Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Self-directed learning and self-efficacy have been well studied in education, but are lacking in the field of sports. Therefore, this cross-sectional study examined the association between self-directed learning attitudes, academic self-efficacy, and athlete satisfaction in collegiate athletes. Participants were 184 collegiate athletes, and data were collected using a questionnaire consisting of self-directed learning, self-efficacy, and athlete satisfaction scales. In addition, the study collected qualitative data from six additional athletes. Exploratory factor analysis and structural modeling were conducted to identify the factor structure of the preliminary scales, and confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to confirm the fit of the factor structure. The results showed that self-directed learning attitudes had a positive effect on academic self-efficacy and athlete satisfaction (p < .001). These findings highlight the importance of self-directed learning for college athletes and provide direction for college coaches in sports education.

Plain Language Summary

Is there a relationship between self-directed learning attitudes, academic self-efficacy, and athlete satisfaction among Korean college athletes?

In the past, sports education in South Korea has been a non-self-directed and coercive culture. However, times are changing and self-directed learning is becoming an important issue in sports education in Korea. The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between self-directed learning, self-efficacy, and athlete satisfaction. In this study, 184 college athletes were surveyed, and six more were interviewed in-depth to collect qualitative data. The results showed that Korean college athletes’ attitudes toward self-directed learning positively influenced their academic self-efficacy. In addition, athletes with self-directed learning attitudes and academic self-efficacy were found to be more satisfied with their sports education. These results emphasize the importance of self-directed learning attitudes and provide useful guidance for coaches.

Keywords

self-directed learning attitude academic self-efficacy athlete satisfaction

Introduction

During the Cold War, South Korea had a state-led elite sports policy that used athletes as a tool for propaganda. Under these policies, athletes were expected to be passive and obey orders. However, with the advent of the liberalization era, the importance of self-directed learning is growing in South Korean sports.

Self-directed learning encompasses concepts such as adult education, humanism, and empowerment and focuses on a way of learning in which the individual plans and directs their own learning to acquire knowledge and skills and achieve desired outcomes through autonomous self-development (Kidane et al., 2020). Therefore, it is an activity in which learners diagnose and specify their learning needs, set learning goals, secure the learning resources they need, utilize them, and evaluate their learning performance (Jennings, 2007; Jones et al., 2010). Self-directed learning is reported to have a significant impact on problem-solving, self-efficacy, learning interest, and academic achievement (Park et al., 2023; Wong et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021).

Academic self-efficacy is an individual’s belief in their ability to accomplish academic tasks and achieve academic goals and is a predictor of academic success (Bulfone et al., 2020; El-Sayed et al., 2021). In particular, because it relates to beliefs and convictions about one’s ability to achieve the goals one sets, experiencing failure in a dynamic performance process can be a powerful means of overcoming adversity (Farmer, 2010), and this is likely to lead to improved educational achievement due to increased expectations of outcomes (Cha & Kim, 2022; Pekrun, 2006). Previous studies have also shown that learners with high academic self-efficacy make sustained efforts to achieve the learning goals they set for themselves and report high achievement motivation for their academic performance (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Honicke & Broadbent, 2016). Academic self-efficacy can be determined by self-directed learning. In a study of self-directed learning among adolescents, a self-directed learning coaching program was found to have a significant effect on increasing academic self-efficacy (E. I. Kim, 2020). Likewise, in a study of elementary school students, self-directed learning ability was found to have a positive effect on academic self-efficacy (Deur, 2011). In a study of nursing students, self-directed learning ability had a positive effect on academic self-efficacy (Wong et al., 2021), and in a study of adult learners in China, self-directed learning was reported to have a significant positive effect on self-efficacy (Gieve & Clark, 2005).

Learners with self-directed learning attitudes are more likely to effectively utilize knowledge and skills than other learners because they are strongly motivated (Hagger & Hamilton, 2019) and have a high ability to set their own learning goals, conduct self-assessments, and locate and utilize the necessary resources. This makes the role of the educator crucial to increasing learners’ self-directed learning. By continuously producing the necessary knowledge and exploring and applying new teaching methods based on the educational environment, educators should provide learners with an integrated application of theoretical and practical knowledge considering the characteristics of the subject, leading to educational performance based on effective teaching competencies (Lounsbery & Coker, 2008). Self-directed learning attitudes have been shown to be effective for strong motivation and goal setting in educational research, and the implications of self-directed learning attitudes in sports education are significant, especially for athletes.

Athletes must compete with themselves and others and overcome their own limitations (Chin et al., 2009; Liu & Schutz, 1998). Athletes also need the ability to change themselves through strict self-regulation and self-discipline, self-management of daily life and training, and the ability to adjust or compensate for their behavior by iteratively correcting various problems (Hastie et al., 2013; Hollings et al., 2014).

Therefore, it is important for coaches to set success goals for athletes, and performance strategies such as concentration, the ability to cope with adversity, determination, mental strength, mental imagery, and emotional regulation are important. Therefore, athletes must repeatedly identify and correct problems through clear goal setting, the identification and acquisition of training resources, implementation, and the evaluation of results. Meanwhile, coaches must interact with athletes to help them set the right goals, identify relevant resources, encourage direct implementation, and support them in creating corrective strategies based on the evaluation of results.

Self-directed learning attitudes may be useful not only in education but also for college athletes and coaches. While previous research has found a link between self-directed learning attitudes and self-efficacy, there is a lack of research on college athletes. Based on previous research (Canpolat, 2019; Certel et al., 2017; Shoval et al., 2021), it is likely that self-directed learning attitudes are closely related to academic self-efficacy in collegiate athletes.

