and comparisons could be made in adjustment, assertion, and academic self efficacy of students of different sexes. Lastly, adaptation, assertion and academic self efficacy could also potentially be studied sampling across all higher institutions in Ethiopia, in general, and Addis Ababa, in particular.

Further researching the academic self-efficacy of these students may provide more information. It may also be beneficial to conduct research surrounding additional experiences of undergraduate students and conditions that hamper or promote their success in academic achievement and overall college adjustment and success.

Finally, more qualitative study of undergraduate university students may provide further insight into the experiences of this population.
5.5. Summary
The study used the Students Adjustment to College Questionnaire (SACQ), the College Academic Self Efficacy Scale (CASES), and the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS), to explore their relation and to spot the predictive level of the independent variables over the dependant for second year undergraduate students at Addis Ababa University .

Samples (N=283) were randomly taken from the population (2nd year students from the College of Education, N=1642) and the questionnaire were pilot tested on 50 individuals who were taken from the population but who latter excluded from the main study. Based on the results found from the pilot study, items with less discriminatory power were discarded and ambiguous words and phrases were rewritten before the final study was conducted.

To contract meaning out of the data collected, statistical analyses were made. Pearson’s r correlation (to observe the direction and the magnitude of the variables being studied) and multiple regression analysis (to infer the predictive power of the independent variables) were the major statistical techniques employed in the study.

By using the Pearson r correlation, the data showed that there were statistically significant relationships among Adjustment, Academic self efficacy and Assertiveness of second year undergraduate students of the AAU. Although all three relationships were statistically significant, it is important to note that there was a large positive relationship between academic self-efficacy and adjustment; a moderate positive relationship between adjustment and assertiveness; and a moderate positive relationship between academic self efficacy and assertiveness. From these findings, it may be inferred that a higher or lower level of academic self efficacy can be related to a higher or lower level of students’ adaptation to college. Additionally, a higher or lower level of assertiveness may be related to a higher or lower level of academic self efficacy.

The multiple regression analysis revealed that academic self efficacy was better predictor (accounting 52.9 percent) of students’ adjustment to college compared to assertiveness which only predicted 19.36 percent of the variance in students’ adjustment to college. In total, for the students sampled, 54.5 percent of the variance in students’ adjustment to college was explained by the variance in academic self efficacy and assertiveness.

It is the researchers’ belief that though the study bare some limitations, each piece of knowledge discerned about college students can inform the practice of student affairs and university practitioners who seek to provide all students with the optimal college experience.

To sum up, in the future, more research concerning undergraduate students should be conducted. Understanding their experiences, particularly as it relates to self-adaptation to university, efficacy and assertiveness, can assist institution administrators in educating and aiding in the development of these students for success as students, and for life beyond university.

REFERENCES
Althen, G. (1991). Some help and some myths. Retrieved October 3, 2006, from http:// www.eric.ed.gov/sitemap/html_0900000b8002f6ab.html
Baker, R. W., McNeil, O. V., & Siryk, B. (1985). Expectation and reality in freshman adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(4), 94-103.
Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1984). Measuring adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(2), 179-189.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of thought and action A social cognitive theory. New Jersey:Prentice-Hall Inc. Retrieved November 11, 2006, from http:// www.amazon.com/Social-Foundations-Thought-Action-Cognitive/dp/013815614X – 112k
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http:// www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Bandura1989AP.pdf
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). San Diego: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. American Psychological Society. Retrieved October 6, 2006, from http:// www.citeulike.org/user/rburnett/article/875867
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of affective selfregulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Development, Retrived October 11, 2006, from http:// www.biomedcentral.com/content/files/pdf/1744-859X-5-S1-full.pdf
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 38, 98-113.
Charles, H., & Stewart, M. A. (1991). Academic advising international students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 19, 173-181.
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L. T., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55-64.
Chen, G. M. (1992). Communication adaptability and interaction involvement as predictors of cross-cultural adjustment. Communication Reports, 9, 33-41.
Choi, N. (2005). Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college students’ academic performance. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 197-205.
Cross, S. E. (1995). Self-construals, coping, and stress, in cross-cultural adaptation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 673-687.
DeGrauw, W. P., & Norcross, J. C. (1989). Student coping with psychological distress: What they do and what works. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 4, 55-76.
Eisler, R. (1987). The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future. Retrieved November 21, 2006, from http:// www.amazon.com/Chalice-Blade-Our-History-Future/dp/0062502891
Finney, S. J., & Schraw, G. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs in college statistics courses. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 161-186.
Furnham, A., & Rawles, R. (1994). Interpersonal influence and coping strategies. Personality and Individual Differences. Retrieved October 10, 2006, from http:// www.ericdigests.org/1998-2/stress.htm
Gerdes, H., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1994). Emotional, social and academic adjustment of college students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72(3), 281-292.
Hubbard, E. A. (1996). The IQ caste and gifted education. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from http:// www.eric.ed.gov/sitemap/html_0900000b80024b5d.html
Jerusalem, M., & Mittag, W. (1995). Self-efficacy in stressful life transitions. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self efficacy in changing societies, (pp.177-201). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, L. K. (1989). Measuring three-dimensional construct of career indecision among college students: A revision of the Vocational Decision Scale–the Career Decision Profile. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 477-486.
Kern, J. M. (1996). Objective detection of faking on role-play tests of assertion: Gender differences. Psychological Reports, 78, 355-361.
Kern, J. M., Cavell, T. A., & Beck, B. (1985). Predicting differential reactions to males’ versus females’ assertions, empathic-assertions, and nonassertions. Behavior Therapy. Retrieved October 4, 2006, from http:// www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk3/ftp04/NQ28332.pdf
Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (1989). Strategies for managing behavior problems in the classroom. Retrieved November 8, 2006, from http:// www.amazon.com/Strategies-Managing-Behavior-Problems-Classroom/dp/0023635274
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 356-362.
Lent, W. R, Brown S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual support and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36-49.
Maddux, J. E. (Ed.). (1995). Self-Efficacy theory an introduction. New York: Plenum Press.

