School Connectedness,Academic Self-Efficacy,and Academic Performance: Mediating Role of Hope

Abstract

The present study explored the effects of school connectedness and academic self-efficacy beliefs on academic performance among male and female high school students. It was hypothesized that hope would mediate the effects of school connectedness and academic self-efficacy beliefs on academic performance. The statistical population of the study included all high school students in a city of Iran, from whom 500 individuals were selected as the study sample using multistage random sampling. To collect the required data, three questionnaires – i.e., academic self-efficacy subscale from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale by Midgley et al., Children’s Hope Scale by Snyder et al., and Brown and Evans’ School Connectedness Scale – were used. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was also applied to evaluate the proposed model, and the results indicated the statistical significance of all the path coefficients between the variables. The model showed the positive and significant relation of school connectedness, academic self-efficacy beliefs, and hope with academic performance and the relation of school connectedness and academic self-efficacy beliefs with hope. The fit indices showed that the model was well-fitted. Furthermore, the significance of all the indirect relationships was also confirmed. We concluded that, the high levels of school connectedness and academic self-efficacy are associated with high academic performance and hope seems to be an important mediator of these relationships.

Keywords

School connectedness academic self-efficacy academic performance hope high-school students

Introduction

Dealing with the cognitive aspect of learners’ personalities and assisting them to make academic progress in various subjects are among the main objectives of education. Accordingly, studies in the field of educational psychology have widely focused on the cognitive variables of academic achievement, including intelligence and ability (Deary et al., 2007). In contrast to common beliefs, the exclusive determinants of academic achievement, however, are not intelligence and ability (Dweck & Master, 2009). According to previous studies, emotional and social variables also affect academic achievement. Some of these factors are self-efficacy (Schunk & Dibenedetto, 2016), self-regulation, and goal orientation (Herndon & Bembenutty, 2017; Usán et al., 2019). From another perspective, psychological research has historically addressed the pathological aspects (Akin‐Little et al., 2004). Inspired by positivist psychology, recent research approaches have examined human capabilities and optimal performance (Huebner et al., 2004; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014), including constructs such as hope and school connectedness.

Detecting variables affecting academic performance has been the subject of intense research in cognitive and emotional fields. In the cognitive field, research has highlighted the great effect of cognitive variables on academic performance (Deary et al., 2007); hence, there has been much emphasis on teaching and strengthening cognitive-educational skills (Cohen, 2006). In another study, however, a majority of parents in response to a question about their preferences regarding what they would like schools to teach students referred to the development of personality and emotional features (e.g., responsibility, mental health, and happiness) in children (Cohen, 2006).

The literature documents the relationship between academic performance and social environment components, namely school connectedness (Sampasa-Kanyinga et al., 2019), self-efficacy (Schunk & Usher, 2019), and hope (Marques et al., 2017). Ignoring the emotional variables that affect academic performance not only negatively affects learners’ emotional status but also has negative effects on their academic performance. Thus, academic performance is no longer considered as a cognitive function in examining students’ academic achievement such that achievements in this regard are determined by the development of all cognitive, emotional, social, behavioral, and biological aspects.

Students mainly spend their childhood and adolescence at schools; hence, school plays a critical role in the social and educational development of children and adolescents (Carney et al., 2017). Students who feel they have received more care and had a sense of belonging to school have more achievements in school and exhibit fewer problematic behaviors in and out of school (Brown & Evans, 2005). This concept is well-described by the construct ‘school-connectedness’ as a strong predictor of educational and social outcomes (Sampasa-Kanyinga et al., 2019).

Although school connectedness is of paramount importance at any age, it should be addressed during adolescence, as well. Individuals rely less on their families to move from childhood to adolescence and to achieve independence; instead, they mostly rely on their out-family relationships such as relationships with friends at school or other contexts (Daley, 2019). A large number of studies have documented the vital role of the school climate and its relevant variables in predicting academic performance of students (Wang & Holcombe, 2010). For example, Ruiz et al. (2018) referred to the school climate as a critical component in successful schools. School connectedness encompasses perceptions of belonging to schools of students, school supports, and the existence of fair disciplinary rules in schools (Waters et al., 2010).

As Blum (2005) notes, students develop a sense of connectedness and belonging to their school. Such students also believe that their teachers care about them and their education, school guardians are their friends, school rules are fair, and they have opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities. Research shows that school connectedness is associated with student’s involvement in assignments, academic performance, and social development (Blum, 2005; J. C. Watson, 2017), while poor school connectedness is correlated with high-risk behaviors (Govender et al., 2013). Furthermore, there are reports on the positive relationship between school connectedness and hope (Worrell & Hale, 2001).

