Abstract

The present research explored the self-efficacy beliefs between the graduates from the madrassas and public sector institutes. The variable of the interest was self-efficacy beliefs. The study was quantitative in nature. Simple random sampling was used as a sampling technique.The population was selected from province of Punjab.Three divisions (Faisalabad, Multan, and Lahore) were selected randomly from different institutions. Furthermore; 24 institutions were selected from province on the origin of area. Two hundred and forty sample graduates were chosen from the selected population. Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (SEQ) was used as instrument in this study. SEQ was used to evaluate graduates’ self-efficacy beliefs. Descrprtive and inferential statistics were applied to draw the results. The findings of the research showed that public sector graduates had higher self-efficacy as compared to Madrassa graduates moreover; graduates of urban areas had higher self-efficacy beliefs as compared to graduates of under-developed areas.

Key Words

Self-Efficacy, Graduates, Madrassas, Public Sector, Institutes.

Introduction

According to Zimmerman (2000) 

“Teachers have identified that students’ trust regarding their educational abilities play a vital part in their motivation to accomplish other than self-formations concerning educational achievement firstly confirmed complex to evaluate in organized mode. Preliminary attempts to learn students’ own ideas provided insignificant notice to the part of environmental controls like particular uniqueness of achievement domains of educational working”.

Yusuf (2011) described that self-efficacy is an educational insight between the crucial problems which have been elevated in the academic survey. Self-efficacy investigators have emphasized completely in the educational fields of language arts, science & writing, paying little concentration to math, mostly at educational levels in which these types of self-beliefs initiate to get source.

A number of researches explored the linkage between efficacy and psychological concepts like self-ideas stress and perceived its usefulness which rooted basically in the students’ incredible challenge and techniques. Commonly, the literature analysis shows two extensive fields which much emphasized on academic search. First of all, few researchers investigated accessible correlation in self-efficacy belief and adult students. Self-esteem to join particular key job options in science students and math students. Usually, it was analyzed that self-belief is correlated with self-efficacy. The studies exhibited that there was strong association between self-efficacy in college students which examined their option related to math subjects and controls their key importance more than their prior performance or concluding beliefs in math (Pajares & Miller, 1995; Brown, Lent & Larkin, 1989; Bores-Rangelet, Church, Szendre & Reeves, 1990). 

Generally, it has been recorded that the concept of self-efficacy in the shape of psychological framework, the consequences of several things on student’s educational achievements and performance come down while the overall impact of self-efficacy beliefs enhanced (Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares & Kranzler 1994, 1995a; Pajares & Miller, 1995; Wood & Bandura, 1989; Young-Ju, Mimi & Ha-Jeen, 2000) and ordinary success of someone is examined by Staikovic and Luthans (1998) during their research on 114 experimental studies and found a positive correlation exist in self-esteem, self-efficacy believe and educational achievement. Perceptible self-esteem and self-efficacy is normally described because as the ability and competency of students to resolve a problems in good manner their learning behavior at selected level (1997) and how self-efficacy manage the students (Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 2001; Yang & Cheng, 2009) self-esteem or self-efficacy determine learners’ endeavor and determination for tasks and success (Schunk, 2001). In educational success Moulton, Brown and Lent (1991) a number of studies have reported the optimistic relationship among students’ self-efficacy beliefs and self- learning and educational success. It has been observed that students who are able to start their educational activities with self-efficacy and develop appropriate self-learning techniques had to do extra struggle for their success (Denissen, Zarrete & Eccles, 2007; Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser & Kean, 2006; Zimmerman, Bandura & Martinez-Pons, 1992).

The studies indicated that achieving good results for non motivational learners was not actually present in participation in learning process so, they could be subjected to low knowledge and learning achievements (Zimmerman, 1986). A number of experimental researches examined and disclosed that self-efficacy has positive effects on students’ educational success (Bandura, 1997; Eastin & LaRose, 2000; Khorrami-Arani, 2001; Chemens, Hu, & Garcia, 2001; Tamara & Koufteros, 2002; Ismail, Rasdi & Wahat, 2005).