Self-efficacy refers to a person’s confidence in their ability to complete tasks successfully. It can be broken down into several domains, such as general, social, emotional, physical, and academic self-efficacy. Studies in educational psychology have investigated each of these areas—general self-efficacy (Li et al., 2024), social self-efficacy (Hossain et al., 2024), emotional self-efficacy (Caprara et al., 2024), physical self-efficacy (Rauff & Kumazawa, 2024), and academic self-efficacy (Kang et al., 2024). Academic self-efficacy, which is the central topic of this study, pertains to the belief in one’s capability to achieve academically, which significantly impacts motivation, learning, and performance. This concept, grounded in Bandura’s social cognitive theory, includes personal, behavioral, and environmental factors that influence these self-beliefs (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2022). Athletes who have high academic self-efficacy often set challenging academic goals and show resilience in overcoming difficulties (Zhang et al., 2022). Research by Greco et al. (2022) demonstrates that collegiate athletes with strong academic self-efficacy are more motivated, put in more effort, and persist longer, which benefits both their academic and athletic achievements. Cultivating academic self-efficacy through supportive environments, effective study methods, and positive reinforcement can enhance student-athletes’ success and well-being. Given the traditional sports culture in Korea, which has often involved strict and compulsory practices (Hong & Hong, 2024), examining the link between academic self-efficacy and satisfaction among younger college athletes offers valuable insights.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between self-directed learning attitudes, academic self-efficacy, and athlete satisfaction in professional collegiate athletes.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

According to Loyens et al. (2008), self-directed learning can be defined as the ability of learners to engage in the learning process of planning, executing, and evaluating their own learning.

Candy (1991) suggested that self-directed learning is both a process and a goal of education because it involves both the process of practicing self-directed learning and the development of the learner’s ability to self-direct learning or the change of consciousness within the learner. Knowles & Learning (1975), Ellinger (2004), and Loyens et al. (2008) described self-directed learning as a learning process in which learners take the initiative to diagnose their learning needs, set goals, select and apply appropriate learning strategies, and evaluate results.

In addition, S. Brookfield (1986) defined self-directed learning as a learning process that aims at the improvement or change in consciousness of the learner’s ability to self-direct learning within himself, which is expected as an outcome of learning.

Self-directed learning is learning in which the conceptualization, design, conduct, and evaluation of a learning project is driven by the learner. This does not mean that self-directed learning is always highly individualized learning that takes place in isolation; learners can work in a self-directed manner while participating in a group learning environment, as long as it is a choice that the learner believes will benefit their learning efforts (S. D. Brookfield, 2009). One of the most important competencies for students and professional athletes is self-directed learning. Even in the training of athletes, studies have reported that self-directed learning will play a positive role in training performance and competition (Hughes & Berry, 2011).

An athlete’s self-directed learning (SDL) attitude is essential for managing the dual demands of sports and academics, aiding in their holistic development and success. This attitude involves an athlete’s preparedness and capability to take charge of their own learning, establish personal objectives, and oversee their training journey. SDL is a key factor for athletes, reflecting their capacity to take initiative and maintain control over their learning and training. According to Choi and Nam (2023), an athlete’s SDL involves several components, including goal setting, self-evaluation, acceptance of feedback, and time management, all of which positively affect performance, stress management, and motivation. Self-directed learning attitudes significantly contribute to an athlete’s overall performance and growth by interacting with various factors such as motivation to learn, skill acquisition, and self-efficacy, thus maximizing performance (Grandison, 2024).

Self-efficacy, a concept first used by Bandura and Adams (1977) in their social cognitive learning theory, is a belief in one’s ability to organize and execute the set of behaviors necessary to successfully perform a given task (Bandura, 1986).

Self-efficacy is the belief in the ability to do something. This is one of the core principles of human behavior that allows a person to strongly believe he can do something, no matter how difficult the circumstances might be. Self-efficacy is a concept originating from social learning theory, developed by Bandura (1977). People learn via social interaction and personal experience and through exposure to others (including through external media), according to this theory.

In summary, self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) is an attribute shaped by mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social and emotional persuasion, and physiological and emotional states that have behavioral, cognitive, and emotional consequences within the individual.

Specifically, judgments of self-efficacy influence human behavioral decisions about what actions to take, how much effort to put into a task, and how long to persist with a task. It also affects thought patterns and emotional responses, such that a person with high self-efficacy will exert effort and focus on the demands of the situation, whereas a person with low self-efficacy may obsess about their inadequacies in a difficult situation and perceive the situation as more difficult. Students with high self-efficacy set specific goals and focus their attention, effort, and persistence on challenging accomplishments, resulting in high levels of performance (Latham & Locke, 1991).

Academic self-efficacy is a construct that evolved from self-efficacy and refers to learners’ judgments and confidence in their subjective ability to organize and execute the behaviors necessary to accomplish academic tasks (Bandura, 1986). According to Schunk (1996), academic self-efficacy can be divided into two dimensions: first, learning self-efficacy, which refers to a student’s subjective belief in his or her ability to understand, analyze, and recall learning in order to successfully acquire new knowledge and skills. Second, performance self-efficacy refers to a student’s subjective belief in their ability to perform at the required level in a particular subject.

Self-efficacy is the psychological variable that promotes the confidence and focus of an athlete and greatly impacts sports performance. Here, Yu et al. (2024) found that greater self-efficacy was predictive of improved golf putting outcome success rates. Similarly, Masrun et al. (2022) mentioned self-efficacy, who assessed the achievement of student athletes by medals obtained and determined that students with greater self-efficacy achieved superior performance issues. Zou et al. (2023) found that higher self-efficacy was associated with higher peer support and continued participation in athletics.

Self-efficacy, defined as the belief in one’s ability to succeed in a particular situation, is closely related to self-directed learning attitudes. When athletes have high self-efficacy, they are more likely to engage in self-directed learning because they believe in their ability to achieve goals and overcome obstacles (figure 1). This belief not only enhances motivation and persistence but also builds resilience, which is essential in sports (Pan, 2020). According to Hart et al. (2024), the interrelationship between self-directed learning and self-efficacy suggests that as athletes develop stronger self-directed learning attitudes, their confidence in their ability to learn and improve increases. Low self-efficacy is associated with lower academic and athletic performance, while high self-efficacy may reinforce self-directed learning attitudes, as athletes feel more in control of their learning and development. Based on the theory and prior research on self-directed learning attitudes and academic self-efficacy, the hypotheses for this study are as follows.