School connectedness can improve the mental health of students. This improved mental health, in turn, has positive effects on academic performance. Numerous studies have examined the relationship between school connectedness and academic performance. Spier et al. (2007) indicated that altering the connectedness and climate of a school enhances the performance of students in mathematics, writing, and reading. Also, Spier et al. (2007) revealed positive alterations in the connectedness and climate of the schools associated with considerable advances in the scores of the students on statewide accomplishment exams.

Academic self-efficacy belief is another factor affecting academic performance. Individuals believe that they have the power to control events affecting their lives. Such a belief would lead to self-efficacy (Mills & Belnap, 2017; Zimmerman et al., 2017). Hence, academic self-efficacy beliefs describe the beliefs by which students complete a task or achieve a goal (DeWitz et al., 2009). Bandura (1997) perspective, educational environments with less emphasis on comparative competition and more focus on personal evaluations are more preferred to promote academic self-efficacy. Many studies have investigated the relationships between self-efficacy and academic performance (Honicke & Broadbent, 2016; Hwang et al., 2016) and between self-efficacy and hope (Kareshki et al., 2018).

Hope as one of the human characteristics helps individuals to overcome despair, pursue their goals, and reduce the feeling that the future is unbearable (Bernardo, 2010). In this regard, Snyder (1995) suggested a relatively new cognitive-motivational model, called “hope theory”. This theory, undergoing some changes in later years (Snyder, 1999; Snyder, 2002), introduces the construct ‘hope’, an important component in the emerging positivist-psychology field (Snyder & Lopez, 2002). Hope reflects an individual’s perception of his/her capacities to conceptualize goals and create specific strategies to reach such goals. Moreover, hope sets up and preserves motivation to adopt these strategies as such it encompasses two components: (1) hope agency, which encompasses the creation and development of individual goals and (2) hope pathway, which refers to planning to achieve these goals (Snyder, 2002). According to Snyder (2002), hope is a motivational process through which individuals actively pursue their goals.

Several studies have confirmed the relationship between hope and academic performance (Adelabu, 2008; Marques et al., 2017). H. Phan (2010) reported significant relationships between future time perspective, self-efficacy, and present time perspective with academic performance.

As much as hope has positive effects on academic performance, hopelessness indicates long-term negative effects on academic performance students. Hanson et al. (2004) in a longitudinal study found that using the California Healthy Kids Survey increased the hopelessness or sadness level of the students, leading to failure in scores in mathematics, reading, and language.

The model presented in the present study includes the structural relationships between the two motivational variables of school connectedness and self-efficacy with academic performance directly and through the variable of hope, indirectly. There is sufficient evidence between the school connectedness and academic performance path (Niehaus et al., 2012; Pate et al., 2017), the school connectedness and hope path (Padilla-Walker et al., 2011), the academic self-efficacy and academic performance path (Choi, 2005; Honicke & Broadbent, 2016), the academic self-efficacy and hope path (H. P. Phan, 2013), and the hope to academic performance path (Day et al., 2010). According to the previous models (Adelabu, 2008; H. Phan, 2010) and studies, the present study considers a structural relationship model to examine the relationships among school connectedness, academic self-efficacy beliefs, with academic performance and mediating role of hope. Postulating hope, a concept rooted in positive psychology, as a facilitative mediator, this investigation explored the effects of school connectedness and academic self-efficacy beliefs on the academic performance of male and female high-school students. Inquiring the mediational effect of hope on academic performance can reveal its motivationally contributive mechanism in the academic field. Students who experience a high sense of hope would be more likely to engage actively at school in their academic performance; in contrast, students who exhibit a low level of hope might come up with poor academic performance. Given that high school students in Iran at this level attend competitive tests to enter the university, investigating the role of hope in academic performance can be conducive to recognizing the challenges students cope with within such situations. On the other hand, the mediating role of hope in the relationship between academic self-efficacy and school connectedness can patently justify the contribution of such variables to academic performance. Although the direct effect of self efficacy and school connectedness on academic performance has already been confirmed in the literature, the indirect effect of such variables, contrived via hope, on academic performance, which is the focus of this study, has sustained a paucity of research. Besides, examining variables such as self-efficacy, hope, and school connectedness, as well as explicating their contributions to students' mental status in the current complicated situation of the COVID-19 epidemic can entail constructively noteworthy out-turns in the field.

In the proposed model, school connectedness and academic self-efficacy beliefs were considered as exogenous variables, hope was a mediating variable, and academic performance was included as an endogenous variable.

Materials and methods

The present research was a correlational study using structural equation modeling. The statistical population of the study included male and female students at the first grade of high school in a city of Iran, during the school year 2018–2019, a sample of whom was included in this research. The age group of participants was 16 to 17 years old. The first-grade high school students were included since they had not selected their fields of study as such they were homogenous in terms of academic performance to be assessed.

