IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0198888.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding levels of best practice: An empirical validation

Author

Listed:
  • Huy P Phan
  • Bing H Ngu
  • Hui-Wen Wang
  • Jen-Hwa Shih
  • Sheng-Ying Shi
  • Ruey-Yih Lin

Abstract

Recent research has explored the nature of the theoretical concept of optimal best practice, which emphasizes the importance of personal resolve, inner strength, and the maximization of a person’s development, whether it is mental, cognitive, social, or physical. In the context of academia, the study of optimal functioning places emphasis on a student’s effort expenditure, positive outlook, and determination to strive for educational success and enriched subjective well-being. One major inquiry closely associated with optimal functioning is the process of optimization. Optimization, in brief, delves into the enactment of different psychological variables that could improve a person’s internal state of functioning (e.g., cognitive functioning). From a social sciences point of view, very little empirical evidence exists to affirm and explain a person’s achievement of optimal best practice. Over the past five years, we have made extensive progress in the area of optimal best practice by developing different quantitative measures to assess and evaluate the importance of this theoretical concept. The present study, which we collaborated with colleagues in Taiwan, involved the use of structural equation modeling (SEM) to analyze a cohort of Taiwanese university students’ (N = 1010) responses to a series of Likert-scale measures that focused on three major entities: (i) the importance of optimal best practice, (ii) three major psychological variables (i.e., effective functioning, personal resolve, and emotional functioning) that could optimize student’ optimal best levels in academic learning, and (iii) three comparable educational outcomes (i.e., motivation towards academic learning, interest in academic learning, and academic liking experience) that could positively associate with optimal best practice and the three mentioned psychological variables. Findings that we obtained, overall, fully supported our initial a priori model. This evidence, in its totality, has made substantive practical, theoretical, and methodological contributions. Foremost, from our point of view, is clarity into the psychological process of optimal best practice in the context of schooling. For example, in relation to subjective well-being experiences, how can educators optimize students’ positive emotions? More importantly, aside from practical relevance, our affirmed research inquiry has produced insightful information for further advancement. One distinction, in this case, entails consideration of a more complex methodological design that could measure, assess, and evaluate the impact of optimization.

Suggested Citation

  • Huy P Phan & Bing H Ngu & Hui-Wen Wang & Jen-Hwa Shih & Sheng-Ying Shi & Ruey-Yih Lin, 2018. "Understanding levels of best practice: An empirical validation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-24, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0198888
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198888
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198888
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198888&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0198888?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0198888. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.