


































9-Manuscript-221-4-11-20200131


Jordan et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 1, Issue 1, 2020 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Samantha Jordan, Graduate Student, The University of Tennessee, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1192-1967  
2. Christopher T. Stripling, Associate Professor & Interim Department Head, The University of Tennessee, 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5045-3492 
3. Christopher Boyer, Associate Professor, The University of Tennessee, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1393-8589 
4. Carrie A Stephens, Professor, The University of Tennessee, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5592-2377 
5. Nathan W. Conner, Associate Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0063-4110 

75 

Academic-Related Perceptions, Beliefs, and Strategies of 
Undergraduate Agricultural Students 

 
S. Jordan1, C. T. Stripling2, C. Boyer3, C. A. Stephens4, N W. Conner5 

 
 

 

Abstract 
Students’ academic-related perceptions, beliefs, and strategies are fundamental elements that 
influence teaching and learning within colleges of agriculture. This study investigated students’ 
academic efficacy, academic self-handicapping, and skepticism about the relevance of school for 
future success at the University of Tennessee’s Herbert College of Agriculture. The students were 
academically efficacious, rarely self-handicapped, and did not doubt the relevance of their degree. In 
addition, a low negative association was found between academic efficacy and self-handicapping, a 
negligible relationship was found between academic efficacy and skepticism about the relevance of 
school for future success, and a moderate relationship was found between academic self-
handicapping and skepticism about the relevance of school for future success. Therefore, instructors 
are encouraged to move past traditional lecture-based instruction and challenge their students at 
higher cognitive levels, which will allow students to realistically explore the complexities of 
agriculture. Furthermore, academic self-handicapping may be an indicator of lower academic 
efficacy and/or skepticism about the relevance of a student’s degree. Future research should further 
explore these relationships 
 
Keywords 
academic efficacy; self-handicapping; skepticism; learning environment; social cognitive theory 



Jordan et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/ 10.37433/aad.v1i1.17 76 

Introduction and Problem Statement 

Rapid change in the world has unleashed extraordinary challenges and opportunities creating a 
sense of urgency concerning the fields of agricultural sciences and natural resources (National 
Research Council, NRC, 2009). Furthermore, sustaining the global enterprise that supports 
production of agricultural products has generated a requirement for agriculture graduates to be 
able to work in an evolving workplace (NRC, 2009). Accordingly, university academic programs 
need to be revived and restructured to sustain the continuous revolving door of expectations 
that accompany evolving times (NRC, 2009) and the shortage of agricultural baccalaureate 
graduates (Goecker, Smith, Fernandez, Ali, & Goetz, 2015). Graduates with expertise in the 
agricultural sciences are crucial to the Unites States’ ability to address national and global 
priorities (Goecker, et al., 2015), and addressing both societal and industry challenges will 
require a better understanding of the complexities of agriculture teaching and learning (NRC, 
2009; Stripling & Ricketts, 2016), including variables related to the educator, learner, and the 
cultural, social, and physical learning environment (National Academies of Science, 2018). 
According to the National Academies of Science (2018), effective instruction depends on an 
understanding of this complex interplay among educator, learner, and environmental variables.    
 
To that end, this study seeks to add to the limited knowledge of undergraduate agriculture 
students’ academic efficacy, academic self-handicapping, and skepticism about the relevance of 
school for future success, which are fundamental elements that impact learner engagement in 
academic tasks. The results of this study may provide valuable insight into improving 
undergraduate programs in agricultural and natural resources and be relevant to university 
educators and administrators by developing a deeper understanding of the above factors and 
how they impact the educational environment.  
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 

Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory explicates cognitive developmental changes 
experienced by people during a lifetime and provides a foundation for social learning. 
According to Bandura (1997), human functioning occurs “within an interdependent causal 
structure involving triadic reciprocal causation” (p. 6), in which the environment, behavior, and 
internal personal factors influence one another bidirectionally. The determinates can unequally 
interact and influence one another over time, and the influences and reciprocal effects may not 
occur simultaneously, suggesting each person maintains the ability to both shape and redirect 
their own experiences (Bandura, 1986; Bandura, 1997). For this study, the behaviors of interest 
are academic performance and self-handicapping. The personal factors under investigation are 
academic self-efficacy and skepticism about the relevance of school for future success. The 
environment in which these behaviors and personal factors are observed is the Herbert College 
of Agriculture.  
 