To test the model, about 500 students, (250 males and 250 females) were selected using multistage random sampling. Fourteen students (11 males and 3 females) were excluded due to incomplete questionnaires. Incomplete questionnaires mainly included questionnaires that students did not answer more than half of their questions. Ten (8 males and 2 females) cases were removed due to being characterized as a multivariate outlier using the “Mahalanobis distance” procedure (Stevens, 2012). Overall, 24 cases (4.8%) were missing data. Ultimately, the statistical analysis was performed on 476 high school students (231 males and 245 females).

Data collection tools in the present study were three questionnaires, including academic self-efficacy subscale from Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale (Midgley et al., 2000), Children’s Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1997), and School Connectedness Scale (Brown & Evans, 2002). The psychometric features of these questionnaires are described below. The grade point average (GPA) at the end of the school year was considered as a criterion for academic performance assessment of students. High school students in Iran are in the age group of 16 to 19 years and are admitted to the university after taking the entrance exam. The academic grading system in Iranian high schools is a twenty-point system called the grade point average (GPA).

Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale (PALS) with 26 subscales developed by Midgley et al. (2000) was used to measure the participants’ academic self-efficacy beliefs. In the present study, student’s academic self-efficacy subscale was adopted, which encompassed five items reflecting students’ perceptions of their competence in doing assignments. This subscale has the items such as “I’m certain I can master the skills taught in class this year.” The minimum and maximum scores of this subscale were 5 and 25, respectively, with a higher score indicating higher academic self-efficacy. Midgley et al. (2000) confirmed the factor construct of PALS and reported the reliability of the academic self-efficacy subscale to be 0.78. In the present study, the Cronbach’s α of this subscale was 0.74

CHS (Snyder et al., 1997) was also used as a measure of hope. It is a 6-item questionnaire with two 3-item subscales: (a) pathway, which refers to teenagers’ ability to predict pathways to achieve their goals, and (b) agency, which refers to a person’s belief in one’s ability to continue. The pathway subscale has the items such as “When I have a problem, I can come up with lots of ways to solve it” and he agency subscale has the items such as” I think the things I have done in the past will help me in the future”. The responses ranged from 1 (never) to 6 (always), with higher scores indicating higher levels of hope. Some studies confirm the reliability and validity of this questionnaire (Dixson, 2017; Snyder et al., 1997). According to Dixson (2017), the reliability coefficient of this scale was assessed as 0.82 in general education students. In the present study, Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.79.

Brown and Evans (2005) School Connectedness Scale was also utilized to measure school connectedness. This scale contained 16 items scored based on a four-point Likert scale including I totally disagree (1) to I totally agree (4). The minimum and maximum scores of this questionnaire were 16 and 64, respectively, with a higher score representing a higher level of school connectedness. The questionnaire consisted of four subscales (namely commitment, power, belonging, and belief in rules). An instance item of commitment subscale is “I can be a success in this school”, example item of power subscale includes “Adults at this school listen to students’ concerns. “, an instance item of belonging subscale is “I can be myself at school” and an instance item of belief in rules subscale includes “The rules at my school are fair”. According to Brown and Evans (2005), the reliability coefficient of this scale based on Cronbach’s alpha method was estimated to be 0.86. In the present study, the Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.83.

After selecting the participants, the participants were provided with a brief explanation of the research significance and objectives and were ensured about their right to leave the study at any stage. Once the participants filled the consent forms, they were asked to complete the questionnaires. In the consent forms, participating students were also told about the purpose of the study and the relevance of the results. After completing the questionnaires, the questionnaires were checked and the incomplete questionnaires were removed. Then, the data were entered into statistical software for statistical analysis. This project was approved by the ethics committee at University of Hormozgan. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS (version 16) and AMOS (version 16).

Results

Prior to the analysis, the normality of the data was checked using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and the results confirmed the data normality. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics with regard to the school connectedness and its components, academic self-efficacy, hope and its components, and academic performance. The Statistical analyzes of this section were performed using SPSS (version 16) software.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics for main study variables.