According to Good (1973), science subjects are parts of experts with certain facilities. The teacher transmits knowledge to students in science education. He has to establish a relationship among learner, science, and society, Simpson and his co-mates (1994) indicated that in the field of science education, science and social science brought up students with mixed norms.  So, progress may occur in their major aspects of education. The aim of education is to enhance cognition, emotion and psychological trait. The cognitive domain of educational objectives makes connection between knowledge of facts and construct and the ability to solve the problems. The psycho-behavioral ability develops physical growth and motor activities while the affective domain is concerned with emotions, interests’ values and attitudes of the learners. According to Ormrod (2006) self-efficacy is a method that an individual is able to do in a definite way of getting sure aims. According to Bandura (1997), “the beliefs that individual has the abilities to apply the courses of acts which needed managing future situations” (p. 3). Woolfolk (2004) has defined it as, “beliefs about personal ability in a particular situation” (p.368). Self-esteem and self-efficacy concepts showed how citizens think, think to stimulate and control them. 

As Woolfolk (2004) described, 

“most people assume that self-efficacy is the same as self-concept or self-esteem, but there is difference between these three. Self-efficacy is future-oriented; self-concept is more global construct that contains many perceptions about the self, including self-efficacy. Self-concept is developed as a result of external and internal comparisons. But the self-efficacy focuses on the abilities to successfully accomplish a particular task with no need for comparison. Self-esteem relates to a person’s sense of self-worth, whereas self-efficacy relates to a person’s perception of their ability to reach a goal. There is no direct relationship between self- efficacy, and self-esteem.” (pp. 368-369)

In the view of Talton and Simpson (1987) the classroom atmosphere is an important point of our educational scheme. In this condition a bunch of communications emerge among learners, teachers, peers and educational system. These communications develop a condition that influences achievement and attitudes of learners. Several types of research discussed that quality of teachers, classmates and school environment influence student cognitive and affective learning outcomes. Furthermore the studies explored the interconnections between stress and adults towards science classroom atmosphere which reflect the attitude, behaviour and achievements towards science education. Another main determinant that has effect on science achievement is self-efficacy. This determinant has produced interest in science students, counsellors and researchers. Self-efficacy has affected the learners and persons in every ground of life. Many types of research are also conducted different qualitative and quantitative studies in some other countries which point out the influences of self-efficacy on science triumph. Spence and Helmreich (1978) have reported people’s self-concept is the level to which they consider to evaluate their abstract formation of what is to be a suitable male or female. 

Getting information is a basic and indispensable element of Islamic society, since its beginning. In Pakistan, the syllabus of majority Madaris is Islamic subjects that go up to graduation level. The students doing their graduation from these religious institutions are called as Aalam, Maulvi and maulana. Along with these, here were found a lot of Quran academies which awarded different certificates in different Islamic education.As the dawn of Islam, mosques have been meant as midpoints of teaching and learning where almost education was given absolutely free of cost. As Islam prevailed with the passage of time, the Muslims set up their schools of thought who individualized themselves from mosques imparting particular facts and later on they were identified as Madrassas. Religious institutions utilized to be an elevated place of learning and a strong institution of facts, cause of motivation as well as a lighthouse all over the Muslim world.Anzar (2003), states that the origin of first Madrassah can be traced in the beginning of tenth century which was established in the area of Khurasan in Iran. 

Anzar (2003) described that madrassa education system was regarded as a significant need of the society. Education system of Madrassa plays an important role to transmit knowledge and skills to Muslim society (Menocal, 2002). According to Ali (2009), madrassa education system is very popular around the Muslim world from under-developing countries like Bangladesh Keynea and so on. Madaris as an organization meant for spiritual education, giving free residential and accommodation. Its worth cannot be ignored at all in traditional civilizations where it becomes the root of the worth outline.The syllabus of these religious institition was based on heavenly facts and logical sciences. 

