VIEWS: 1,889 PAGES: 22 CATEGORY: Education POSTED ON: 12/31/2009
Articles and clipping about education psychology, environmental education, attitude, behavior, scale and measurement, adult education, most of all due to my recent research. (Kumpulan artikel tentang pendidikan, psikologi pendidikan, pendidikan lingkungan hidup, skala dan pengukuran sikap dan perilaku, semua berkaitan dengan penelitian baru-baru ini).
Articles and clipping about education psychology, environmental education, attitude, behavior, scale and measurement, adult education, most of all due to my recent research. (Kumpulan artikel tentang pendidikan, psikologi pendidikan, pendidikan lingkungan hidup, skala dan pengukuran sikap dan perilaku, semua berkaitan dengan penelitian baru-baru ini).
The Abstinence Self-efficacy Scale Intrument Information Description Scoring Referernces Description Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) conceptualizes a person's perceived ability to perform on a task as a mediator of performance on future tasks. A change in the level of self-efficacy can predict a lasting change in behavior if there are adequate incentives and skills. The Abstinence Self-efficacy scale is a 20-item self-report measure that assesses an individual's confidence to abstain from substance use in a variety of different situations. It is possible to obtain both an overall measure as well as situational self-efficacy based on subscale scores. Target Population: Adults Administrative Issues: Number of items: 20 items 9- item short version available Mode of administration: Pencil and paper self-administered Time required to administer: 5-10 minutes Staff expertise required for administration: None Training required for administration: No training required for administration Norms available: Psychometrics: Reliability: Validity: Copyright Information: Instrument is not copyrighted and available at no cost Scoring Abstinence Self-efficacy Scale – 20 item version Subscale Negative Affect Social / Positive Habitual / Craving Item # 3, 5, 7, 8, 18, 19 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 16 11, 13, 14, 15, 20 To obtain a mean overall Abstinence Self-efficacy or Temptation score, sum scores from all items and divide by 20. To obtain mean scores for individual subscales, sum item scores for each subscale and divide by the number of items (6 for Negative Affect and Social Positive, and 5 for Habitual/Craving). Abstinence Self-efficacy Scale – 9 item version Subscale Negative Affect Social / Positive Habitual / Craving Item # 3, 6, 9 1, 4, 7 2, 5, 8 To obtain a mean overall Abstinence Self-efficacy or Temptation score, sum scores from all items and divide by 9. To obtain mean scores for individual subscales, sum item scores for each subscale and divide by the number of items (3). References DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Self-Efficacy and the addictive behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 302-315. DiClemente, C. C., Carbonari, J. P., Montgomery, R. P., & Hughes, S. O. (1994). The alcohol abstinence self-efficacy scale. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55, 141-148. DiClemente, C. C., Fairhurst, S. K., & Piotrowski, N. A. (1995). Self-Efficacy and addicitive behaviors. In J. E. Maddux, ed., Self-Efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 109-141). New York: Plenum. Velicer, W.F., DiClemente, C.C., Rossi, J.S., & Prochaska, J.O. (1990). Relapse situations and self-efficacy: An integrative model. Addictive Behaviors, 15, 271-283. Self-Efficacy Albert Bandura (1977, 1982, 1986; Bandura, Adams & Beyer, 1977; Bandura, Adams, Hardy & Howells, 1980; Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Bandura & Simon, 1977) reinforced the construct called self-efficacy to account for psychological changes that occur as a result of various modes of treatment. Most simply stated for this note, self-efficacy is conceptualized as our expectations that we can perform competently across a broad range of situations that are challenging and which require effort and perservence. In other words, self-efficacy expectancies are convictions concerning our ability to perform behaviors that will yield expected outcome. Perhaps Robert J. Sternberg best sums up the importance of a learner's degree of self-efficacy when commenting on what he believes constitutes successful intelligence. During a 1996 speech to members of the National Association of (USA) Secondary School Principals, Sternberg listed seven characteristics that appear over and over again in people who are high in what he calls "Successful Intelligence." Here is part of his fifth characteristic. As I cannot match his prose, I shall quote him directly: People who are high in successful intelligence ... are high in selfefficacy-they believe in their ability to accomplish what must get done. A common mistake is to believe that self esteem is important for success. It isn't. In fact, many successful people do not have particularly high self esteem, defined as a globalized positive evaluation of oneself, independent of one's accomplishments. Part of what motivates successful people is often their not particularly high self esteem. High selfefficacy means believing in one's ability to get a job done. People who don't think they can succeed, often don't: Having told themselves what they can't do, they then proceed not to do it (Sternberg, 1996a; see also Sternberg, 1996b; bold emphasis is mine alone and not those of the author). Selected References Bandura, Albert (1977). Towards a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84, 1999-215. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A socialcognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 125-139. Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., & Howells, G. N. (1980). Tests of the generality of self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Theory and Research, 4, 39-66. Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, selfefficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598. Bandura, A., & Simon, K. M. (1977). The role of proximal intentions in self regulation of refractory behavior. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 177-193. Sternberg, R. J. (1996a). IQ counts, but what really counts is successful intelligence. Speech delivered to the 1996 National Association of Secondary School Principals. Sternberg, R. J. (1996b). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York: Simon & Schuster. No Self-Efficacy, No Performance Training; Minneapolis; Apr 1992; Mager, Robert F.; Abstract: The importance of self-efficacy (SE) in successful job performance must not be underestimated. When people do not believe that they are able to do some particular thing, they may not even try to do it. SE affects a person's choice behavior, motivation, perseverance, and facilitative thought patterns. Low SE can make a person vulnerable to stress and depression. Because of the debilitating effects of low SE and the enabling effects of high SE, it is important for trainers to work at strengthening SE whenever it is particularly subject to influence. SE is strengthened through practice and through the conditions and consequences that accompany the practice of the skills to be learned. The practice must be designed to lead to a series of successes. Five ways to strengthen SE are: 1. performance mastery, 2. task-diagnostic feedback, 3. modeling, 4. social persuasion, and 5. inference from physiological information. Full Text: Copyright Intertec Publishing Apr 1992 Just as violins alone cannot create the sound of an orchestra, trainers alone cannot assure that the people they train will perform well on the job. For people actually to do the things they need to do to perform a job successfully, these four conditions must be present: skill, self-efficacy, opportunity to perform and a supportive environment. Though trainers are responsible for influencing the skills and the self-efficacy of their trainees, only managers can he held responsible for providing an opportunity to perform and a supportive environment in which to perform. The first, third and fourth requirements for facilitating performance are obvious enough. Without skill, performance isn't possible. Without an opportunity to perform-that is, without the tools, equipment, space, time and permission to do the job properly performance isn't possible. Without a supportive environment (one that rewards rather than punishes desired performance), performance will quickly wither. But self-efficacy is also critical to sustained performance. What is it, and how is it created? Self-efficacy refers to people's judgments about their capabilities to execute particular courses of action--to do specific things ("I can ride a horse bareback--or with my shirt on"). It refers to people's beliefs about their ability to influence the events that affect their lives. It is concerned not with the actual skills one has, but with judgments about what one can do with those skills ("I know I can play 'The William Tell Overture' on the violin while blindfolded"). The importance of sell-efficacy (SE) must not be underestimated. Stanford University psychologist Albert Bandura put it succinctly in "Organizational Applications of Social Cognitive Theory," an article in the December 1988 issue of the Australian Journal of Management. "People who have a strong belief in their capabilities think, feel and behave differently from those who have doubts about their capabilities. People who doubt their capabilities shy away from difficult tasks. They have low aspirations and weak commitment to the goals they choose to pursue. Failure wrecks their motivation....They give up quickly in the face of difficulties and are slow to recover their confidence following failure or setbacks." When people don't judge themselves able to do some particular thing, they may not even try to do it, regardless of how well they can do it. And if they don't judge themselves able to learn to perform, they may choose not to enter fields in which they might excel. People don't often put themselves willingly into situations where they think they will fail. Therefore, if they are given the skills they need, but not the self-efficacy (the belief that these skills really will enable them to tackle the tasks in question), they will be unlikely to attempt to apply the skills on the job. It's just too risky for them. No self-efficacy, no performance. Note that it is possible to have high self-efficacy about a specific performance, and at the same time expect that it will produce negative results. For example, someone can have high self-efficacy regarding an ability to perform an appendectomy through a one-inch incision, and at the same time be convinced that the operation will fail. One can have strong self-efficacy regarding one's ability to drive a golf ball long distances, and at the same time be convinced that the game will be lost. Selfefficacy refers to judgments about performing a specific act, rather than expectations about the consequences or outcomes of that act. SELF-EFFICACY, MOTIVATION AND BEHAVIOR Self-efficacy has five main effects on behavior. 