Variables	TotalM (SD)	Male M (SD)	FemaleM (SD)
Performance	13.98 (2.87)	11.48 (1.51)	16.33 (1.58)
Self-efficacy	17.71 (4.71)	15.58 (4.37)	19.72 (4.10)
School connectedness	45.17 (8.10)	41.23 (6.12)	48.88 (8)
Commitment	11.13 (2.35)	10.30 (1.90)	11.92 (2.47)
Power	10.90 (2.76)	9.76 (2.21)	11.97 (2.80)
Belonging	11.34 (2.19)	10.35 (1.87)	12.28 (2.06)
Belief in Laws	11.78 (2.39)	10.81 (2.06)	12.69 (2.33)
Hope	26.46 (10.99)	21.40 (11.89)	31.24 (7.39)
Agency	13.25 (5.81)	10.72 (6.30)	15.64 (4.07)
Pathway	13.21 (5.61)	10.67 (6.08)	15.59 (3.81)

The Statistical analyzes related to structural modeling were conducted using AMOS (version 16) software. According to the proposed model, academic performance was included as an endogenous variable, school connectedness and academic self-efficacy were considered as exogenous variables, and hope was a mediator. In this research, some of the main assumptions of the structural equation modeling method, including missing data, outlier data, multivariate normality, and multicollinearity, were checked. The results confirmed that all the assumptions were met.

To assess the model fit, the structural equation modeling analysis and maximum likelihood estimations were performed in AMOS (version 16) software, and the results showed that the model was well-fitted. Accordingly, the following values were obtained: RMSEA (0.031), CFI (0.99), GFI (0.99), AGFI (0.97), NFI (0.98), IFI (0.99), TLI (0.99), and χ²/df (1.46). The values demonstrated the acceptable fit of the observed data. Furthermore, the model variables accounted for 55% of the variance in academic performance. The analysis results of the model are presented in Figure 1. The high values of the model fit are probably due to the deletion of multivariate outliers. As mentioned in the method section, Ten (8 males and 2 females) cases were removed due to being characterized as a multivariate outlier using the “Mahalanobis distance” procedure.

Figure 1.

Model of hope as a mediator in the relationship between school connectedness and academic self-efficacy with academic performance.

The direct relationships between the variables in the proposed model showed that all path coefficients were significant. The parameters of these direct relationships are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Parameters of the direct effects of variables.

Predictor	Mediator	Outcome	Beta	B	SE	C.R	p.
School connectedness	Hope	–	0.27	0.87	0.16	5.34	0.001
Self-efficacy	Hope	–	0.51	0.58	0.05	11.25	0.001
–	Hope	Performance	0.28	0.15	0.02	5.82	0.001
School connectedness	–	Performance	0.42	0.72	0.08	8.43	0.001
Self-efficacy	–	Performance	0.17	0.10	0.03	3.58	0.001

Before performing the mediation analysis, some assumptions must be considered. The first assumption is about the relationship between independent variables and a dependent variable that must be significant (Path c). In the present study, the association between academic performance and school connectedness and the connection within academic performance and self-efficacy were significant (p < 0.05). The second assumption refers to the significant relationship of the independent variables to the mediating variable. In this study, the relationship between school connectedness and hope and the relationship between self-efficacy and hope were also significant (p < 0.05). Finally, the third assumption refers to the significant relationship between the mediating variable and the dependent variable. In this research, the relationship between academic performance and hope was considerable as well (p <.05). Besides, the relation between school connectedness and academic performance and the relations between academic performance and self-efficacy decreased with the inclusion of hope (Path c').

The bootstrapping procedure was used to estimate the indirect effects and generated 95% confidence intervals to them. The sample bootstrap was 5000. This set of analyses aimed to detect whether hope mediated the relationship between school connectedness and academic self-efficacy (independent variables) with academic performance (dependent variable). The results of the mediation analyses indicated the indirect path coefficient between self-efficacy and academic performance through hope was significant (bootstrap coefficient = 0.14, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.21]). Also, the indirect path coefficient between school connectedness to performance through hope was statistically significant (bootstrap coefficient = 0.08, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.11]). Considering all these results, the relationships between academic performance and school connectedness and between self-efficacy and academic performance were significantly mediated by hope. Furthermore, school connectedness and academic self-efficacy explained 48% of the variance in hope.

Discussion

The findings of this study indicated a significant positive relationship between school connectedness and academic performance. This finding is in line with the findings of other studies (Ruiz et al., 2018; Sampasa-Kanyinga et al., 2019), reporting a significant positive relationship between these two variables. According to Barber and Olsen (1997), the theory of attachment is one of the theories explaining this relationship. As they argue, attachment to adult symbols in school may be an extended form of early relationships with parents as such schools provide opportunities for students to develop early positive attachments to adults or to modify weak and damaged attachments through being connected to adult models at schools. Attachment to adults at schools makes students act in line with the expectations of adults. Obviously, efforts for proper academic performance would preserve the existing attachment or increase weak attachment through meeting adults’ expectations at school.

Moreover, according to the Professional Standards of National Association of School Psychologists (NASP, 2020), it is the responsibility of the school system to provide psychological services to all parties with mutual respect. This is one of the principles of NASP, which is related to the organizational principle of the school climate. Based on the Professional Standards of NASP, making cooperative and collaborative relationships among staff members and students is among the purposes of the school. This mission is accomplished when students experience a strong school connectedness. In such an environment, conflicts are resolved constructively and professionally. This finding can be used by school psychologists and counselors, as well as teachers to have an effective interaction with students.