The madrassas nowadays are considered and perceived by some non-religious organizations as a threat to western society consequently, madrassa produced feelings of fear. The situation became more complex after the incident of 9/11 (Bano, 2007; Mumtaz, 2004; Rashid, 2004; Rehman, 2008; Riaz, 2008). Now Pakistan government has introduced a number of reforms in madrassas and regulated them. Madrassas have been registered and initiated Science, Mathematics, Computer and English in their syllabus.




Problem Statement

The present research is designed to investigate Self-efficacy Beliefs between the Graduates from the Madrassas and Public Sector Institutes.




The Rationale of the Present Research

The key point of the current research is on the way to give a vivid picture of self-esteem and self-efficacy beliefs between the graduates from the madrassas and public sector institutes particularly to focus the factors affecting students in education. The study aimed to find the association among self-efficacy beliefs in Pakistani context. The study is significant on a number of grounds that study will clearly indicate factors of self-efficacy concepts affecting learners’ emotions. The conclusion of the research will obviously assist the curriculum planners, teachers toward handle the gap between madrassa graduates and public sector graduates regarding their self-efficacy beliefs. The research will also provide a valid and reliable instrument for assessing self-efficacy beliefs of madrassa and public sector graduates in cultural context of Pakistan. 




The Objectives of the Present Study

1) To determine the level of self-efficacy beliefs within the graduates from the madrassas and public sector institutes.

2) To explore the level of differences between self-efficacy beliefs within the graduates from the madrassas and public sector institutes.

3) To compare graduates’ self-efficacy beliefs on the basis of demographic variables.




Research Questions of the Study 

1) What was level of self-efficacy in the graduates from the madrassas and public sector institutions?

2) What was the difference between self-efficacy beliefs in the graduates from the madrassas and public institutions?

3) What was the effect of demographic variables on graduates’ self-efficacy beliefs?




Procedures and Methods

Research Design

This research study deals with quantitative data. It was a correlation study in which a cross-sectional research design obviously was used. 




Population of the Present Research

The research was conducted to expose the self-esteem and self-efficacy beliefs along with personal information form affecting the graduates of madrassas and public sector institutions. Therefore, the population was comprised of male graduates studying in madrassas and public sector institutes in the province of Punjab. The learners were studying different subjects at graduation level. 




Sample of the Research Study

There were 9 divisions of the province of Punjab, 3 divisions out of them were selected randomly and 240 male graduates from madrassas and public sector institutes were included in the sample through a convenient sampling method. It was impossible to gather information from entire population so; sample was obtained from population through purposive sampling technique.

Instrumentation

The main objectives of the study were to elaborate on self-efficacy beliefs between the graduates from the madrassas and public sector institutions; the following information was needed from the respondents of the study.

1.       Self-efficacy beliefs

2.       Demographic information i.e., institution and name of the division.

Simpson and Troost (1982) administered a feedback form to elaborate the effects on assurance and science education in young students. Edwards and Kenney (1967) have developed a five-point Likert-type scale. It represented advanced reliabilities with some items than Thurstone scales, in a short time consuming and reviewing to develop. Fishbein (1967b) has the opinion that the Likert scale is adapted to evaluate the number of the person’s behavior while the other educationist evaluates the quality and strength of skills.

In order to assess graduates’ self-efficacy believes, the researcher adopted the translated version of SEQ was with modification in cultural context of Pakistan.

In order to conduct this study, 51 questions were arranged which a different strategy is compared to the SEQ of (Muris, 2001, 2002). It was done to have a wider and comprehensive assessment of our surroundings. In this regard, it is necessary to keep in view that self-efficacy can be analyzed under three categories; Emotional, Academic, and Social. Each question has to be scored on five options range with 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = strongly Agree.The variability values of reliability alpha coefficient for subscales of SEQ were: 0.88 for Emotional, 0.85 for Academic, 0.86 for Social, and 0.88 for the Total scale.