1. CHOICE BEHAVIOR. Our choices are often affected by how efficacious we feel toward the options. If I believe that I will do poorly at speaking to large audiences, I may refuse invitations to speak at events that might enhance my career. Looking deeper, the same principle may influence the career I select in the first place, since people who believe that they will do poorly in a field will be less likely to choose it. ("I don't believe I could perform well as a tiddly-winker, so I think I'll be a trainer instead.") 2. MOTIVATION. People with high SE will mobilize more effort than those with low SE. That is, those who belive in their ability to perform in a given area will be more likely to strive harder to succeed. 3. PERSERVERANCE. People with high SE will persevere even in the presence of obstacles and negative outcomes. They are better able to continue, to bounce back, in the face of disappointments and frustrations. They will perceive a failure as only a temporary setback, rather than a final result. TRAINING IMPLICATION: Because it is normal for trainees to experience failures during learning, it's important to help them understand that failures are a natural part of learning from mistakes. 4. FACILITATIVE THOUGHT PATTERNS. People with high SE toward performing a skill or a range of skills say to themselves, "I'm going to figure out how to solve this pmblem." Those with low SE say, "I can't do this thing," interpreting their current lack of success as a lack of ability. Thus, self-talk is influenced by self-efficacy. Those with high SE run off success scenarios; those with low SE run off failure scenarios. The significance of these thought patterns is supported by a number of studies on performance as a funtion of perception. For example, when aging people perceive their memory loss as being due to biologically shrinking capacity, they make no effort to remember things--and they become forgetful. On the other hand, those who perceive the losses as resulting from a lack of practice tend to work harder at remembering things, and thereby improve their memory. TRAINING IMPLICATION: Help trainees interpret their failures as a lack of practice, rather than as a result of biological inevitability. 5. VULNERABILITY TO STRESS AND DEPRESSION. Those with low SE are more likely to experience stress and depression, because they expect their future performance will lead to failure. For example, people who judge themselves to be poor public speakers will often experience all the symptoms of stage fright: sweaty palms, elevated heart rate, rapid breathing, and so on. Those with high SE, on the other hand, approach stressful situations with the assurance that they will be able to handle them--and so do not distress themselves before a performance begins. Strong, positive self-efficacy, therefore, helps reduce vulnerability to stress and depression. TRAINING IMPLICATION: Because of the debilitating effects of low SE and the enabling effects of high SE, it is important to work at strengthening self-efficacy whenever it is particularly subject to influence. Training is such a time. HOW IS SELF-EFFICACY STRENGTHENED? It is commonly, and erroneously, believed that self-efficacy is developed merely through adding more knowledge and skill, or by some sort of generic "confidence building" exercise such as mountain climbing or river rafting. Not so. A positive selfjudgment about tree climbing, for example, by no means guarantees a similar selfjudgment about one's ability to perform on the job. As for adding knowledge and skill, it's obviously true that practice leading to mastery is important. But mastery performance is just raw data that needs to be correctly interpreted by the performers (or trainees). Unless they do so, they might conclude that their performance was due to something other than their own skill. In other words, practice alone is not enough. Self-efficacy is strengthened through practice and through the conditions and consequences that accompany the practice of the skills to be learned. If there is no practice, of course, there is little chance that either skill or a belief in the ability to perform will develop. But the practice must be accompanied by informative feedback about the performance. The practice must be designed to lead to a series of successes, and there must be positive consequences when these successes occur. In addition, the instructional environment must provide opportunities for trainees to judge their own levels of competence. And the environment must be orchestrated so that trainees learn to credit their successes to their own performance, rather than to the influence of others or to some other situational factors. To clarify all that, there are five ways to strengthen self-efficacy. 