H1. Self-directed learning attitude will have a positive effect on academic self-efficacy.

H2. Self-directed learning attitude will have a positive effect on athlete satisfaction

H3. Academic self-efficacy will have a positive effect on athlete satisfaction.

Figure 1.

Study model.

Materials and Methods

Participants

The participants in this study were 184 collegiate athletes. After explaining the purpose of the study, the collegiate athletes were asked to complete a questionnaire consisting of the Self-Directed Learning Scale (SDLS), the Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), and the Athlete Satisfaction Scale (ASS).

The participants in this study were collegiate athletes who participated in the 2023 Korean College Athletics Championships. Of the 250 total participants, 184 (73.6%) participated in the study (Table 1). In addition, this study conducted qualitative data to support the quantitative data. Six research participants participated in the qualitative data collection, and data was collected through in-depth interviews from October 10 to October 30, 2024.

Table 1.

Participant Profiles.

Demographics	Description	Responses	%
Gender	Male	108	58.7
Gender	Female	76	41.3
Age	20–21	95	51.6
	22–23	83	45.1
	Above 24	6	3.3
Area	Urban	115	62.5
Area	Rural	69	37.5

Measurement Tools

The main variables used in this study were self-directed learning attitude, academic self-efficacy, and athlete satisfaction. First, to measure self-directed learning attitude, the items in the Self-Directed Learning Scale (Kovalenko & Smirnova, 2015; Toto & Limone, 2019). were modified and supplemented to fit the purpose of this study. The SDLS comprises 16 items in four factors: openness to learning (training) opportunities (four items), learning initiative (four items), attachment to learning (four items), and problem-solving (four items). Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

Second, to measure academic self-efficacy, we modified and supplemented the academic self-efficacy items from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire for college students developed by Chemers et al. (2001) and used by Seo and Jeong (2022). This scale consists of a single factor with a total of 10 items. Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

Finally, to measure athlete satisfaction, we modified and supplemented the items used in the Athlete Satisfaction Scale (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998). Athlete satisfaction was composed of six items in two factors: satisfaction with task performance (three items) and satisfaction with social interaction (three items). Each item was measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

Data Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to verify the validity of the main variables. The EFA used the varimax rotation method of principal component analysis, and only items with an eigenvalue of 1.0 or more and factor loadings of 0.60 or more and 0.40 or less across different factors were extracted for analysis.

Following the EFA, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the correlation between the main variables, and structural model analysis was conducted to verify our hypotheses. Data were analyzed using SPSS 21.0 and AMOS 21.0.

Results

Exploratory Factor Analysis

As shown in Table 2, the items for self-directed learning attitude were suitable for EFA (KMO = 0.82, κ2 = 1,027.86 for Bartlett’s sphericity test, df = 120, p < .001). Self-directed learning attitude was extracted into four factors: openness (individual explanatory power = 32.08%), problem-solving (11.57%), attachment (9.36%), and initiative (6.91%). The total cumulative explanatory power was 59.93%. Average variance extracted (AVE) ranged from 0.45 to 0.67, conceptual reliability (CR) ranged from 0.71 to 0.86, and internal consistency ranged from 0.61 to 0.85.

Table 2.

Self-Directed Learning Attitudes.

Items	Openness	Problem-solving	Attachment	Initiative
3 Preparation for workout essentials	0.85	0.19	0.09	0.01
4. Identifying knowledge gaps for future understanding	0.81	0.30	0.05	−0.03
2. Voluntary practice during breaks	0.81	0.14	0.08	0.12
14. Personal accountability for learning	0.02	0.78	0.18	−0.09
15. Retention of coaching instructions for correct execution	0.27	0.71	0.21	0.19
13. Clarifying unknown concepts	0.12	0.69	−0.03	0.28
9. Comprehension of learned material	0.03	0.00	0.81	−0.05
12. Post-exercise reflection on performance	0.00	0.16	0.68	0.32
11. Effective utilization of practice time	0.11	0.26	0.62	0.21
6. Verification of exercise execution	−0.17	0.21	0.00	0.73
5. Ease of summarizing key concepts	0.19	0.10	0.24	0.68
8. Reflection on daily learning outcomes	0.26	0.09	0.24	0.60
AVE	0.67	0.53	0.50	0.45
CR	0.86	0.77	0.74	0.71
Cronbach’s α	.85	.71	.65	.61
(eigenvalue)	5.13	1.85	1.49	1.10
(% variance)	32.07	11.57	9.36	6.91
(% cumulative)	32.07	43.65	53.01	59.93

As shown in Table 3, the items for academic self-efficacy were also suitable for EFA (KMO = 0.93, κ2 = 1,358.11, df = 45, p < .001). Academic self-efficacy was extracted as a single factor, and the total explanatory power was 64.91%. AVE was 0.64, CR was 0.94, and internal consistency was 0.93.

Table 3.

Academic Self-Efficacy.

Items	Academic self -efficacy
8. Deriving satisfaction from overcoming challenges	0.87
7. Effective problem-solving ability	0.85
2. Ability to achieve challenging tasks through effort	0.84
4. Self-efficacy in overcoming challenging training	0.84
5. Persistence in mastering challenging content	0.82
6. Proficiency in grasping technical concepts during training	0.81
3. Knowledge of effective training methods	0.79
1. Enjoyment of tackling complex challenges	0.76
9. Passion for training	0.73
10. Commitment to understanding coaching instructions	0.67
AVE	0.64
CR	0.94
Cronbach’s α	.93
(eigenvalue)	6.49
(% variance)	64.91

As shown in Table 4, the items for athlete satisfaction were also suitable for EFA (KMO = 0.83, κ2 = 483.32, df = 15, p < .001), indicating that the items were suitable for exploratory factor analysis. Athlete satisfaction was categorized into two factors: task performance satisfaction (individual explanatory power = 57.81%) and social interaction satisfaction (17.27%). The total cumulative explanatory power was 75.08%. AVE was 0.69 for task performance satisfaction and 0.66 for social interaction satisfaction, conceptual reliability was 0.87 for task performance satisfaction and 0.85 for social interaction satisfaction, and internal consistency was 0.84 for task performance satisfaction and 0.81 for social interaction satisfaction.