In the present study, the SEQ was translated into Urdu version by five different verbal communication and language experts. These drafts were rechecked and compare with others. On the basis of this, a new Urdu version of scale was developed. This new scale was then checked by experts for their opinion.The translated description of SEQ into Urdu words was pilot test used in December 2016 on 15 graduates of religious education institutes and public sector institutes in district Faisalabad. They gave instructions to them to fill the questionnaire. In pilot testing, the reliability coefficient of SEQ was described by manipulative Cronbach Alpha. This Alpha value was ? =0.84. The below table indicates the mean, standard deviation, and reliability coefficient values.

Table 1. Descriptive Analysis of Self Efficacy Questionnaire (SEQ)

Mean	SD	Alpha value
44.48	11.07	0.84

The above table showed the reliability index of self-efficacy questionnaire which 0.84 Cronbach Alpha while mean and standard deviation were 44.48 and 11.07 respectively. The reliability coefficients were also measured for all subscales of SEQ which are shown below in table as:

Table 2. Descriptive of Self Efficacy Questionnaire (SEQ)

SEQ Subscales	Number of items	Alpha Value
SEQ-Emotional	17	0.78
SEQ-Academic	17	0.64
SEQ-Social	17	0.78

The above table showed the reliability index of SEQ-Emotional, SEQ-Academic, SEQ-Social statements which was 0.78, 0.64, 0.78 Cronbach Alpha respectively. The total number of statements was 17 in each variable of scale.

 

Data Collection

The data was collected from eight institutions each of three divisions of Punjab, which was further divided into eight institutions of Faisalabad division and of institutions respectively in Multan and Lahore. There were two categories of these institutions of each division. First four were religious institutions and remaining four were public sector institutions of each division.

The data was collected from three divisions out of 9 divisions of Punjab; initially, data was collected from Faisalabad division. Eighty participants were contacted from Faisalabad, Multan and Lahore division; ten graduates from each institution were requested to take part in the study. These eight institutions were further divided into two categories. The first category was religious institutions and second was public sector institutions. Religious sector institutes were further divided into four categories, named as representatives of the Barelvi, Deoband, Ahl-e-Hadith and Shia sect. In these institutions, the researcher personally visited and requested the higher authorities for permission to data collection. Furthermore, the researcher also took information with consent of the participants. The researcher told them their rights and assured them that they could leave the study at any stage. The researcher also told them that their data could not be shared with anyone. At the end of data collection, the researcher acknowledged and paid thanks to the participants and the head of the institution for their kind cooperation.

To sum up, the researcher visited the different Institutions. Two hundred and forty sets of tools were used for graduates of Madrassa and Public Sector Institutes. All the questionnaires were given to the graduates personally by the researcher.

 

Statistical Analyses

SPSS-23 was used for statistical analysis. In data analysis, there were two sections. In the first section, descriptive statistics were used while in second section, inferential statistics were used.

In descriptive statistics, Mean, Standard Deviation, Cronbach Alpha Reliability Coefficient, Frequency Distributions were calculated. In the second section, Independent Sample t-test was used for comparison.Correlation analysis was used to see the correlation. All results are discussed in the summary of the findings. 

Results

Table 3. Indicators of Self-efficacy with Mean and Standard Deviation

Tests	Emotional	Academic	Social	Overall
Mean	3.67	3.57	3.39	3.55
Std. Deviation	.494	.566	.389	.347

N=240

The table revealed that the descriptive values of the self-efficacy indicators. The topmost indicator was emotional self-efficacy with (M = 3.67 and SD = .494). The second highest indicator was academic self-efficacy with (M = 3.57 and SD = .566). The third indicator was social self-efficacy with (M = 3.39 and SD = .389). The fourth indicator was overall self-efficacy with (M = 3.55 and SD = .347).

Table 4. Independent Sample T-Test between Public and Religious Institutions on Emotional Self-efficacy (df=238)

Variable	Public (n=120)		Religious (n=120)		t	p	95% Class Interval	Values of Cohen’s d
	M	SD	M	SD				LL	UL
Emotional Self-efficacy	3.77	0.523	3.57	0.443	-3.26	0001	-0.32778	-0.8104	0.41

**P<0.01

The above analysis indicates that there is a clear difference exists in the graduates of the public sector institutes and the graduates of religious institutes on emotional self-efficacy. The above table also indicates that the graduates of the public sector institutes (M = 3.77, SD = .523) scored more on emotional subscale as compare to the graduates of the religious institutes (M = 3.57, SD = .443, t (238) = -3.26, p<0.01).