The findings of the present study also revealed a significant positive relationship between school connectedness and hope. This finding is consistent with the finding of You et al. (2008). Worrell and Hale (2001) also reached the same positive relationship between hope and school connectedness. One possible explanation for the relationship between school connectedness and hope might be the remarkable overlap between the components of school connectedness and hope. For example, the component ‘commitment’ is a combination of learners’ behaviors and beliefs toward school and consists of progress, planning for the future, acquiring good grades, and behaviors such as doing homework and studying (Maddox & Prinz, 2003). The behaviors and beliefs are close to agency thinking and pathway thought in the ‘hope’.

This study showed that there is a significant positive relationship between academic self-efficacy beliefs and academic performance. This finding is in a similar vein with those proposed by (Esmaeili et al., 2019; Honicke & Broadbent, 2016; Hwang et al., 2016). Bandura provided the most tangible explanation for the relationship between academic self-efficacy beliefs and academic performance. The main source of self-efficacy information is the mastery experiences as positive or negative experiences affect a person’s ability to perform a specific task. If a person did a task well, he/she would probably feel qualified enough and do well in a similar task. Obviously, learners with successful academic performance would also have higher academic self-efficacy beliefs because of having access to one of the major sources of self-efficacy information, i.e. mastery experiences.

Schunk and Dibenedetto (2016) provided a more specific explanation of the relationship between academic self-efficacy beliefs and academic performance. Individuals’ involvement in academic activities affected by personal factors (e.g. goal setting and information processing) and situational factors (e.g. teacher rewards and feedback) suggests that they are learning and doing well. Accordingly, the information about the impact of personal, situational, and motivational factors promotes self-efficacy.

The findings also showed a significant positive relationship between academic self-efficacy beliefs and hope; which is consistent with those put forth by H. Phan (2010) and Adelabu (2008). According to previous studies, hopeful individuals are more socially competent (Lopez et al., 2018). One of the possible mechanisms describing the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and hope is their common contribution to setting goals. While hope contains agency and pathway thoughts in achieving personal goals, reaching personal goals is also regarded as one of the powerful sources of self-efficacy information. From Lopez et al. (2018) perspective, hope and self-efficacy are both representations of control and efficacy beliefs. Hope agency is also a kind of efficacy belief, suggesting the idea that the goals “will be” achieved while self-efficacy focuses on the belief that goals “can be” achieved. Moreover, the hope pathway is a kind of extended control belief, suggesting that there is a variety of ways to reach a goal. In other words, individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to be successful in achieving their goals. C Richard Snyder (2002) states that the key concept of the agency and pathway components is to determine a goal and to create solutions to achieve such a goal.

In line with the findings of Adelabu (2008) and H. Phan (2010), the findings of the present work further documented a significant positive relationship between hope and academic performance. The theory of hope C Richard Snyder (2002) explains this relationship. For students to have academic achievement, they need to set goals and then develop and apply strategies to achieve their concerned goals (Cheavens et al., 2019) . Agency and pathway thinking are necessary for success in doing assignments. According to Gilman et al. (2006), adolescents with low levels of hope are more likely to use ineffective and inflexible cognitive strategies in achieving their goals. Such cognitive strategies may reduce agency thinking and thus decrease motivation in achieving academic goals. In contrast, students with higher levels of hope have more agency thoughts so that they rely on their reserved will in difficulties.

Also, there are relationships between hope and less psychological distress, low school incompatibility, and less self-blame (Gilman et al., 2006). These factors may make hopeful students engage in a more logical problem-solving process compared to the ones with lower levels of hope (Chang & Banks, 2007).

Regarding the relationship between hope and academic performance, it can be explained that hopeful students are more successful in academic performance as they feel their higher control over the environment (Chang & Banks, 2007). This finding was also supported in Snyder (1999) study as he found that hopeful students experienced less anxiety and test anxiety since they perceived a test as a challenge, not an obstacle. Moreover, students with low levels of hope use avoidant and non-confrontational thinking instead of problem-oriented thoughts (Chang & Banks, 2007; Gilman et al., 2006). Experiencing higher levels of anxiety and ineffective and inflexible cognitive strategies, students with low levels of hope receive no feedback from failure experiences and do not improve their future performance (Snyder, 1999).

Besides, hopeful students are more satisfied with their academic progress and the school environment, and this may enhance the likelihood of their staying in school (Chang & Banks, 2007). Such students enjoy communication with others (Snyder, 2002), and experience higher school connectedness (You et al., 2008). Staying in high school is associated with the whole school environment and community and is not limited to education. Therefore, the relationship between hope and social competence may indicate that hopeful students experience less academic dropouts.