Behavior: Academic Performance and Self-Handicapping 
Multiple facets affect academic performance including quality of academic feedback or lack 
thereof (Bandiera, Larcinese, & Rasul, 2015; Stinebrickner & Stinebrickner, 2013); prior 



Jordan et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/ 10.37433/aad.v1i1.17 77 

learning, life experiences, and ongoing performance (Martin, Wilson, Liem & Ginns, 2013); 
psychological needs (Osterman, 2000); a learner’s cultural, social, cognitive, and biological 
context and interest, motivation and ability to regulate learning; educator’s knowledge of 
learner development and choice of pedagogical strategies and assessments; the social and 
physical learning environment (National Academy of Sciences, 2018); and so forth.  
 
Self-handicapping involves creating impediments to inhibit or explain performance (Berglas & 
Jones, 1978; Gadbois & Sturgeon, 2011; Zuckerman, Kieffer, & Knee 1998). Academic self-
handicapping is an action or choice (e.g., procrastination, overcommitting, consuming 
drugs/alcohol before an exam, etc.) that improves an opportunity to externalize one’s failure, 
and yet still internalize success (Berglas & Jones, 1978). Chronic self-handicapping may 
negatively affect academic outcomes and accomplishments (Schwinger, Wirthwein, Lemmer, & 
Steinmayr, 2014) and over time self-efficacy (Arazzini & De George-Walker, 2014).  
 
Personal Factors: Academic Self-Efficacy and Relevance of School  
Academic self-efficacy is a student’s belief in their own ability to complete an academic skill or 
task, and this belief influences effort, persistence, use of metacognitive and self-regulatory 
strategies, and academic achievement (Pintrich & Zusho, 2007). Also, academic self-efficacy 
positively influences socio-cognitive processes and is a robust predictor of undergraduate 
academic performance (Putwain, Sander & Larkin, 2013). Self-efficacy can be influenced 
through mastery and vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion that one possesses or does not 
possess a capability, and physiological and affective states (Bandura, 1997).   
 
In regards to skepticism about the relevance of school for future success, individuals with a 
future time perspective tend to place greater emphasis on success “via goal-directed behavior, 
giving greater attention to environmental cues, and engaging in a greater number of activities 
to achieve these goals” (Murrel & Mingone, 1994, p. 4). However, Humphreys and Davenport 
(2005) found that students perceived specific requirements of the college curriculum derailed 
their self-development and created a distraction from major coursework. Perceptions impact 
college students’ prescribed value and relevance of coursework to their career or life (Pintrich 
& Zusho, 2007). Furthermore, students are more apt to engage in learning when they value the 
learning experience (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991).  
 
Environment: Herbert College of Agriculture at the University of Tennessee 
The Herbert College of Agriculture prepares students for careers in agricultural, environmental, 
life, and social sciences and seeks to enhance educational efforts in order to sustain economic 
strength, food security, and health; in addition to safeguarding and improving our natural 
environment (Herbert College of Agriculture, 2013). The Herbert College of Agriculture is 
operating in an era in which colleges of agriculture have been “challenged to transform their 
role in higher education and their relationship to the evolving global food and agricultural 
enterprise” (NRC, 2009, p. 1). 
 
 



Jordan et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/ 10.37433/aad.v1i1.17 78 

Purpose 

The purpose of this study was to investigate undergraduate agricultural students’ academic-
related perceptions, beliefs, and strategies. The following objectives framed this study: 
1. Describe the academic efficacy of undergraduate students in the Herbert College of 

Agriculture at the University of Tennessee.  
2. Describe the academic self-handicapping of undergraduate students in the Herbert College 

of Agriculture at the University of Tennessee.  
3. Describe the skepticism about the relevance of school for future success of undergraduate 

students in the Herbert College of Agriculture at the University of Tennessee.  
4. Describe the relationship between academic efficacy, academic self-handicapping, and 

skepticism about the relevance of school for future success.   
 