Table 5. Independent Sample T-Test between Public and Religious Institutions on Academic Self-efficacy (df=238)

Variable	Public (n=120)		Religious (n=120)		t	p	95% Class Interval	Values of Cohen’s d
	M	SD	M	SD				LL	UL
Academic Self-efficacy	3.56	0.566	3.58	0.568	0.308	0.758	-0.12172	0.16681	0.03

*P<0.05

The analysis table shows that there is no difference exists between the graduates of the public sector institutes and the graduates of the religious institutes on academic self-efficacy. The above table also indicates that the graduates of the public sector institutes (M = 3.56, SD = .566) scored less on academic sub scale as compare to the graduates of the religious institutes (M = 3.58, SD = .568, t (238) = .308, p<0.05).

Table 6. Independent Sample T-Test between Public and Religious Institutions on Social Self-efficacy (df=238)

Variable	Public (n=120)		Religious (n=120)		t	p	95% Class Interval	Values of Cohen’s d
	M	SD	M	SD				LL	UL
Social Self-efficacy	3.44	0.388	3.35	0.387	-1.72	0.086	-0.18497	0.01242	0.23

*P<0.05

The result of above table describes that there is no difference exists between the graduates of the public sector institutes and the graduates of the religious institutes on social self-efficacy. The above table also indicates that the graduates of the public sector institutes (M = 3.44, SD = .388) scored more on social self-efficacy scale as compare to the graduates of the religious institutes (M = 3.35, SD = .387, t (238) = -1.72, p<0.05).

Table 7. Independent Sample T-Test between Rural and Urban graduates on Emotional Self-efficacy (df=238)

Variable	Rural (n=168)		Urban (n=72)		t	p	95% Class Interval	Values of Cohen’s d
	M	SD	M	SD				LL	UL
Emotional Self-efficacy	3.67	0.502	3.68	0.478	-0.206	0.837	-0.15193	0.12322	0.02

 *P<0.05

The table explains that there is no major variation exists between the rural areas and urban areas on emotional self-efficacy. The above table also indicates that the graduates of the urban areas (M = 3.68, SD = .478) scored more on emotional sub scale as compare to the graduates of the rural areas (M = 3.67, SD = .502, t (238) = -.206, p<0.05).

Table 8. Independent Sample T-Test between Rural and Urban graduates on Academic Self-efficacy (df=238)

Variable	Rural (n=168)		Urban (n=72)		t	p	95% Class Interval	Values of Cohen’s d
	M	SD	M	SD				LL	UL
Academic       Self-efficacy	3.55	0.564	3.61	0.571	-0.687	0.493	-0.21214	0.10243	0.10

*P<0.05

The table explains that there is no obvious variation exists between the rural areas and urban areas on academic self-efficacy. The above table also indicates that the graduates of the urban areas (M = 3.61, SD = .571) scored more on academic sub scale as compare to the graduates of the rural areas (M = 3.55, SD = .564, t (238) = -.687, p<0.05).

Table 9. Independent Sample T-Test between area of residencein graduates on Social Self-efficacy (df=238)

Variable	Rural (n=168)		Urban (n=72)		t	p	95% Class Interval	Values of Cohen’s d
	M	SD	M	SD				LL	UL
Social       Self-efficacy	3.36	0.394	3.48	0.365	-2.27	0.024	-0.23091	-0.01652	0.31

*P<0.05

The table shows that there is no variation exists between the rural areas and urban areas on social self-efficacy. The above table also indicates that the graduates of the urban areas (M = 3.48, SD = .365) scored more on social self-efficacy scale as compare to the graduates of the rural areas (M = 3.36, SD = .394, t (238) = -2.27, p<0.05).