Indirect relationships also suggested the significance of the indirect path coefficient between school connectedness and academic performance mediated by hope. The finding is in a similar vein with those proposed by Eisenberg et al. (2003) and Reaves et al. (2018). Shorey et al. (2003) note that positive emotions and teacher care make students design pathways to achieve life and educational goals. According to these researchers, such teachers convey hope to their students. Bryk and Schneider (2002) also argue the positive effect of trust on the performance and psychological aspects of students. Sensing the trust of the teacher can positively affect the academic performance of learners by avoiding skepticism toward learners and respecting their abilities. Further, M. Watson and Ecken (2003) mention that appreciating students’ participation, listening to them patiently, and being proud of them can enhance their trust and thereby their academic performance.

Buskist et al. (2005) note that the appreciation of learners for the accomplishment of a task may promote their positive emotions, increase their self-efficacy, and convey a message implying that they can achieve goals. This kind of information, which somehow focuses on the agency thought, would ultimately increase the hope level of students. The emergence of agency thinking, followed by pathway thoughts in students, makes students involved in activities such as planning and goal setting, leading to progress in their academic performance.

Finally, the findings showed that the indirect path coefficient of academic self-efficacy beliefs with academic performance was significant with the mediation of hope. The findings are consistent with the findings of Datu (2012) and Chan (2007). This can be explained by reciprocal determinism in Bandura (1997) theory, according to which personal, environmental, and behavioral factors affect each other in a reciprocal interaction process. In this regard, academic self-efficacy beliefs are considered as personal factors. The indirect relationship between academic self-efficacy beliefs and academic performance mediated by hope represents the interaction between personal factors and environmental and behavioral factors. In other words, academic self-efficacy beliefs may promote hope. Also, these two variables have a positive effect on academic performance.

Limitations and future research directions

Along with the results, the present study has been accompanied by limitations, and the barriers related to gathering data tools and the study sample attributions are the most important of these limitations. Despite the good psychometric properties of research tools, they are self-report questionnaires. The self-report measures maybe have various biases like social desirability bias and hence its results should be interpreted with caution. Therefore, other direct measurement methodologies are called for in future study to assess the variables of the present study. Also, the sample is limited to the Iranian first-year high school students, which can limit the generalization of the findings. Interested researchers can focus on experimental and cross-cultural longitudinal studies in future studies. In experimental studies, researchers can examine the effectiveness of some interventions such as hope training programs on mental health and academic performance. Also, by testing the present proposed model in cross-cultural longitudinal studies, they can examine the generalizability of the findings and the validity of the proposed model in various cultural and social contexts.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Hossein Zeinalipour

Author Biography

Hossein Zeinalipour is an assistant professor in Department of Educational Sciences and in Educational and Behavioral ResearchesCenter, University of Hormozgan, Bandar Abbas, Iran. His publications focused on studies in educational administration, gifted students, e-learning and school related variables.

References

Adelabu

D. H.

(2008). Future time perspective, hope, and ethnic identity among African American adolescents. Urban Education, 43(3), 347–360.

Akin‐Little

K. A.

Little

S. G.

Delligatti

(2004). A preventative model of school consultation: Incorporating perspectives from positive psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 155–162.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy and health behaviour. In A. Baum, S. Newman, J. Wienman, R. West, & C. McManus (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of psychology, health and medicine (pp. 160–162). Cambridge Northern Illinois University Press.

Barber

B. K.

Olsen

J. A.

(1997). Socialization in context: Connection, regulation, and autonomy in the family, school, and neighborhood, and with peers. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(2), 287–315.

Bernardo

A. B.

(2010). Extending hope theory: Internal and external locus of trait hope. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 944–949.

Blum

R. W.

(2005). A case for school connectedness. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 16–20.

Brown

Evans

W. P.

(2002). Extracurricular activity and ethnicity: Creating greater school connection among diverse student populations. Urban Education, 37(1), 41–58.

Brown

Evans

W. P.

(2005). Developing school connectedness among diverse youth through extracurricular programming. Prevention Researcher, 12(2), 14–17.

Bryk

Schneider

(2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell SAGE Foundation.

10.

Buskist

Benson

Sikorski

J. F.

(2005). The call to teach. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(1), 111–122.

11.

Carney

J. V.

Kim

Hazler

R. J.

Guo

(2017). Protective factors for mental health concerns in urban middle school students: The moderating effect of school connectedness. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), 2156759X1878095.

12.

Chan

D. W.

(2007). Positive and negative perfectionism among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong: Their relationships to general self-efficacy and subjective well-being. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(1), 77–102.