Methods 

The research design was descriptive survey research, and the target population was 
undergraduate students in the Herbert College of Agriculture (N = 1,286) at the University of 
Tennessee. The sample was a convenience sample of 303 students or 24% of the target 
population and consisted of 88 males and 215 females. The average age of the sample was 21.6 
years old (SD = 4.73) with a minimum and maximum of 18 and 49 years old, respectively. The 
class level of the sample was 20% freshman, 18% sophomores, 28% juniors and 34% seniors. 
The mean grade point average was 3.3 (SD = .68) on a four-point scale. Additionally, the sample 
was compared to the known demographic variables of ethnicity, class level, and gender and 
was found to be representative based on ethnicity and class level. However, the sample was 
skewed towards females, and was weighted based on the population parameter to create a 
representative sample.       
 
Data were collected using a researcher-developed questionnaire that consisted of the 
following: six demographic questions and Midgley et al.’s (2000) five item Academic Efficacy 
Scale, six item Academic Self-Handicapping Strategies Scale, and the six item Skepticism About 
the Relevance of School for Future Success Scale. Based on six cognitive interviews, changes 
were made to improve the clarity of the questionnaire’s directions, and minor wording changes 
to the academic efficacy and self-handicapping scales to fit the context of the study. For 
example, I'm certain I can master the skills taught in class this year was changed to I'm certain I 
can master the skills taught in my classes this year, and Even if I do well in school, it will not help 
me have the kind of life I want when I grow up was changed to Even if I do well in school, it will 
not help me have the kind of career I want when I graduate. Midgley et al. reported Cronbach’s 
alpha coefficients for academic efficacy as .78, .84 for the academic self-handicapping 
strategies, and .83 for skepticism about the relevance of school for future success, and the 
post-hoc reliabilities for each construct were 0.91, 0.87, and 0.88, respectively. The scales used 
a rating scale of 1 = not at all true, 3 = somewhat true, 5 = very true.   
 
Data were collected using the online Qualtrics Survey software. The questionnaire was sent to 
the undergraduate students using their university email accounts, and Dillman, Smyth, and 



Jordan et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/ 10.37433/aad.v1i1.17 79 

Christian’s (2014) procedures for implementing web surveys guided the multiple contacts 
made. Four emails were sent through the Qualtrics Survey software approximately one week 
apart to all Herbert College of Agriculture students. The first email was sent to inform the entire 
population of the study. The second email contained the link to the survey and the online 
informed consent. The third and fourth emails were sent as a reminder of the opportunity to 
participate in the study and both contained the link to the survey.  
 
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic information. Summated means 
were calculated for each of the three aforementioned scales. Frequencies and percentages 
were also calculated for each item of the scales, and Pearson correlations were used to 
determine the associations between academic efficacy, academic self-handicapping, and 
skepticism about the relevance of school for future success. Davis’ (1971) terminology was used 
to indicate the magnitude of the correlations. Correlations from .01 to .09 are negligible, .10 to 
.29 are low, .30 to .49 are moderate, .50 to .69 are substantial, .70 to .99 are very strong, and a 
correlation of 1.00 is perfect.  
 
The findings of the study may not be generalizable beyond the target population of 
undergraduate students in Herbert College of Agriculture at the University of Tennessee. 
Therefore, readers should use caution when generalizing the results of this study unless data 
confirms the target population of this study is representative of other populations of 
undergraduate agricultural students.  

 

Findings 

Objective 1: Describe the Academic Efficacy of Undergraduate Students in the 
Herbert College of Agriculture at the University of Tennessee.  
A majority agreement was reached on all academic efficacy items (Table 1). The summated 
mean for academic efficacy was 4.16 (SD = 0.04), which indicates the undergraduate students 
are academically efficacious.  
 
Table 1 
 
Summary of Student Responses on the Academic Efficacy Items 
 1 2 3 4 5 
Items % % % % % 
Even if the classwork is hard, I can learn it. 1.3 3.4 12.7 36.7 46.0 
I can do almost all of the work in my classes if I don’t 

give up.  
0.7 1.8 12.1 35.3 50.1 

I’m certain I can figure out how to do the most difficult 
classwork. 

1.1 5.5 21.8 37.6 34.1 

I can do even the hardest work in my classes if I try. 0.7 4.0 18.1 38.0 39.1 
I'm certain I can master the skills taught in my classes 

this year.  
1.3 2.6 19.5 35.4 41.2 

Note. 1 = not at all true, 3 = somewhat true, 5 = very true. 