 

Table 10. Summary of Inter-Correlations For Sub-Scales of Self-Efficacy

Indicator	1		2	3
1-Emotional		-	.363**	.189**
2-Academic			-	.143*
3-Social				-

**P<0.01, *P<0.05

The above table explained that there is positive and a clear relation exists in emotional sub-scale with academic subscale and social subscale. The table also showed that there was positive and obvious relation existed between academic sub-scales with social sub-scale.

Findings and Conclusions          

Majority graduates disclosed that they could represent their class manage their emotions and were satisfied while answering in the class. They displayed that they could control their stress regarding difficult subjects, they were able to get rid of fear and could handle their negative thoughts occurring in their minds. Moreover, they concluded that they could express their happiness and were confused in unpleasant events. Furthermore, they exposed that they did not become nervous speaking in class. The respondents expressed that they did not feel confident while talking to their teachers whereas they could control their emotions. The participants of the public sector and madrassa graduates were of the view that they could hide their expressions while they made conversations, they were happy in participating co-curricular activities, they did not leave the classroom even if teacher snub them and they did not become violent with their class fellows.

Majority of the respondents showed that they were able to make conversation meaningful, could express their likes about studies and were capable to focus their attention on studies. Majority of them displayed that they could easily understand and get through the subject of English/Arabic. Moreover, they elaborated that they were interested in English/Arabic while they took much time to prepare English/Arabic. Furthermore, they showed that they were better at listening, speaking, reading, and writing and could get through English/Arabic easily. Most of them disclosed that their teachers were helpful in their studies. The respondents explained that they took less time to prepare their English/Arabic test and could easily get through their objective type tests.

The participants of the study disclosed that they cooperated and avoid clashes with their class fellows; they could develop relations with other students and could easily portrait their likes to their classmates. The respondents exposed that they were not convenient in talking to strangers, could not develop friendship with new class fellows and could not expose themselves to their friends. Moreover, the students exposed that they were not satisfied with their homework and were easy to spend time in reading books. Most of the participants disagreed that they feel shy while they contradict with others and found it difficult to agree with their class fellows. Furthermore, the participants displayed that they did not avoid visiting their friends while they did not feel hesitation to disconnect with their classmates. They were of the view that it was difficult for them to agree with their classmates, on the other hand, it was easy to spend time reading books for them. They disclosed that they could convince their classmates when they contradict them.

The comparison between the public sector and religious institutions exposed that both institutions students differ in their opinion on emotional sub-scale self-efficacy while on the other side no visible difference was observed regarding self-efficacy beliefs, academic subscale, and social subscale.                

A comparison between rural and urban graduates exposed that a significant difference regarding the opinion of graduates about social sub-scale whereas no major variation was observed regarding self-efficacy beliefs, emotional sub-scale, and academic subsacle.

The comparison among institutions exposed that there was major variation regarding the opinion of graduates about self-efficacy beliefs, emotional subscale and social subscale whereas no significant difference was observed regarding academic self-efficacy.

The comparison among age groups exposed that there was no major variation regarding the opinion of graduates about self-efficacy beliefs, emotional sub-scale, academic subscale and social subscale.

Pearson r’ product-moment correlation is an analysis that is used for correlation between the sub scales of self-efficacy beliefs. The relationship is positive and statistically significant.

Discussion

The researcher designed this research to know the degree of self-efficacy concept between the graduates of the madrassa and public sector institutes. Self-efficacy in education means a person’s ability to systematize, implement content of actions required to attain selected types of their performances. 

Merriam & Brockett (2007) found that while discussing adolescents and education, it is must make a difference between these two concepts; adult education and adult learning. In the opinion of these authors, adolescents learning is a process based upon comprehension dealing with internal worth of the student. So during learning it can happen both ways suddenly and in education-related affairs which are already planned, it is only the planned activities which can be denoted as adult education.