1. PERFORMANCE MASTERY. The most powerful way to give me self-efficacy regarding my ability to do something well is to teach me to do that thing well. But the development of mastery (or "fluency") is not enough, because performance mastery is just raw data. Unless people are taught to interpret those data correctly, they might conclude that their mastery performance was due to other causes: The instructor helped me." "Other students helped me." "I did it right because of the job aid." "It was just good luck." "The conditions were ideal." "The task was easy." For performance mastery to have maximum effect on SE, feedback needs to be constructive, and people must learn that they are the cause of their performance. That way feedback will have a positive effect on their perception of competence. TRAINING IMPLICATIONS: * Arrange for enough independent practice so that mastery, as defined by the objectives of the course, is reached or surpassed. * To assure a series of successes, break the learning into manageable chunks that have definite end points. This will also provide more opportunities for selfconfirmation of one's capabilities. * Feedback should report progress ("You've almost got it." "You're already 75 percent of the way there.") rather than shortfall ("You're still not performing as fast as you need to."). * When providing feedback, remind trainees of the effect of their own skill and of the minimal role played by other factors. 2. TASK-DIAGNOSTIC FEEDBACK. We can interpret feedback information either in self-diagnostic or task-diagnostic ways. In the self-diagnostic mode, people interpret negative feedback as an indication of personal deficiencies and imagine all kinds of disasters. They perceive failures as a reflection on their basic aptitude. They may also blame others when they fail: "They got in my way." "They didn't give me enough time." In the self-diagnostic mode, people focus on the task to be performed. They interpret feedback and failure as information they can use to improve task performance. They are learning-oriented. They don't see failure as evidence of incompetence or lack of ability to learn. As this is the more productive approach, it is important to keep trainees task-diagnostic rather than self-diagnostic. TRAINING IMPLICATIONS: * Task-diagnostic interpretation of failure is a learnable skill. To promote it, help trainees to perceive how they have improved since yesterday, rather than giving them messages that will further erode their confidence: "You're not working up to your potential." "You can do better than that," "You've still got a long way to go." * Don't deliberately make trainees fail in public. If they happen to have low selfefficacy, public failure will be more destructive--not only to the performer, but also to low self-efficacious observers. For instance, don't have trainees role play in front of an entire class until their skills and SE are raised sufficiently for them to carry it out well. * Arrange for trainees to experience successes, and steer them toward interpreting their failures as not-yet-competent performance. For example, keep the objectives visible, and relate trainee performance to progress toward achievement of the objectives, rather than to the ability of the trainees. * Provide trainees with proximal (near-term) goals. People are more confident in their ability to accomplish proximal goals than distant ones. This process also provides more frequent opportunities for reinforcement of growing competence. * Once performance is mastered, it needs to be generalized; that is, it must be performed under a variety of conditions. Provide practice under a range of real-world circumstances to generalize trainees' sense of personal efficacy. 3. MODELING. Self-efficacy can be improved when trainees watch others like themselves performing competently. Modeling can convey rich information about how the task should be done and demonstrate effective ways of coping. But modeling, like feedback, provides raw data that need to be interpreted so that trainees can carry away the appqriate messages. The more similar the model is to the trainee, the greater the modeling effect. There are two dimensions of similarity: * Performance similarity--the model performs the same type of job the trainee is learning to do, demonstrating the same type of performance required. * Attribute similarity--the model's sex, age, status, physical characteristics, and so on match the trainee's. To maximize the positive effects of modeling, the model should be as similar to the learners as possible, and should demonstrate what is to be learned in the way it is to be performed in real life. (That way, it will not be necessary to say, "Do as I say, not as I do.") TRAINING IMPLICATIONS: * Use models similar to the trainees, and have the models demonstrate the desired performance. Make sure the trainees understand that the performance is due to the skill of the model, rather than to other factors. * Have the model make task-diagnostic comments during or after a performance; that is, the model should demonstrate the task-diagnostic approach to the interpretation of feedback, as well as the performance itself ("Whoops. I forgot to put my hands in the right position, but I'll get it right next time"). 