Jordan et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/ 10.37433/aad.v1i1.17 80 

Objective 2: Describe the Academic Self-handicapping of Undergraduate 
Students in the Herbert College of Agriculture at the University of Tennessee.  
A majority of undergraduate students strongly disagreed with five of the six academic self-
handicapping items and disagreed with the remaining self-handicapping item (Table 2). The 
summated mean for academic self-handicapping was 1.66 (SD = 0.04), which indicates the 
undergraduate students do not or rarely self-handicap.  
 
Table 2 
 
Summary of Student Responses on Academic Self-Handicapping Items 
 1 2 3 4 5 
Items % % % % % 
Some students purposely get involved in lots of activities. 

Then if they don’t do well on their classwork, they can say 
it is because they were involved with other things. How 
true is this of you? 

58.3 22.6 15.3 3.5 0.3 

Some students purposely don’t try hard in class. Then if they 
don’t do well, they can say it is because they don’t try. 
How true is this of you? 

72.5 11.8 11.1 2.8 1.7 

Some students fool around the night before a test. Then if 
they don’t do well they can say that is the reason. How 
true is this of you? 

61.0 21.0 12.0 3.8 2.3 

Some students put off doing their classwork until the last 
minute. Then if they don’t do well on their classwork, they 
can say that this is the reason. How true is this of you? 

40.0 30.0 20.5 8.1 1.4 

Some students let their friends keep them from paying 
attention in class or from doing their homework. Then if 
they don’t do well they can say their friends kept them 
from working. How true is this of you? 

65.4 21.6 9.4 2.9 0.7 

Some students look for reasons to keep them from studying 
(not feeling well, having to help their parents, taking care 
of a brother or sister, etc.). Then if they don’t do well on 
their classwork, they can say this is the reason. How true 
is this of you? 

57.4 25.0 13.6 3.3 0.7 

Note. 1 = not at all true, 3 = somewhat true, 5 = very true. 
 
Objective 3: Describe the Skepticism About the Relevance of School for Future 
Success of Undergraduate Students in the Herbert College of Agriculture at the 
University of Tennessee.  
A majority of undergraduate students strongly disagreed with four of the six skepticism about 
the relevance of school for future success items and disagreed with one skepticism item. The 
remaining item, getting good grades in school won’t guarantee that I will get a good job when I 
graduate, had mixed responses (Table 3). The summated mean for skepticism about the 



Jordan et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/ 10.37433/aad.v1i1.17 81 

relevance of school for future success was 2.00 (SD = 0.04), which indicates the undergraduate 
students were not skeptical about the relevance of their degree from the Herbert College of 
Agriculture.  
  
Table 3 
 
Summary of Student Responses on the Skepticism About the Relevance of School for Future 
Success Items 
 1 2 3 4 5 
Items % % % % % 
Even if I am successful in school, it won’t help me fulfill 

my dreams. 
57.4 21.0 14.1   5.1   2.5 

My chances of succeeding in a career don’t depend on 
doing well in school. 

55.3 20.5 17.0   4.2   3.0 

Doing well in school doesn’t improve my chances of 
having a good career when I graduate. 

59.5 22.3 10.3   6.9   1.0 

Doing well in school won’t help me have a satisfying 
career when I grow up. 

63.6 21.9   9.3    2.4   1.3 

Getting good grades in school won’t guarantee that I 
will get a good job when I graduate. 

  8.8 12.5 34.7 21.8 22.2 

Even if I do well in school, it will not help me have the 
kind of career I want when I graduate. 

49.6 26.6 18.0   4.5   1.4 

Note. 1 = not at all true, 3 = somewhat true, 5 = very true. 
 
Objective 4: Describe the Relationship between Academic Efficacy, Academic 
Self-handicapping, and Skepticism About the Relevance of School for Future 
Success. 
As shown in Table 4, academic efficacy was negatively related with academic self-handicapping 
and positively related to skepticism about the relevance of school for future success. Skepticism 
about the relevance of school for future success and academic self-handicapping were also 
positively related. In addition, a low negative association was found between academic efficacy 
and self-handicapping (r = -.25). A negligible relationship was found between academic efficacy 
and skepticism about the relevance of school for future success (r = .03), and a moderate 
relationship was found between academic self-handicapping and skepticism about the 
relevance of school for future success (r = .33). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Jordan et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/ 10.37433/aad.v1i1.17 82 

Table 4 
 
Correlations for Academic Efficacy, Academic Self-Handicapping, and Skepticism 
Variables 