O, Brein, Pons, and Kopala (1997) conducted a study on four hundred and fifteen learners in grade eleven to judge their self-efficacy in mathematics, sex, and future benefits in those students who studied math and science. The main findings of research were learning had important association with self-efficacy, success, gender in a profession of engineering and science. In the latest study by Pietch, Walker, and Champan (2003) found the association between performances, specific mathematics, general mathematics and self-efficacy were evaluated. The analysis was calculated on responses of four hundred and sixteen students between the age group of (13-14) and found an emotional relation in self-efficacy concepts of the students’ self-efficacy beliefs and both their particular mathematics self-efficacy beliefs and general self-efficacy beliefs in mathematics.

Hence the findings of these researchers showed a visible association among self-efficacy, self-esteem and the level of their performance. These results appeared in the symmetry as the previous studies were reported about self-efficacy and performance (Taipjutorus, Hansen & Brown, 2012; Cascio, Botta, & Anzaldi, 2013; Bates & Khasawneh, 2007)

Recommendations

Following are the recommendations of the study these are:

1- It is strongly recommended that the Government should introduce reforms in madrassa education.

2- The teachers of madrassas should also be properly trained to develop skills and competencies.

3- There should be refresher courses, seminars, and workshops for madrassa teachers.

4- The curricula of all religious schools of thought should be revised and it should be enhanced interfaith harmony.

5- The Government should modernize madrassa education and should provide up to date facilities.