Table 4.

Athlete Satisfaction.

Items	Task performance satisfaction	Social interaction satisfaction
3. Satisfaction with performance improvement	0.86	0.19
2. Contentment with learning progress in sport	0.85	0.20
1. Satisfaction with event selection	0.79	0.34
6. Satisfaction with received recognition	0.19	0.84
5. Positive relationships with age-matched teammates	0.20	0.82
4. Satisfaction with current teammate relationships	0.33	0.78
AVE	0.69	0.66
CR	0.87	0.85
Cronbach’s α	.84	.81
(eigenvalue)	3.46	1.03
(% variance)	57.81	17.27
(% Cumulative)	57.81	75.08

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

As shown in Table 5, the self-directed learning attitude subfactors (openness, problem-solving, attachment, and initiative) were all positively related to academic self-efficacy (r = 0.30–0.49, p < .01) and the athlete satisfaction subfactors of task performance satisfaction and social interaction satisfaction (0.32–0.61, p < .01). Academic self-efficacy was also positively related to athlete satisfaction (task performance satisfaction: r = .62, p < .01; social interaction satisfaction: r = .72, p < .01).

Table 5.

Correlation Analysis.

Items		Openness	Problem-solving	Attachment	Initiative	Academic self-efficacy	Task performance satisfaction
Self-directed learning attitude	Openness	1
	Problem-solving	.47**	1
	Attachment	.38**	.38**	1
	Initiative	.33**	.40**	.35**	1
Academic self-efficacy		.49**	.49**	.30**	.32**	1
Athlete satisfaction	Task performance satisfaction	.57**	.61**	.33**	.32**	.72**	1
Athlete satisfaction	Social interaction satisfaction	.42**	.48**	.40**	.42**	.62**	.54**

p < .01.

Hypothesis Verification

Structural model analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between self-directed learning attitude, academic self-efficacy, and athlete satisfaction (Table 6). First, the model fit was examined using absolute fit indices (Normed χ², RMR, RMSEA) and incremental fit indices (IFI, TLI, CFI), all of which met the fit criteria (Normed χ² = 2.03, RMR = 0.02, RMSEA = 0.07, IFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, CFI = 0.94). Therefore, we examined all the hypotheses and found that self-directed learning attitude had a positive effect on academic self-efficacy (β = .69, p < .001), thereby confirming H1; self-directed learning attitude had a positive effect on athlete satisfaction (β = .63, p < .001), confirming H2; and academic self-efficacy had a positive effect on athlete satisfaction (β = .49, p < .001), confirming H3.

Table 6.

Structural Model Analysis.

Hypothesis	Path	β	S.E.	t
H1	Self-directed learning attitude → Academic self-efficacy	.69	0.19	5.44***
H2	Self-directed learning attitude → Athlete satisfaction	.63	0.19	4.80***
H3	Academic self-efficacy → Athlete satisfaction	.49	0.08	5.27***

***

p < .001.

Discussion

This study examined the relationship between self-directed learning attitude, academic self-efficacy, and athlete satisfaction among college athletes, and the main findings are discussed below.

First, we examined the relationship between self-directed learning attitude and academic self-efficacy and found that self-directed learning attitude positively influenced academic self-efficacy. In particular, higher perceptions of openness related to being clear about what they wanted to learn and thinking about what they needed before training. Initiative related to practicing while thinking about what they had learned and making sure they did the exercises correctly. Attachment involved understanding what they had learned and using practice time effectively, and problem-solving involved perceiving themselves as responsible for their learning and trying to remember what the coaches had explained. Overall, these attributes led to higher academic self-efficacy.

To test the hypotheses of this study and complement the quantitative data, qualitative data were collected and analyzed. First, in-depth interviews on the effects of self-directed learning attitudes on academic self-efficacy revealed that participants engaged in proactive activities such as goal-setting and preparation, reflection and review, and taking initiative. These self-directed learning attitudes were found to lead to self-efficacy traits such as confidence in facing challenges, positive self-talk and mental strength, and a goal-oriented approach.

In Korean middle and high school sports training, there is sometimes coercive instruction and corporal punishment from coaches to overcome the physical limitations of athletes. However, I think elite sports training at universities is more self-directed. You set your own goals and achieve them, which gives you the confidence that you can do it. (Participant 6)

Before training, I set clear goals for myself about what I need to focus on today. I mentally prepare myself for the skills I need to master and the skills I need to work on in my sport, high jump. This helps me stay focused during training and maximize my efforts. (Participant 1).

I take the initiative in training to acquire sports skills and perform well. When I have this attitude, I have a firm belief in myself. I always say positive can-do statements before competitions (Participant 3).

These results support previous studies that have reported that self-directed learning is an important factor in improving academic self-efficacy (Saeid & Eslaminejad, 2017; Song et al., 2015). In particular, the results of this study align with those of Karataş et al. (2025), who suggested that self-directed learning (SDL) positively impacts students’ academic self-efficacy, indicating that individuals who engage in SDL are more confident in their academic abilities. Moreover, the findings support those of Toto and Limone (2019), who found that athletes improved their athletic performance when they engaged in self-directed practice rather than relying solely on traditional coach-led training.

Self-empowerment, cooperation, self-evaluation, opinion sharing, willingness to self-improve, independent thinking, problem-solving skills, and a desire to learn are important for increasing self-directed learning attitudes (Chase, 2001). This is a process in which the athlete, as a learner, refines their skills to achieve the goals they set for themselves (Bertills et al., 2018).