4. SOCIAL PERSUASION. Self-efficacy is influenced by social persuasion by the comments and actions of others. There is a long history establishing the relationship between social persuasion and self-efficacy; we all know the powerful effects that unkind comments can have on self-confidence. But the same techniques that can be used to disable also can be used to strengthen. What must be understood is that your own comments and actions are always influencing the SE of your trainees, either favorably or unfavorably. You cannot choose to use or not use social persuasion. That's why it's so important to be careful about your comments and actions while you are in the presence of trainees. A small comment can have a big effect, and the way the feedback is phrased (or presented) can have a large effect on SE and on persistence. TRAINING IMPLICATION: Arrange for trainees to perform successfully, and then interpret their achievement of objectives as evidence of increasing capability: "You do that better than the objective requires," or "You can see from the results of your efforts that you do that faster than you'll ever have to do it on the job." 5. INFERENCE FROM PHYSIOLOGICAL INFORMATION. People will infer ability, or the lack of it, from physiological cues: windedness, aches, pains, effort, emotional arousal, and so on. If they have to work hard to achieve, they may interpret that fact as a lack of personal ability rather than a normal state of affairs. For me, writing is hard work, and it is easy to interpret the effort required as a lack of ability, rather than as the way things are. Creating ways to remind myself that writing is hard work (for me) helps to prevent me from misinterpreting the level of my ability. TRAINING IMPLICATION: Make sure trainees understand that the need to exert great effort to achieve results does not imply a lack of capability. Don't allow the difficulty of doing something to lead trainees to conclude that they are not good at doing it, or that they will not become good at doing it. The checklist on page 35 will help you ensure that trainee self-efficacy will be strengthened rather than weakened. (Checklist omitted) Use it to review the features and practices incorporated into your instruction. A "No" answer to any question will point you toward an opportunity for improvement in delivering the instruction. SERIOUS STUFF Self-efficacy is a serious matter. A great many childhoods are filled with, "What makes you think you can do that?" and "Can't you do anything right?" and "Is that the best you can do?" and "You'll never amount to anything!" Children thus are taught to believe not only that their skills are inadequate, but that they are lacking in basic capacities and don't have the potential to become skillful at performing the tasks of life. Entire lifetimes can be ruined by such treatment, And when trainees are ridiculed, demeaned or otherwise criticized for their attempts to try something new or to demonstrate their skill, their belief that they will ever be able to perform as expected is undermined. People need a strong sense of efficacy before they will try to apply what they have learned and before they will try to learn new things. Belief in their ability to perform makes them less vulnerable to on-the-job conditions that aren't always supportive. It helps them to survive rejection. It helps them to persevere in the face of obstacles and setbacks. Refer to it as "self-confidence" if you want to, but the fact remains: Skills unaccompanied by positive self-efficacy will lead to deficient or absent performance. Robert F. Mager heads Mager & Associates, a consulting firm in Carefree, AZ. He is a member of the HRD Hall of Fame. What is self-efficacy? • It is the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the sources of action required to manage future situations. • It is one’s beliefs about personal capabilities to exercise control over their own level of functioning and over events that affect their lives. • It is concerned not with the skills one has but with the judgments of what one can do with whatever skills one possesses. Why is it important? It influences: • The choices we make • The effort we put forth • How long we persist when we confront obstacles • How we feel How does it differ from self-concept? • Self-efficacy is a judgment of confidence, is task specific, is made and used in reference to some type of goal. (Can I do this?) – Self-efficacy statement: I am confident that I can solve that math problem. • Self-concept is one’s self descriptive belief, it is not task specific, and it is not made in reference to a specific goal. (Who am I?) – Self-concept statement: I am very good at math. Children's Perceived Academic Self-Efficacy: An Inventory Scale by Jerry Jinks and Vicky Morgan. © 1999. The Clearing House Purpose The purpose of this report is to bring to the attention of educators an instrument that can be used to gain insight into children's perceptions of their own self-efficacy regarding academic performance. Understanding more about such beliefs may have important implications for both curriculum design and instructional behavior. Self-Efficacy Social learning theorists define perceived self-efficacy as a sense of confidence regarding the performance of specific tasks. For example, Bandura (1986, p.391) defines the construct as "people's judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances. It is concerned not with the skills one has but with the judgments of what one can do with whatever skills one possesses". Self-Efficacy and Learning Behavior Performance self-efficacy influences several aspects of behavior that are important to learning. Among these are choice of activities, effort, persistence, learning, and achievement (Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1989; Schunk, 1989a & b; Zimmerman, Bandura & Martinez-Pons, 1992). The most frequently cited self-efficacy