Ahmed Fekry Ibrahim

Development, validation, and factorial comparison of the McGill Self-Efficacy of Learners For Inquiry Engagement (McSELFIE) survey in natural science disciplines

ABSTRACT Sociocognitive theory [Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.44.9.1175; Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L] accords high importance to the mechanisms of human agency and how they are exercised through self-efficacy. In this paper, we developed and validated the McGill Self-Efficacy For Inquiry Engagement (McSELFIE) instrument with undergraduate students in natural science disciplines. We defined inquiry engagement as carrying out the practices of science (POS) that are supported by students’ personality characteristics (SPCs) and that result in achieving inquiry-learning outcomes (ILOs). Based on these theoretical perspectives, the McSELFIE is a 60-item, learner-focused survey that addresses three components that are theoretically important for engaging in scientific inquiry: (a) SPCs, (b) ILOs, and (c) POS. Evidence for construct and content validity were obtained by using experts’ judgments and confirmatory factor analysis with a sample of 110 undergraduate students enrolled in science disciplines. Internal consistency of the factors and instrument was also examined. The McSELFIE instrument is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring science undergraduate students’ self-efficacy for inquiry engagement. Matched pairs analyses were conducted among the instruments’ factors. Students reported the highest self-efficacy for openness, applying knowledge, and carrying out investigations. Students reported the lowest self-efficacy for extraversion, understanding metacognitive knowledge, and planning investigations. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Customary Practices as Exigencies in Islamic Law: Between a Source of Law and a Legal Maxim

I offer a corrective to Libson’s view that customs made their way into Islamic law in the formative period only through the ḥadīth and ijmāʿ genres. I argue that custom was incorporated into the law through the legal methodologies of Abū Ḥanīfa and Mālik. Due to the success of al-Shāfiʿī’s thesis, later jurists justified custom on grounds of necessity and exigency of the times rather than elevating it to the level of the four-source theory of Islamic law. Essential to this process of valorization of custom was a legal maxim developed by al-Juwaynī in the classical period.

Child Custody in Islamic Law: Theory and Practice in Egypt since the Sixteenth Century

Premodern Muslim jurists drew a clear distinction between the nurturing and upkeep of children, or “custody,” and caring for the child’s education, discipline, and property, known as “guardianship.” Here, Ahmed Fekry Ibrahim analyzes how these two concepts relate to the welfare of the child, and traces the development of an Islamic child welfare jurisprudence akin to the Euro-American concept of the best interests of the child enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Challenging Euro-American exceptionalism, he argues that child welfare played an essential role in agreements designed by early modern Egyptian judges and families, and that Egyptian child custody laws underwent radical transformations in the modern period. Focusing on a variety of themes, including matters of age and gender, the mother’s marital status, and the custodian’s lifestyle and religious affiliation, Ibrahim shows that there is an exaggerated gap between the modern concept of the best interests of the child and premodern Egyptian approaches to child welfare.