Therefore, the finding that self-directed learning attitudes positively influenced academic self-efficacy suggests that higher levels of openness, initiative, attachment, and willingness to solve problems are associated with higher levels of academic self-efficacy. Thus, for coaches to develop strong self-directed learning attitudes in college athletes, it is important to provide them with clear goals and expectations and create an educational environment in which they can strive to achieve their goals. In this process, it is important to provide sufficient feedback to help athletes make accurate self-assessments, identify their individual strengths and weaknesses, collaborate on ways to improve and develop the ability to find and utilize different resources and tools. Developing self-directed learning is an important task that should be considered in the curriculum and will be a major way to increase the likelihood that athletes will develop through continuous learning and training.

Second, self-directed learning attitudes were also found to have a positive impact on athlete satisfaction, with higher levels of openness, problem-solving, attachment, and initiative leading to higher levels of athlete satisfaction. These findings are consistent with studies of pre-service elementary school teachers, nursing students, and university students, which have reported that self-directed learning attitudes have a significant impact on learner and clinical practice satisfaction (Kazachikhina, 2019; Wong et al., 2021). They also align with a study of golfers that showed that self-directed learning attitudes have a positive impact on player satisfaction (Cho & Kang, 2020). The results of this study also support the findings of Hart et al. (2024), who found that athletes using SDL outperformed students in a traditional training environment. However, the findings contradicted Man-Chih’s (2006) study, which found that SDL slightly improved students’ tennis performance but had no significant effect on college students’ overall satisfaction with physical education. In response to these discrepancies in findings, Toto and Limone (2019) argued that traditional coaching methods may still be valuable to some, and presented research that suggests that novice athletes in particular may benefit from structured instruction rather than SDL.

the results of the in-depth interviews on the effects of self-directed learning attitudes on athlete satisfaction showed that SDL leads to satisfaction with training performance and social interaction. Athletes’ satisfaction with training performance was the satisfaction they felt when they successfully completed training or almost reached the planned training goal, and satisfaction with social interaction was the satisfaction of being recognized by coaches and having close relationships with fellow athletes in sports education.

I find it rewarding when I reach the goals, I set for myself. Once I achieve a goal, I take the initiative to set the next one and work toward achieving it. (Participant 2)

Until high school, I was somewhat unautonomous in my training, but now that I’m in college, I am more autonomous and proactive in my training. I enjoy training with my teammates and being recognized by my coach. (Participant 5)

Athlete satisfaction refers to the feeling of satisfaction with a leader or coach, which strengthens the athlete’s trust in the leader and is an antecedent to improved performance (Lafrenière et al., 2011). It is characterized by an increase in expectations of coach behavior, athlete task performance, athletic experience, and athletic outcomes when expectations and perceptions match (Turman, 2008). In particular, in relation to self-directed learning attitudes, athletes who take initiative in their lives promote personal growth by striving to learn more. They also plan, regulate, and control their behavior in both cognitive and motivational aspects by clearly setting and understanding their learning goals or objectives. It can be interpreted that self-directed learning attitude is an important factor that can lead to athlete satisfaction, as athletes exhibit higher levels of positive effects in training when they are self-directed, motivated, and focused in their training (Hughes & Berry, 2011). As a result, self-directed learning can be understood as a process-oriented learning method in which learners construct their own knowledge through the process of exploring, acquiring, and organizing the knowledge and information they need, which leads to the formation of positive learning attitudes by enhancing their motivation to learn and identifying learning-related characteristics that suit them. Therefore, in sports education, coaches need strategies to create an environment where athletes can solve their own problems and take the lead in their learning. To this end, methods such as Project-Based Learning or Problem-Based Learning (PBL), Independent Study, and Flipped Learning should be actively introduced into sports education (Lee & Kim, 2019).

Finally, we found that academic self-efficacy had a positive impact on athlete satisfaction, indicating that the more athletes enjoy challenges, try to solve difficult problems, and perceive themselves as capable of doing well, the higher their satisfaction. These results support the findings of previous studies that have reported a positive impact of academic self-efficacy on athlete satisfaction (Burns et al., 2013; Lim & Choi, 2021; Yaşartürk, 2019). Zhao (2024) found that academic self-efficacy increased athletic performance and satisfaction among college volleyball players. Hoffman (2022) reported that academic self-efficacy influences self-regulation, which in turn leads to athlete performance and satisfaction. Therefore, it appears that high academic self-efficacy in athletes leads to higher athletic performance and satisfaction through their athletic performance and confidence.

As a result, we can conclude that academic self-efficacy plays an important role in increasing athlete satisfaction among college athlete. This suggests that athletes with low athlete satisfaction may be able to increase it by improving their academic self-efficacy. Consideration of academic self-efficacy levels can provide significant benefits to athletic trainers when designing and developing training or educational programs to help athletes achieve successful performance (Angelo, 2017). High academic self-efficacy is associated with high motivation to learn, which is, in turn, strongly linked to expectations and achievement of success (Karabatak et al., 2023). Therefore, it is important for athletic trainers to closely examine the academic self-efficacy of their athletes to determine their level of self-efficacy and motivate them to positively influence their academic self-efficacy during training and education, which may lead to higher levels of athlete satisfaction.

In-depth interview analysis of the impact of academic self-efficacy on athlete satisfaction revealed that academic self-efficacy, including confidence in challenges, persistence, and enjoyment of tasks, was related to athlete performance and social interaction.

I enjoy the challenge, and I’m strong enough to get through the 35-kilometer mark, often referred to as the ‘death zone’ in marathons. I experience a tremendous sense of self-efficacy when I surpass this point and cross the finish line. (Participant 4)

In triple jump competitions, the speed in the last five meters is crucial for improving your time. Recently, I’ve been doing imagery training before practice to increase my speed in those final five meters, and I believe it boosts my confidence and helps me perform better in competitions. (Participant 5)

There are several ways to increase self-efficacy and improve performance in athletes. First, Reinebo et al. (2024) found that a mental skills training (MST) intervention involving relaxation, visualization, and goal setting in athletes showed significant improvements in both self-efficacy and performance. Therefore, in the context of sports education, there is a need to systematically design MST interventions that teach athletes to set goals for themselves and visualize those goals.