Academic Efficacy 
Academic Self-
handicapping Skepticism 

Academic Efficacy - - - 
Academic Self-Handicapping – 0.25 - - 
Skepticism    0.03 0.33 - 

 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 

The undergraduate students in the Herbert College of Agriculture at the University of 
Tennessee are academically efficacious and do not or rarely academically self-handicap. Being 
academically efficacious and not practicing academic self-handicapping should exert a positive 
influence on the undergraduate students’ academic behaviors and internal personal factors and 
the environment of the Herbert College of Agriculture (Bandura, 1986, 1997). This is 
encouraging, since academic efficacy mediates achievement gains (Putwain et al., 2013; 
Schunk, 2012), and those who academically self-handicap are seeking ways to accept failure 
without reducing their self-esteem or conception of ability (McCrea, 2008). Having students 
that are efficacious and that do not or rarely self-handicap may have positively impacted the 
students’ grade point averages as their mean grade point average was 3.3 on a four-point scale. 
Furthermore, since behavior, personal factors, and the environment impact each other 
bidirectionally (Bandura, 1986, 1997), prior academic success and the success they are 
experiencing at the postsecondary level may explain why these students are efficacious and 
rarely exhibit self-handicapping behaviors. As a result, instructors in the Herbert College of 
Agriculture should challenge their students to move beyond learning factual information to 
developing higher-order thinking skills that are needed to solve the extraordinary challenges 
and opportunities our society and agriculture face today. With that in mind, future research in 
colleges of agriculture should determine the most effective means of challenging academically 
efficacious students while improving academic efficacy for those who display low academic 
efficacy. Furthermore, future research should determine if other populations of undergraduate 
agriculture students exhibit academic self-handicapping, and if they do, approaches or 
interventions should be investigated to determine those most effective at reducing the 
behavior.  
 
Undergraduate students, in the Herbert College of Agriculture, were non-skeptical about the 
relevance of their schooling at the University of Tennessee for future success. Not being 
skeptical about the relevance of their degree program should also exert a positive influence on 
the undergraduate students’ academic behaviors and internal personal factors and the 
environment of the Herbert College of Agriculture (Bandura, 1986, 1997). To that end, being 
future oriented directly enhances student motivation and academic performance (Eccles & 
Wigfield, 1995). The fact that the students in the Herbert College of Agriculture are not 
skeptical about the relevance of their schooling may be the result of quality instruction within 



Jordan et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/ 10.37433/aad.v1i1.17 83 

the college and the nationwide surplus of job opportunities and shortage of graduates in 
agriculture, food, and natural resources (National Research Council, 2009).  
 
In regards to the relationship between variables under investigation in this study, the 
associations between academic efficacy and self-handicapping suggest students who 
academically self-handicap have a lower sense of academic efficacy, and students handicap at a 
higher rate when they are skeptical about the relevance of their degree. These associations 
align with Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, and instructors should be knowledgeable 
that handicapping may be an indicator of lower academic efficacy and/or skepticism about the 
relevance of a student’s degree. Lower academic efficacy may discourage students from 
engaging in challenging academic tasks (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 2012), and self-handicapping is 
often the result of one desiring to externalize failure (Berglas & Jones, 1978). Therefore, if 
instructors recognize low academic efficacy and/or self-handicapping behaviors in their 
students, they may consider providing additional instructional support and ensure students are 
receiving high quality feedback as the aforementioned behaviors may be a result of uncertainty 
in the students’ perception of their ability (Zuckerman & Tsai, 2005). Future research should 
further investigate and seek to determine explanatory factors that influence undergraduate 
agriculture students’ academic performance, motivation, learning strategies use, and 
engagement in academic task.   
 
In conclusion, as we seek to prepare undergraduate agriculture students for the extraordinary 
challenges and opportunities before them, college instructors should be knowledgeable of their 
students’ academic-related perceptions, beliefs, and strategies and use this knowledge to 
inform their instructional practices. Additionally, the information presented here can be used to 
spur dialogue and research to improve teaching and learning in colleges of agriculture.   
 

References 

Arazzini S. M., & De George-Walker, L. (2014). Self-handicapping, perfectionism, locus of control 
and self-efficacy: A path model. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 160-
164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.038 

 
Bandiera, O., Larcinese, V., & Rasul, I. (2015). Blissful ignorance? A natural experiment on the 

effect of feedback on students' performance. Labour Economics, 34, 13-
25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2015.02.002 
 

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. 
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.   