theorist, Bandura, theorizes that individuals develop general anticipation regarding cause and effect based upon experience. Furthermore, he suggests that individuals develop particular beliefs about their ability to cope with situation-specific constructs (Bandura, 1977, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1989 a & b). If such theories are applied to the study of children's beliefs about learning it would be logical to predict that children with high academic self-efficacy would be likely to demonstrate greater success. Although literature speaking directly to children's academic self-efficacy is rather scarce, what does exist supports the link between self-efficacy and academic performance. For example, Schunk (1981 and 1982) showed that efficacy accounted for significant increments of children's achievement gain in mathematics. He also stated that "a heightened sense of efficacy sustains task involvement and results in greater achievement" and "lower percepts of efficacy lead to less persistence and lower achievement" (Schunk, 1983, pp. 92). More recently, Jinks and Morgan (1996) reported significant relationships between elementary students' percepts of self-efficacy and self-reported grades and that this relationship held constant across urban, suburban, and rural school environments. The apparent dynamic is that self-efficacy beliefs are "not simply inert predictors of future behavior," but that those with more efficacious beliefs "make things happen" (Bandura, 1989a, p. 731). This makes sense intuitively and is supported by other research as well (Brookover, et. al., 1978; Chapman, et. al., 1989; Pintrich and DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich, et. al., 1994; Schunck, 1989a; Skinner, 1985; Skinner, et. al., 1992.) It seems clear that the agency whereby self-efficacy influences learning is that it encourages perseverance and provides the confidence to try different strategies. Those who doubt their ability give up a learning process if early efforts do not result in perceived success (Brown and Inouye, 1978; Schunk, 1984). This leads one to conjecture that other dynamics probably also occur. For example, one might anticipate that the relationship between low self-efficacy and performance could easily develop into a negative spiral. Low self-efficacy probably leads to less effort, which in turn would lead to lower success, resulting in even lower self-efficacy. Furthermore, someone with a higher level of self-efficacy might not be motivated to exert effort if one feels that there is little more to learn about the topic or if the learner feels that what is left to learn is of little value given what is already known. Although perceived self-efficacy is an important self-referent factor that influences the interrelationship between knowledge and performance, the motivation to try and to persevere is also affected by outcome expectation. Outcome expectation refers to a belief that one has regarding the result of an action regardless of one's belief about one's personal efficacy to perform that action. For example, a student might feel very efficacious about his knowledge of a certain subject but because he believes that the teacher doesn't like him might have a low outcome expectation regarding an upcoming test. On the other hand, a student might believe that the teacher is a fair grader, has his best interests at heart, and knows that correct answers will result in a high grade but, at the same time, may also believe that he lacks the prerequisite talent or knowledge to do well. In this case, there is a low level of self-efficacy although the outcome expectation associated with performance is high. Consequently, both perceived self-efficacy and outcome expectation are critical elements of the learning environment because they are learned perceptions that affect student motivation. The proposition that dynamics such as these mediate children's learning of academic material is somewhat speculative due to the relative scarcity of learning self-efficacy research in children. However, that self-efficacy beliefs contribute to academic success is a reasonable hypothesis in light of the research cited above as well as research that links self-efficacy and performance in other domains. For example, Bandura, et.al. (1977) reported that in developing coping strategies, "perceived self-efficacy influences level of performance by enhancing intensity and persistence of effort". Feltz, et.al. (1979) reported that their work with athletes "adds support to the idea of a reciprocal relationship between successful performance and self-efficacy" and Biran and Wilson (1981) reported "high congruence between self-efficacy and behavior on the level of individual performance tasks". The research cited here reinforces the conclusion that authentic mastery experiences are the most influential source of efficacy information. Furthermore, once established, enhanced self-efficacy generalizes to other situations, with the strongest effects occurring in activities that are most similar to those in which self-efficacy has been improved. The Student Academic Efficacy Scale The Morgan-Jinks Student Efficacy Scale (MJSES) is designed to gain information about student efficacy beliefs that might relate to school success (Table 1). Although self-report measures seeking similar data exist, the majority of these are focused on older students including adults. Gibson