Second, Widyastuti et al. (2024) reported improvements in self-efficacy and performance by applying PETTLEP Imagery Model training to karate athletes. Therefore, imagery training should be applied to imagine physical activities, training or competition environments, and specific athletic skills or tasks that are similar to actual athletic performance to improve self-efficacy and performance in athletes.

Third, a study by Walter et al. (2019) found that positive self-talk is a powerful tool to improve self-efficacy and performance. It can help athletes manage anxiety and increase focus during competition. Teaching athletes to engage in positive self-talk involves first teaching them to recognize when negative self-talk occurs, such as doubt, fear, and frustration, and then training them to challenge negative thoughts and replace them with realistic and constructive alternatives. Coaches should then help athletes create personalized positive statements they can use regularly, such as “I am strong,” “I can handle pressure,” or “I believe in my abilities.” Through this process, athletes can use self-talk to visualize success, which can improve self-efficacy and performance.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that self-directed learning attitudes and academic self-efficacy are determinants of athlete satisfaction, and that increasing or improving self-directed learning attitudes and academic self-efficacy can lead to increased athlete satisfaction. By applying and validating previous research findings to the field of collegiate sports, this study contributes to providing an academic foundation to help collegiate athletes refine and supplement their goals, problem-solving outcomes, and evaluations.

Limitation and Future Research

There are a few limitations to this study. First, the study was conducted on collegiate athletes who competed in a specific competition, so the generalizability to all collegiate athletes may be limited. Further research using probability sampling should be conducted. Second, this study was conducted on Korean college athletes, so future research should include comparative studies of athletes from other countries. Such a study could affect the generalizability of the findings and the statistical power of the analysis. It would also allow for a more robust investigation of the complex relationship between self-directed learning, self-efficacy, and athlete satisfaction. Third, this study is exploratory in nature, given the low interest and lack of research on self-directed learning attitudes in sports. Future research should revalidate this study with the entire sports population and conduct related studies with athletes from different sports.

Finally, we would like to suggest some future research topics in the field of sports education based on this study. Future research should focus on integrating digital tools into a self-directed learning framework. The incorporation of digital tools in such a framework for sports education can significantly enhance athlete autonomy, skill acquisition, and performance monitoring. To this end, we propose studies on the development and application of learning management systems (LMS) that can track athletes’ self-directed progress, assign tasks, and provide feedback. Additionally, research should explore the use of AR and VR visualization tools to simulate real-life game scenarios, thereby mentally preparing athletes for self-directed environments. Lastly, studies on cognitive and mental training apps should be conducted to further improve athletes’ mental performance.

Footnotes

The authors would like to thank all participants who participated in this study.

ORCID iD

Wonchul Bing

Ethical Considerations

This study is considered minimal risk by the IRB of the Russian State University of Physical Education Sport Youth and Tourism.

Consent to Participate

All participants gave informed consent for this study.

Author Contributions

Data curation,Bumchul Chung;Formal analysis,Wonchul Bing and Bumchul Chung;Investigation,Wonchul Bing,and Bumchul Chung;Methodology,Wonchul Bing and Bumchul Chung;Project administration,Bumchul Chung;Writing—original draft,Wonchul Bing;Writing—review & editing,Wonchul Bing and Bumchul Chung All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

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

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.

Data Availability Statement

The data are held with the authors.

References

Angelo

T. A.

(2017). Assessing motivation to improve learning: Practical applications of keller’s MVP model and ARCS-V design process. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2017(152), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20272

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura

(1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359.

Bandura

Adams

N. E.

(1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(4), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01663995.

Bandura

Schunk

D. H.

(1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586

Bertills

Granlund

Dahlström

Ö.

Augustine

(2018). Relationships between physical education (PE) teaching and student self-efficacy, aptitude to participate in PE and functional skills: With a special focus on students with disabilities. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(4), 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2018.1441394

Brookfield

(1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning: A comprehensive analysis of principles and effective practices. McGraw-Hill Education.

Brookfield

S. D.

(2009). Self-directed learning. International handbook of education for the changing world of work: Bridging academic and vocational learning (pp. 2615–2627). Springer.

Bulfone

Vellone

Maurici

Macale

Alvaro

(2020). Academic self-efficacy in bachelor-level nursing students: Development and validation of a new instrument. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(1), 398–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14226

10.

Burns

G. N.

Jasinski

Dunn

Fletcher

(2013). Academic support services and career decision-making self-efficacy in student athletes. Career Development Quarterly, 61, 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2013.00044.x

11.

Candy

P. C.

(1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. A comprehensive guide to theory and practice. ERIC.

12.

Canpolat

A. M.

(2019). The relationship between academic self-efficacy, learning styles and epistemological beliefs: A study on the students of the school of physical education and sports. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 14(4), 610–617.

13.

Caprara

Zuffianò

Contreras

Suárez-Falcón

J. C.

Pozo

Cabras

Gómez-Veiga

(2024). The protective role of positivity and emotional self-efficacy beliefs in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Current Psychology, 43(19), 17842–17853.

14.

Certel

Kozak

Certel

(2017). The examination of relationships between academic self-efficacy, academic procrastination, and locus of academic control of athletes in different sports. Sport Journal, 19, 1–10.

15.

Cha

J. K.

Kim

I. D.

(2022). The structural relationship between exercise ability belief, academic self-efficacy, and educational achievement among secondary school athletes. Korean Journal of Sports Science, 31, 447–460. https://doi.org/10.35159/kjss.2022.4.31.

16.

Chase

M. A.

(2001). Children’s self-efficacy, motivational intentions, and attributions in physical education and sport. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2001.10608931

17.

Chemers

M. M.

L. T.

Garcia

B. F.

(2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.55

18.

Chin

N. S.

Khoo

Low

W. Y.

(2009). Sex, age group and locality differences in adolescent athletes’ beliefs, values and goal orientation in track and field. Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness, 7(2), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1728-869X(09)60014-9

19.