May, G. G. (1982). Will and spirit: A contemplative psychology. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Mone, M. A., Baker, D. D., & Jeffries, F. (1995). Predictive validity and time dependency of self-efficacy, self-esteem, personal goals, and academic performance. Educational Psychological Measurement, 55, 716-727.
Niikura, R. (1999). Assertiveness among Japanese, Malaysian, Filipino, and U.S. White-Collar workers. Journal of Social Psychology, 139(6), 690-699.
Owen, S. V., & Froman, R. D. (1988). Development of a college academic self-efficacy scale. Retrieved October 13, 2006, from http:// www.des.emory.edu/mfp/self-efficacy.html – 108k
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students’ writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 353-361.
Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from http:// www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/evansrj/SIT002-module-outline-2004-05.doc
Phillips, S. D., & Bruch, M. A. (1988). Shyness and dysfunction in career development. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 159-165.
Poyrazli, S., Arbona, C., Bullingtgon, R., & Pisecco, S. (2001). Adjustment issues of Turkish college students studying in the United States. College Student Journal, 35(1), 52-62.
Rathus, S. A. (1973). A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Retrieved October 3, 2006, from http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1984/A1984SL72200001.pdf
Rice, K. G. (1992). Separation-individuation and adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling-Psychology, 39, 203-213.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list
Sandhu, D. S. (1994). An examination of the psychological needs of the international students: Implications for counseling and psychotherapy. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 17, 229-239.
Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attribution in academic settings. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance Issues and educationalimplication (pp. 75-99). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Schunk, D.H. & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. Retrieved October 22, 2006, from http:// www.amazon.com/Self-regulation-Learning-Performance-Educational-Applications/dp/0805813357
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. Retrieved November 16, 2006, from http:// www.musc.edu/dfm/RCMAR/GenSEscale.html
Silverman, L. K., & Conarton, S. (1988). Feminine development through the life cycle. In M. A. Douglas & L. E. Walker (Eds.), Feminist psychotherapies (pp. 37-67). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculine and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Surdam, J. C., & Collins, J. R. (1984). Adaptation of international students: A cause for concern. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 240-245.
Terenzini, P., et al. (1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories. Retrieved October 21, 2006, from http:// www.springerlink.com/index/R0047V507771Q5K2.pdf
Tinto V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of learner attrition \ (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wanberg, C. R, & Muchinsky M. (1992). A typology of career decision status: Validity extension of the vocational decision status model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 71-80.
Zimmerman, B.J., Bandura, A., Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676.