References

• Ali, Z. A. (2009). Loogatul Arabia al hakarmia Lahore.
• Anzar, U. (2003). Islamic Education: A Brief History of Madaris with Comments on Curricula and Current Pedagogical Practices; Taken from Bangladesh Development Gateway.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
• Bano, M. (2007). Beyond Politics: Reality of a Deobandi Madrassah: Journal of Islamic Studies.18 (1), 43-68.
• Bates, R. & Khasawneh, S. (2007). Self-efficacy and college students' perceptions and use of online learning systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 175-191.
• Bores-Rangel, E., Church, A. T., Szendre, D. & Reeves, C. (1990).Self-efficacy in relation to occupational consideration and academic performance in high school equivalency students.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 407-418.
• Brown, S. D., Lent, R. D. & Larkin, K. C. (1989).Self-efficacy as a moderator of scholastic aptitude-academic performance relationships.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 64-75.
• Cascio, M., Botta, V., &Anzaldi, V. (2013).The role of self-efficacy and internal locus of control in online learning. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, v.9, n.3, 95-106.
• Chemens, M. M., Hu, L. & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic Self efficacy& first year college student performance and adjustment.Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 55-64.
• Denissen, J. J. A., Zarrett, N. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). I like to do it, I'm able, and I know I am: Longitudinal couplings between domain specific achievement, Eds.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 933-1002). New York: Wiley. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87-99.
• Eastin, M. S. & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet Self-Efficacy and the Psychology of the Digital Divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
• Edwards, A. L., & Kenney, K. C. (1967). A comparison of the Thurstone and Likert techniques of attitude scale construction.In Martin Fishbein, Ed., Attitude theory and measurement.New York: Wiley, pp. 149-256.
• Fishbein, M. (1967b). Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In Martin Fishbein, Ed., Attitude theory andmeasurement, New York: Wiley, pp. 477-492.
• Good, C. V. (1973). Dictionary of Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Khorrami-Arani, O. (2001). Researching computer self-efficacy.International Education Journal 2, 17 (Educational Research Conference, Special Issue). http://www.flinders.edu.au/education/iej.
• Maimunah, I., Roziah, M. R., &Nor, W. A. W. (2005). High-flyer women academicians: factors contributing to success. Women in Management Review, (online) Http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?20, 117- 116.
• Menocal, M. R. (2002). Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Christians and Jews created a culture of tolerance in mediaeval Spain. Boston MA: Little Brown and Company.
• Merriam, S. & Brockett, R. (2007).The profession and practice of adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
• Moulton, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 30-38.
• Mumtaz, A. (2004). Madrassah Education in Pakistan and Bangladesh in Religious radicalism and Security in South Asia. Eds. Satu P Lamiaye, Mohan 134-Malik. (1995). Honolulu: Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies
• Muris, P. (2001). A Brief Questionnaire for Measuring Self-Efficacy in Youths. Journal of psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23(3), 145-149.
• Muris, P. (2002). Relationships between self-efficacy and symptoms of anxiety disorders and depression in a normal adolescent sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 337-348.
• O,Brein, V., Pons, M. M., &Kopala, M. (1997). Mathematics self-efficacy, ethnic identity, gender, and career interests related to mathematics and science. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 231-235.
• Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational Psychology: Developing learners (5thed.). Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Pearson/ Merrill Prentice Hall.
• Pajares, F. & Johnson, M. J. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in the writing of high school students: A path analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 33,163-175.
• Pajares, F. & Miller, M. D. (1995). Mathematics Self-Efficacy and Mathematics Performances: The Need for Specificity of Assessment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 190-198.
• Pajares, F. &Kranzler, J. (1994).Self-efficacy, Self-concept, and General Mental Ability in Mathematical Problem-solving.Florida Educational Research Council Research Bulletin, 26, 8-32.
• Pajares, F. &Kranzler, J. (1995a). Competence and Confidence in Mathematics: The role of self-efficacy, selfconcept, anxiety, and ability. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
• Pietch, J., Walker, R., &Champan, E. (2003).The relationship among self-concept, self-efficacy, and performance in mathematics during secondary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 589- 603.
• Rashid, B. (2004). Deeni Madaris main IslahaataurMaghrabiKhadshaat: MaghrabAur Islam 8:1, Jan-Dec (2004).
• Rehman, K. (2008). DeeniMadaris- Tabdeelikerujhanaat: Institute of Policy Studies Islamabad, 2008.
• Riaz, A. (2008). Faithful Education: Madaris in South Asia. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.
• Schunk, D. H. (2001).Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning.In I. B. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. s.125-s 151). London: Lawrence Erblaum Associates Publishers.
• Simpson, R. D., & Troost, K. M. (1982).Influences of commitment to and learning of science among adolescent students.Science Education, 66(5),763-781.
• Simpson, R. D., Koballa, Jr., Oliver, J. S., & Crawely, F. E. (1994).Research on the affective dimension of science learning. In Dorothy Gabel (Ed.), Hand Book of Research in Science Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan.
• Spence, J. T., &Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.
• Stajkovic, A., &Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261.
• Taipjutorus, W., Hansen, S., & Brown, M. (2012). Investigating a Relationship between Learner Control and Self-efficacy in an Online Learning Environment.Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 16(1), 56 - 69.
• Talton, E. L., & Simpson, R. D. (1987). Relationships of attitude toward classroom environment with attitudes toward and achievement in science among tenth grade biology students.Journalofresearchinscience teaching, 24(6), 507-525.
• Tamara, D. &Koufteros, X. (2002).Self-Efficacy and Internet Usage- Measurement and Factorial Validity. Decision Sciences Institute. Annual Meeting Proceedings
• Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W., & Kean, P. D. (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In W. Damon & R.M. Lerner (Series Eds.) & N. Eisenberg (Volume Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, 6th Edition, Vol. 3, Social, Emotional and PersonalityDevelopment(pp. 933-1002). New York: Wiley.
• Willson, V. L. (1983). A meta-analysis of the relationship between science achievement and science attitude: Kindergarten through College. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(9), 839-850.
• Wood, R. & Bandura, A. (1989).Impact of Conceptions of Ability on Self-Regulatory Mechanisms and Complex Decision Making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407-415.
• Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational Psychology.(9th Ed.).India: Pushp Print Services.
• Yang, H. L., & Cheng, H. H. (2009). Creative self-efficacy and its factors: an empirical study of information system analysts and programmers. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 429-438.
• Young-Ju J., Mimi, B., & Ha-Jeen, C. (2000).Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and Internets self-efficacy in web-based.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 48, 2 -10.
• Yusuf, M. (2011). The impact of self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and self regulated learning strategies on students' academic achievement, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15, 2623-2626, available online at www.sciencedirect.com
• Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner; which are the key sub processes? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307- 313.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology25,82- 91. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1016, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com.
• Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992) .Self motivation for academic attainment: the role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663- 676.