Choi

M. L.

Nam

S. K.

(2023). The impact of athletes’ self-direction and planning behavior on athletic performance. The Korea Journal of Sport, 21, 601–610. https://doi.org/10.46669/kss.2023.21.4.052

20.

Cho

Kang

(2020). An analysis of structural relationship among academic self-directed learning, leaning flow, and self-efficacy of golf department students in colleges. Journal of the Korean Applied Science and Technology, 37(5), 1067–1077. https://doi.org/10.12925/jkocs.2020.37.5.1067.

21.

Deur

P. V.

(2011). Views of gifted elementary students about self-directed learning. Gifted and Talented International, 26(1-2), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2011.11673595

22.

Ellinger

A. D.

(2004). The concept of self-directed learning and its implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422304263327

23.

El-Sayed

M. M.

Mousa

M. A. E.

Abd-Elhamid

E. A. E.

(2021). Academic motivation, academic self-efficacy and perceived social support among undergraduate nursing students, Alexandria University, Egypt. Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal, 9(24.0), 76–86.

24.

Farmer

T. A.

(2010). Overcoming adversity: Resilience development strategies for educational leaders. Georgia Educational Researcher, 8(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.20429/ger.2010.080101

25.

Gieve

Clark

(2005). ‘The Chinese approach to learning’: Cultural trait or situated response? The case of a self-directed learning programme. System, 33(2), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.09.015

26.

Grandison

L. A.

(2024). Using self-regulated learning to increase academic performance in NCAA student-athletes [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University].

27.

Greco

Annovazzi

Palena

Camussi

Rossi

Steca

(2022). Self-efficacy beliefs of university students: Examining factor validity and measurement invariance of the new academic self-efficacy scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 498824. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.498824

28.

Hagger

M. S.

Hamilton

(2019). Grit and self-discipline as predictors of effort and academic attainment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 324–342.

29.

Hart

Madrigal

Ede

Fogaca

(2024). Examining classroom learning behaviors academic and athletic motivation in collegiate athletes. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 17(2), 196–216. https://doi.org/10.17161/jis.v17i2.21308

30.

Hastie

P. A.

Calderón

Rolim

R. J.

Guarino

A. J.

(2013). The development of skill and knowledge during a sport education season of track and field athletics. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84(3), 336–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2013.812001

31.

Hoffman

(2022). Exploring the determinants of academic self-efficacy in intercollegiate student-athletes [Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri—Columbia]. https://doi.org/10.32469/10355/91668

32.

Hollings

S. C.

Hopkins

W. G.

Hume

P. A.

(2014). Age at peak performance of successful track & field athletes. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(4), 651–661. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.9.4.651

33.

Hong

H. J.

Hong

S. H.

(2024). Dual career (DC) experiences of Korean elite judokas before and at university. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 70, 102564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2023.102564

34.

Honicke

Broadbent

(2016). The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research and Reviews, 17, 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.11.002

35.

Hossain

M. U.

Arefin

M. S.

Yukongdi

(2024). Personality traits, social self-efficacy, social support, and social entrepreneurial intention: The moderating role of gender. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 15(1), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2021.1936614

36.

Hughes

B. J.

Berry

D. C.

(2011). Self-directed learning and the millennial athletic training student. Athletic Training Education Journal, 6(1), 46–50.

37.

Jennings

S. F.

(2007). Personal development plans and self-directed learning for healthcare professionals: Are they evidence based? Postgraduate Medical Journal, 83(982), 518–524.

38.

Jones

M. H.

Alexander

J. M.

Estell

D. B.

(2010). Homophily among peer groups members’ perceived self-regulated learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 78(3), 378–394.

39.

Kang

Lee

Liew

(2024). Academic motivational resilience and teacher support: academic self-efficacy as a mediator. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 39, 4417–4435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00870-1

40.

Karabatak

Turan

G. B.

Alanoglu

(2023). The effect of nursing students’ perceptions of ARCS motivational teaching on their academic self-efficacy and attitudes towards learning: A structural equation modeling. Nurse Education Today, 130, 105949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105949.

41.

Karataş

Arpaci

Süer

(2025). Predicting academic self-efficacy based on self-directed learning and future time perspective. Psychological Reports, 128, 2885–2905. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941231191721

42.

Kazachikhina

I. A.

(2019). Self-directed learning in pre-service teacher education [Conference session]. The International Conference Going Global through Social Sciences and Humanities (pp. 292–302).

43.

Kidane

H. H.

Roebertsen

van der Vleuten

C. P. M.

(2020). Students’ perceptions towards self-directed learning in Ethiopian medical schools with new innovative curriculum: A mixed-method study. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 1–10.

44.

Kim

E. I.

(2020). Mediating effect of academic self-efficacy in the relationship between the grit of teens and self-directed learning. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, 21(1), 665–674. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2020.21.1.665

45.

Knowles

M. S.

Learning

S. D.

(1975). A guide for learners and teachers. England Cliffs: Prentice Hall/Cambridge.

46.

Kovalenko

N. A.

Smirnova

A. Y.

(2015). Self-directed learning through creative activity of students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 166, 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.542

47.

Lafrenière

M. A. K.

Jowett

Vallerand

R. J.

Carbonneau

(2011). Passion for coaching and the quality of the coach–athlete relationship: The mediating role of coaching behaviors. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(2), 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.08.002

48.

Latham

G. P.

Locke

E. A.

(1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 212–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90021-K

49.

Lee

D. J.

Kim

D. J.

(2019). Influences of physical education classes based on flipped learning of self-directed learning abilities and attitude towards these classes, for middle school students. International Journal of Contents, 15(2), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.5392/IJoC.2019.15.2.059

50.

Lim

Choi

Y. J.

(2021). The mediating effects of stress coping style in the relationship between student athletes’ academic stress and perceived athletic performance. Journal of Sports Science, 39, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.46394/ISS.39.1.18

51.