__________________________________________________

APPENDIX A: The Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (Baker & Siryk, 1989)

6= very much applicable
5= somehow applicable
4=applicable
3=inapplicable
2=somehow inapplicable
1=very much inapplicable

No. Items 6 5 4 3 2 1
1 I consider University degree important.
2 I have not been working as hard as I should in this University.
3 I Fit in well with the university’s environment.
4 I have good friends to talk about problems with.
5 I have been feeling tense or nervous lately.
6 I feel lonely a lot.
7 It has not been motivating studding in this University.
8 I have several close social ties at this university.
9 I have been enjoying living in a dormitory.
10 I have trouble concentrating when studying.
11 I have felt tired much of the time lately.
12 Lately I have been having doubts regarding the value of a college education.
13 I attend classes regularly.
14 My appetite is good.
15 I am very involved with social activities in this university.
16 I am satisfied with social participation in this university.
17 I have been enjoying academic work
18 I have been having a lot of headaches lately.
19 I don’t use study time efficiently.
20 I have gained or lost a lot of weight lately.
21 I am finding academic work at college difficult.
22 I have been getting along well with roommates.
23 I am not sleeping well.
24 I am satisfied with social life in this university.
25 I have trouble coping with college stress.
26 I feel in good health.
27 I am satisfied with variety of courses.
28 I worry a lot about college expenses.
29 I have adequate social skills.
30 I do not mix well with opposite sex
31 I have been getting angry too easily lately.
32 I am satisfied with professors.
33 Being independent has not been easy in this university.
34 I have been having difficulty feeling at ease with others at the university.
35 I am satisfied with my academic performance.

APPENDIX B: The College Academic Self efficacy Scale (Owen and Froman, 1988)

5 = Quite a lot of confidence
4 = A lot of confidence
3 = Some Confidence
2 = A little confidence
1 = very little confidence

No. Items 5 4 3 2 1
1 Participating in a class discussion.
2 Taking “objective” tests (multiple choices, T-F, matching).
3 Taking essay tests.
4 Writing a high quality term paper.
5 Listening carefully during a lecture on a difficult topic.
6 Tutoring another student.
7 Explaining a concept to another student.
8 Earning good marks in most courses.
9 Studying enough to understand content in detail.
10 Participating in extracurricular events (sports, clubs).
11 Making instructors respect you.
12 Attending class regularly.
13 Attending class consistently in a boring course.
14 Making an instructor think you’re paying attention in class.
15 Understanding most ideas presented in your tests.
16 Understanding most ideas presented in class.
17 Performing simple math computations.
18 Using a computer.
19 Talking to an instructor privately to get to know him or her.
20 Relating course content to material in other courses.
21 Challenging an instructor’s opinion in class.
22 Applying lecture content to a laboratory session.
23 Making good use of the library.
24 Getting good grades.
25 Understanding difficult passages in textbooks.
26 Mastering content in a course you’re not interested in.
27 Asking an instructor in class to review a concept you don’t understand.
APPENDIX C: Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (Rathus, 1973)

6= very much like me
5= rather like me
4=slightly like me
3=slightly unlike me
2=rather unlike me
1=very much unlike me

No. Items 6 5 4 3 2 1
1 Most people seem to be more aggressive and self-confident than I am.
2 When the food served at a restaurant is not done to my satisfaction, I complain about it to the waiter or waitress.
3 I am careful to avoid hurting other people’s feelings, even when I feel that I have been injured.
4 If a salesperson has gone to considerable trouble to show me merchandise that is not quite suitable, I have a difficult time saying ‘No.’
5 When I am asked to do something, I insist upon knowing why.
6 I admit ignorance in some area.
7 I apologize when I make mistakes.
8 To be honest, people often take advantage of me.
9 I enjoy starting conversations with new acquaintances (contacts) and strangers.
10 I often don’t know what to say to attractive persons of the opposite sex.
11 I resist sexual proposal when I am not interested.
12 I ask a favor of someone.
13 I find it embarrassing (uncomfortable) to return merchandise.
14 If a close and respected relative were making me angry, I would smother (keep down) my feelings rather than express my anger.
15 I have avoided asking questions for fear of sounding stupid.
16 During an argument I am sometimes afraid that I will get so upset that I will shake all over.
17 If a famed and respected lecturer makes a comment which I think is incorrect, I will have my classmates hear my point of view as well.
18 I avoid arguing over prices with clerks and salespeople.
19 When I have done something important or worthwhile, I manage to let others know about it.
20 I am open and frank about my feelings.
21 If someone has been spreading false and bad stories about me, I see him or her as soon as possible and ‘have a talk’ about it.
22 I often have a hard time saying ‘No.’
23 When I am given a criticism, I sometimes just don’t know what to say.
24 If a couple near me in a theater or at a lecture were conversing rather loudly, I would ask them to be quiet or to take their conversation elsewhere.
25 I do not hesitate to express an opinion that differs from that of the person I am talking to.
26 I am quick to express an opinion.
27 I resist pressure to drink.

_______________________The End_______________________

Report This Post