 
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Co.  
 
Berglas, S., & Jones, E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to 

noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 405-
417.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.405 



Jordan et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/ 10.37433/aad.v1i1.17 84 

 
Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 
 
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The 

self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3- 4), 325-346. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137 

 
Dillman, D., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode 

surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Boulevard, IN: Wiley 
 
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents' 

achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality & Social Psychology 
Bulletin, 21(3), 215. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167295213003 

 
Gadbois, S. A., & Sturgeon, R. D. (2011). Academic self-handicapping: Relationships with the 

learning specific and general self-perceptions and academic performance over time. 
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 207-222. 
https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910X522186  

 
Goecker, A. D., Smith, E., Marcos Fernandez, J., Ali, R., & Goetz, R. (2015). Employment 

opportunities for college graduates in food, agriculture, renewable natural resources, 
and the environment: United States 2015 - 2020. Retrieved from 
https://www.purdue.edu/usda/employment/  

  
Herbert College of Agriculture. (2013). CASNR 2020: A Strategic Plan for the College of 

Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Retrieved from 
https://ag.tennessee.edu/herbert/Documents/CASNR%202020%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf  

 
Humphreys, D., & Davenport, A. (2005). What really matters in college: How students view and 

value liberal education. Liberal Education and Americas Promise, 91(3), 36-43. Retrieved 
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ720383.pdf 

  
Martin, A. J., Wilson, R., Liem, A. D., & Ginns, P. (2013). Academic momentum at 

university/college: Exploring the roles of prior learning, life experience, and ongoing 
performance in academic achievement across time. Journal of Higher Education, 84(5), 
640-674. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2013.11777304 

 
McCrea, S. M. (2008). Self-handicapping, excuse making, counterfactual thinking: Consequences 

for self-esteem and future motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 
95(2), 174-192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.274 

 
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M., Urdan, T., Anderman, L., . . . Nelson, J. 

(2000). Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales. 1-74.  
 



Jordan et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/ 10.37433/aad.v1i1.17 85 

Murrel, A., & Mingone, M. (1994). Correlates of temporal perspective. Perceptual and Motor 
Skills, 78, 1331-1334. https://doi.org/10.2466%2Fpms.1994.78.3c.1331 

 
National Academies of Sciences. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. 

Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24783  
 
National Research Council. (2009). Transforming Agricultural Education for a Changing 

World. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 
 
Osterman, K. 2000. Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of 

Educational Research, 70(3), 323-367. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543070003323 
 
Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2007). Student motivation and self-regulated learning in the college 

classroom. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching learning in 
higher education (pp. 731- 810). Springer, Netherlands.  

 
Putwain, D., Sander, P., & Larkin, D. (2013). Academic self-efficacy in study-related skills and 

behaviors: Relations with learning-related emotions and academic success. British 
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 633-650. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8279.2012.02084.x 

 
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson. 
 
Schwinger, M., Wirthwein, L., Lemmer, G., & Steinmayr, R. (2014). Academic Self-Handicapping 

and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 744-761. 
 
Stinebrickner, R., & Stinebrickner, T. (2014). Academic Performance and College Dropout: Using 

Longitudinal Expectations Data to Estimate a Learning Model. Journal of Labor 
Economics, 32(3), 601-644. https://doi.org/10.1086/675308 

 
Stripling, C. T., & Ricketts, J. C. (2016). Research priority 3: Sufficient scientific and professional 

workforce that addresses the challenges of the 21st century. In T. G. Roberts, A. Harder, 
& M. T. Brashears (Eds). American Association for Agricultural Education national 
research agenda: 2016-2020 (pp. 29-35). Gainesville, FL: Department of Agricultural 
Education and Communication. 

  
Zuckerman, M., Kieffer, S., & Knee, C. (1998). Consequences of self-handicapping: Effects on 

coping, academic performance, and adjustment. Journal of Personality And Social 
Psychology, 74(6), 1619-1628.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1619  

 
Zuckerman, M., & Tsai, F. F. (2005). Costs of self-handicapping. Journal of Personality, 73, 411–

442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00314.x 
 
© 2020 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 