Liu

Schutz

R. W.

(1998). Prediction models for track and field performances. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 2(4), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327841mpee0204_2

52.

Yan

Yao

Fan

(2024). General self-efficacy in association with insomnia symptoms and suicidal ideation among Chinese community-based population. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 36(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/10105395231212024

53.

Lounsbery

Coker

(2008). Developing skill-analysis competency in physical education teachers. Quest, 60(2), 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2008.10483580

54.

Loyens

S. M. M.

Magda

Rikers

R. M. J. P.

(2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9082-7

55.

Man-Chih

(2006). The effect of the use of self-regulated learning strategies on college students’ performance and satisfaction in physical education [Doctoral dissertation, Australian Catholic University]. https://doi.org/10.4226/66/5a94b7585e4cb

56.

Masrun

Alnedral

Yendrizal

(2022). Psychological aspects and the roles for students’ sport performance. Journal Sport Area, 7(3), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.25299/sportarea.2022.vol7(3).9417

57.

Pan

(2020). Technology acceptance, technological self-efficacy, and attitude toward technology-based self-directed learning: Learning motivation as a mediator. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 564294. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.564294

58.

Park

J. M.

Seo

H. J.

Kim

S. M.

Kang

Lee

S. J.

(2023). Association between COVID-19-related stress and self-directed learning ability among Korean nursing students. Nurse Education in Practice, 69, 103613.

59.

Pekrun

(2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9

60.

Rauff

E. L.

Kumazawa

(2024). Physical activity motives and self-efficacy to overcome physical activity barriers in first-year undergraduates: Do they differ based on physical activity levels? Journal of American College Health, 72(7), 2242–2249. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2022.2109032

61.

Reinebo

Alfonsson

Jansson-Fröjmark

Rozental

Lundgren

(2024). Effects of psychological interventions to enhance athletic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 54(2), 347–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01931-z

62.

Riemer

H. A.

Chelladurai

(1998). Development of the athlete satisfaction questionnaire (ASQ). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(2), 127–156. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.20.2.127

63.

Saeid

Eslaminejad

(2017). Relationship between student’s self-directed-learning readiness and academic self-efficacy and achievement motivation in students. International Education Studies, 10(1), 225–232.

64.

Schunk

D. H.

(1996). Self-efficacy for learning and performance [Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. ERIC Clearinghouse.

65.

Schunk

D. H.

DiBenedetto

M. K.

(2022). Academic self-efficacy. In Allen

K.-A.

Furlong

M. J.

Vella-Brodrick

Huebner

E. S.

Suldo

S. M.

Gilman

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (3rd ed., pp. 268–282). Routledge.

66.

Seo

Y. S.

Jeong

C. Y.

(2022). Effects of academic self-efficacy, metacognition and major satisfaction on learning flow among nursing students. Journal of Korean Clinical Health Science, 10(1), 1569–1577. https://doi.org/10.15205/kschs.2022.06.30.1569

67.

Shoval

Shachaf

Ramati-Dvir

Shulruf

(2021). Gender matters when sports engagement and self-efficacy interact with academic achievement. Social Psychology of Education, 24, 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09598-4

68.

Song

Yun

S. Y.

Kim

S. A.

Ahn

E. K.

Jung

M. S.

(2015). Role of self-directed learning in communication competence and self-efficacy. Journal of Nursing Education, 54(10), 559–564. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20150916-03

69.

Toto

G. A.

Limone

(2019). Self-directed learning: An innovative strategy for sport and physical education. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 14(4proc), S568–S577. https://doi.org/10.14198/jhse.2019.14.Proc4.14

70.

Turman

P. D.

(2008). Coaches’ immediacy behaviors as predictors of athletes’ perceptions of satisfaction and team cohesion. Western Journal of Communication, 72(2), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310802038424

71.

Walter

Nikoleizig

Alfermann

(2019). Effects of self-talk training on competitive anxiety, self-efficacy, volitional skills, and performance: An intervention study with junior sub-elite athletes. Sports, 7(6), 148. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports7060148

72.

Widyastuti

Hidayatullah

Purnama

S. K.

Ekawati

F. F.

Hidayat

Rochmani

K. W.

Prabowo

T. A.

Yulianto

W. D.

(2024). Developing PETTLEP imagery model to improve self-efficacy of karate athletes. Retos, 55, 938–945. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v55.106128

73.

Wong

F. M. F.

Tang

A. C. Y.

Cheng

W. L. S.

(2021). Factors associated with self-directed learning among undergraduate nursing students: A systematic review. Nurse Education Today, 104, 104998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104998

74.

Yang

Zhu

Jiang

(2021). Influencing factors of self-directed learning abilities of medical students of mainland china: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 11(10), e051590.

75.

Yaşartürk

(2019). Analysis of the relationship between the academic self-efficacy and leisure satisfaction levels of university students. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 7(3), 106–115.

76.

C. L.

Kao

C. W.

J. H.

Hung

Chang

W. C.

Yang

R. T.

Wang

K. P.

Hung

T. M.

(2024). Effects of self-efficacy on frontal midline theta power and golf putting performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1349918. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1349918

77.

Zhang

Hasibagen

Zhang

(2022). The influence of social support on the physical exercise behavior of college students: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1037518. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1037518

78.

Zhao

(2024). Academic self-efficacy and sports mindset among collegiate student volleyball players in China. International Journal of Education and Humanities, 14(2), 186–193. https://doi.org/10.54097/99beh855

79.

Zou

Liu

Guo

Zhao

Cai

(2023). Peer support and exercise adherence in adolescents: The chain-mediated effects of self-efficacy and self-regulation. Children, 10(2), 401. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10020401

Relationship Between the Self-Directed Learning Attitude,Academic Self-Efficacy,and Athlete Satisfaction in Korea College Athletes

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Materials and Methods

Participants

Measurement Tools

Data Analysis

Results

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Hypothesis Verification

Discussion

Conclusions

Limitation and Future Research

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Consent to Participate

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References