and Dembo, 1984; Gorrell and Partridge, 1985; and Gorrell and Capron, 1988 and 1989 are a few cases in point. In other cases, self-efficacy data are presented with little accompanying information about the measure itself (Andrews and Debus, 1978; Marsh, et. al., 1991). In still others, self-efficacy data is gleaned from a more concrete activity approach (Bandura and Schunk, 1981; Schunk, 1981, 1982, & 1983). Pintrich and DeGroot (1990) collected student efficacy data that they refer to as "motivational belief" from nine items imbedded in the larger "Motivational Strategies for Learning Questionnaire," a self-report scale designed for elementary students. The MJSES is a more extensive inventory that makes use of self-report grades as a dependent variable. The scale has undergone extensive development to assure validity and reliability using DeVellis's (1991) Scale Development: Theory and Application for primary guidance. The initial version of the scale consisted of 53 items that were generated by the authors and subjected to content validity evaluation by three separate panels. The first panel consisted of five university-level teacher educators, the second of four middle school teachers, and the third of 15 public school students representing grades 4-8. The original version of the scale was written to include four sub-scales; talent, effort, task difficulty, and context. The teachers and teacher educators were asked to categorize items into one of the four sub-scales. They were also asked to rate their confidence on a scale of 1 (not sure) to 5 (very sure) with those decisions. Ambiguous items were either rewritten or eliminated. Items that were categorized consistently but in which the judges' confidence about that categorization were low were also rewritten or eliminated. This process resulted in the original scale of 53 items, plus four items requesting grade performance. In addition to the adult panels, the children were divided into two groups, one consisting of the fourth and fifth graders and the other consisting of the sixth, seventh, and eighth graders. The children were given the scale and led through a "think aloud" exercise that was intended to determine if the items were readable, clear in content, and within their frame of school experience. All of the items were readable, and few required adjustment for clarity. All items were designed for a Likert Scale response using a four interval scale of "Really Agree," "Kind of Agree," "Kind of Disagree," and "Really Disagree." The informal nature of the response categories was an attempt to make the choices consistent with children's language patterns and similar descriptors such as "not sure," "maybe," "pretty sure," and "real sure" have been used by other researchers (Schunk, 1981). Such descriptors are believed to be analogous to the differences of degree adults define with the more traditional language of scaled formats. The students expressed comfort with the choices and demonstrated ability to detect differences among them. The scale makes use of self-report grades as a variable. Subjects are asked what their last grades were in reading, mathematics, science, and social studies, as reported on their last report card. Although having actual performance information would be clearly preferable to self-report data, the attendant difficulties in acquiring such data in all research settings are equally clear. However, Dornbusch (1987) and his colleagues made use of self-reported achievement data with adolescents and were able to demonstrate .76 correlation with actual grades. They also demonstrated that the correlation did not decline with poorer grades. Although not perfect, it was felt that self-reported grade data is sufficiently accurate to warrant including such items in the scale. Clearly, in circumstances where actual data can be ethically obtained those should be used. Field Testing Three schools representing three very different demographic settings were selected for field testing the scale. The first school is part of a district located in a major midwestern urban setting. The school employs a K-8 organization and consists entirely of African-American children. The school is 100% low-income as defined by criteria used to determine student participants in a federally sponsored free lunch program. The second school is located in a suburban city with a population of approximately 100,000. The school houses grades six through eight with 19% of the students considered low-income under the same criteria as the urban school. Eighty-eight percent of the students are Caucasian. The remaining 12% consist of African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American ancestries. The third sample was a set of seventh and eighth grade students from a small rural community. Lowincome students made up about 12 % of this population. The school's ethnic background was virtually all Caucasian. Results The three field test sites provided a total of nearly 900 usable returns, and although there are a number of significant item and sub-scale differences among the schools, there were no indications that the scale was biased regarding the different test sites. Differences among schools result from differences in strength of response, rather than direction. For example, student response to one of the context items, "I go to a good school," varies significantly from one school to the next although all