13.

Chang

E. C.

Banks

K. H.

(2007). The color and texture of hope: Some preliminary findings and implications for hope theory and counseling among diverse racial/ethnic groups. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(2), 94–103.

14.

Cheavens

J. S.

Heiy

J. E.

Feldman

D. B.

Benitez

Rand

K. L.

(2019). Hope, goals, and pathways: Further validating the hope scale with observer ratings. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(4), 452–462.

15.

Choi

(2005). Self‐efficacy and self‐concept as predictors of college students’ academic performance. Psychology in the Schools, 42(2), 197–205.

16.

Cohen

(2006). Social, emotional, ethical, and academic education: Creating a climate for learning, participation in democracy, and well-being. Harvard Educational Review, 76(2), 201–237.

17.

Daley

S. C.

(2019). School connectedness and mental health in college students. Miami University.

18.

Datu

J. A. D.

(2012). Be happy and believe in your capacity: Establishing link between subjective well-being and self-efficacy among Filipino adolescents. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 2(2), 113--120.

19.

Day

Hanson

Maltby

Proctor

Wood

(2010). Hope uniquely predicts objective academic achievement above intelligence, personality, and previous academic achievement. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 550–553.

20.

Deary

I. J.

Strand

Smith

Fernandes

(2007). Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence, 35(1), 13–21.

21.

DeWitz

S. J.

Woolsey

M. L.

Walsh

W. B.

(2009). College student retention: An exploration of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and purpose in life among college students. Journal of College Student Development, 50(1), 19–34.

22.

Dixson

D. D.

(2017). Hope across achievement: Examining psychometric properties of the children’s hope scale across the range of achievement. SAGE Open, 7(3), 2158244017717304.

23.

Dweck

C. S.

Master

(2009). Self-theories and motivation: Students’ beliefs about intelligence. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 137–154). Routledge.

24.

Eisenberg

M. E.

Neumark‐Sztainer

Perry

C. L.

(2003). Peer harassment, school connectedness, and academic achievement. The Journal of School Health, 73(8), 311–316.

25.

Esmaeili

Sohrabi

Mehryar

A. H.

Khayyer

(2019). A causal model of motivational beliefs with the mediating role of academic hope on academic Self-Efficacy in high school students. Iranian Evolutionary and Educational Psychology Journal, 1(3), 179–185.

26.

Gilman

Dooley

Florell

(2006). Relative levels of hope and their relationship with academic and psychological indicators among adolescents. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(2), 166–178.

27.

Govender

Naicker

S. N.

Meyer‐Weitz

Fanner

Naidoo

Penfold

W. L.

(2013). Associations between perceptions of school connectedness and adolescent health risk behaviors in South African high school learners. The Journal of School Health, 83(9), 614–622.

28.

Hanson, T. L., Austin, G., & Lee-Bayha, J. (2004). Ensuring that No Child is Left Behind. How are Student Health Risks & Resilience Related to the Academic Progress of Schools?. WestEd. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED486329

29.

Herndon

J. S.

Bembenutty

(2017). Self-regulation of learning and performance among students enrolled in a disciplinary alternative school. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 266–271.

30.

Honicke

Broadbent

(2016). The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 17, 63–84.

31.

Huebner

E. S.

Suldo

S. M.

Smith

L. C.

McKnight

C. G.

(2004). Life satisfaction in children and youth: Empirical foundations and implications for school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 81–93.

32.

Hwang

M. H.

Choi

H. C.

Lee

Culver

J. D.

Hutchison

(2016). The relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement: A 5-year panel analysis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 89–98.

33.

Kareshki

Zabihi

Hatamikiya

Shahri

F. H.

(2018). Mediating role of goal orientation in the relationship of spirituality and self-efficacy with hope in university students: A structural model. Journal of Research on Religion & Health, 4(4), 94–103.

34.

Lopez

S. J.

Pedrotti

J. T.

Snyder

C. R.

(2018). Positive psychology: The scientific and practical explorations of human strengths. SAGE Publications.

35.

Maddox

S. J.

Prinz

R. J.

(2003). School bonding in children and adolescents: Conceptualization, assessment, and associated variables. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6(1), 31–49.

36.

Marques

S. C.

Gallagher

M. W.

Lopez

S. J.

(2017). Hope-and academic-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. School Mental Health, 9(3), 250–262.

37.

Midgley

Maehr

M. L.

Hruda

L. Z.

Anderman

Freeman

K. E.

Urdan

(2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. University of Michigan.

38.

Mills

Belnap

R. K.

(2017). Beliefs, motivation, and engagement: What every teacher of Arabic should know about self-efficacy. In K. Wahba, Z. A. Taha, & L. England (Eds.), Handbook for Arabic language teaching professionals in the 21st century (Vol. 2, pp. 62–76). Routledge.

39.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2020). The professional standards of the national association of school psychologists. https://www.nasponline.org/standards-and-certification

40.

Niehaus

Rudasill

K. M.

Rakes

C. R.

(2012). A longitudinal study of school connectedness and academic outcomes across sixth grade. Journal of School Psychology, 50(4), 443–460.

41.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Hardy

S. A.

Christensen

K. J.

(2011). Adolescent hope as a mediator between parent-child connectedness and adolescent outcomes. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(6), 853–879.

42.

Pate

C. M.

Maras

M. A.

Whitney

S. D.

Bradshaw

C. P.

(2017). Exploring psychosocial mechanisms and interactions: Links between adolescent emotional distress, school connectedness, and educational achievement. School Mental Health, 9(1), 28–43.

43.

Phan

(2010). Examination of time perspective, hope, self-efficacy, and ethnic identity: A structural equation model [Paper presentation]. AARE 2009 Conference Proceedings (Paper Code: PHA09967). Australian Association for Research in Education.

44.

Phan

H. P.

(2013). Examination of self-efficacy and hope: A developmental approach using latent growth modeling. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 93–104.

45.

Reaves

McMahon

S. D.

Duffy

S. N.

Ruiz

(2018). The test of time: A meta-analytic review of the relation between school climate and problem behavior. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 39, 100–108.

46.

Ruiz

L. D.

McMahon

S. D.

Jason

L. A.

(2018). The role of neighborhood context and school climate in school‐level academic achievement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 61(3–4), 296–309.

47.

Sampasa-Kanyinga

Chaput

J.-P.

Hamilton

H. A.

(2019). Social media use, school connectedness, and academic performance among adolescents. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 40(2), 189–211.

48.

Schunk

D. H.

Dibenedetto

M. K.

(2016). Self-efficacy theory in education. Handbook of Motivation at School, 2, 34–54.

49.

Schunk

D. H.

Usher

E. L.

(2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, 11.

50.

Seligman

M. E.

Csikszentmihalyi

(2014). Positive psychology: An introduction. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 279–298). Springer.

51.

Shorey

H. S.

Snyder

Yang

Lewin

M. R.

(2003). The role of hope as a mediator in recollected parenting, adult attachment, and mental health. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22(6), 685–715.

52.

Snyder

Lopez

S. J.

(2002). The future of positive psychology. Handbook of Positive Psychology, 751–767.

53.

Snyder

C. R.

(1995). Conceptualizing, measuring, and nurturing hope. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73(3), 355–360.

54.

Snyder

C. R.

(1999). Hope, goal-blocking thoughts, and test-related anxieties. Psychological Reports, 84(1), 206–208.

55.

Snyder

C. R.

(2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 249–275.

56.

Snyder

C. R.

Hoza

Pelham

W. E.

Rapoff

Ware

Danovsky

Highberger

Rubinstein

Stahl

K. J.

(1997). The development and validation of the children’s hope scale. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 22(3), 399–421.

57.

Spier

Cai

Kendziora

Osher

(2007). School climate and connectedness and student achievement. Association of Alaska School Boards.

58.

Spier

Cai

Osher

(2007). School climate and connectedness and student achievement in the Anchorage School District [Unpublished report]. American Institutes for Research.

59.

Stevens

J. P.

(2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Routledge.

60.

Usán

Salavera

Teruel

(2019). School motivation, goal orientation and academic performance in secondary education students. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 12, 877–887.

61.

Wang

M.-T.

Holcombe

(2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 633–662.

62.

Waters

Cross

Shaw

(2010). Does the nature of schools matter? An exploration of selected school ecology factors on adolescent perceptions of school connectedness. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 381–402.

63.

Watson

J. C.

(2017). Examining the relationship between self-esteem, mattering, school connectedness, and wellness among middle school students. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), 1096–2409.

64.

Watson

Ecken

(2003). Learning to trust: Transforming difficult elementary classrooms through developmental discipline. ERIC.

65.

Worrell

F. C.

Hale

R. L.

(2001). The relationship of hope in the future and perceived school climate to school completion. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(4), 370–388.

66.

You

Furlong

M. J.

Felix

Sharkey

J. D.

Tanigawa

Green

J. G.

(2008). Relations among school connectedness, hope, life satisfaction, and bully victimization. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 446–460.

67.

Zimmerman

B. J.

Schunk

D. H.

DiBenedetto

M. K.

(2017). The role of self-efficacy and related beliefs in self-regulation of learning and performance. Handbook of Competence and Motivation: Theory and Application, 313-333.