three groups of students agree with the item. Results such as this suggest that the three groups of students perceive the intent of the items in the same way. Factor analysis revealed that three major factors were operating within the scale. The first factor consisted primarily of the items that were originally intended as talent items. The second factor consisted of the items written as context items and the third factor consisted of items that were written as effort items. Other items, including those that were originally intended as task difficulty items, did not load together with sufficient strength to be considered a factor. Item analysis was also conducted and any item with an item-total item correlation below .30 was dropped. This procedure resulted in a 30-item scale that had an overall reliability coefficient of .82 (Table 1). The sub-scale alphas were .78 for talent, .70 for context, and .66 for effort (Table 2). Since the overarching interest was to understand more about the relationship between students' selfefficacy beliefs and their academic performance, analysis was conducted to determine if the scale and sub-scales were correlated with the students' self-reported grades in the four core subjects of mathematics, social studies, science, and reading. Analysis revealed that the overall scale and the various sub-scales were moderately and positively correlated with self-reported grades; that is, those who expressed higher self-efficacy beliefs also tended to report higher grades. Summary and Applications The purpose of this work was to develop instrumentation that might provide insight into elementary children's perceptions of their self-efficacy in the performance of academic activities. The MJSES appears to do that. In the preliminary field-testing, the scale has proved to be reliable and positively correlated with grade achievement. Although correlation is not cause, research cited earlier in this paper suggests that self-efficacy beliefs do affect results although probably not directly. Efficacy beliefs lead to the behaviors that, in turn, contribute to achievement. These beliefs are, in other words, motivational in nature. With this dynamic in mind, the MJSES could be useful in a variety of ways. These include applications for classroom level action research, program evaluation research, and formal research efforts that examine a wide range of teaching/learning variables. Applications for Classroom Teachers’ Research At the individual classroom level teachers might find the scale useful for action research purposes. Suppose, for instance, that a teacher is attempting to understand more about how to motivate underachieving students. Student efficacy data might provide valuable clues about how individual students perceive their talents and/or the outcome expectancies associated with effort. This insight could serve to inform the teacher's instruction. A teacher might respond very differently with a child whose beliefs in his talent is low as opposed to the child whose talent beliefs are high but is underachieving for some other reason, boredom, perhaps. Self-efficacy data might also influence a teacher’s assessment philosophy and practice. Students who suffer from low self-efficacy are unlikely to be motivated by traditional assessment practices that focus on pointing out inadequacies. Low self-efficacy students already suspect that they are inadequate and traditional notions of grading simply reinforce those suspicions rather than serve as motivators or "wake up calls" as such things might with more efficacious students. What is probably necessary for low self-efficacy students are assessment approaches that provide concrete evidence of small incremental gains in achievement that are obviously tied to the student's effort. As indicated earlier, research supports such a premise. Enactive attainment is the most influential source of efficacy information. At the classroom level the MJSES will be a useful tool not only because of the power of dynamics such as those mentioned above but also because of its ease of use and interpretation. The MJSES is easy to administer and score and, since one is dealing with beliefs, the scores should be interpreted in a somewhat relative way. For the teacher, the first level of interpretation should be to look for overall patterns of belief, asking such questions as, "Do my students believe as strongly in their talent and the positive outcomes of effort as they should"? At a second level of interpretation the teacher should be looking for individual departures from the class norm. Are individuals varying noticeably, or surprisingly, from their peers? This is important because in addition to enactive attainment the research shows that comparisons of self to peers is also a powerful means to selfefficacy belief (Schunk, 1982). Consequently, the teacher who can detect such differences, especially early, stands a much better chance of helping individual children develop enhancing selfefficacy beliefs. Applications for Program Evaluation Research As of this writing, the scale has contributed valuable information to several programmatic evaluation research projects. Researchers have used the scale as part of a broader study that focused on the transition adjustments eighth grade students made as they moved into a departmentalized ninth grade setting. In this study, students who had completed eighth grade in a traditional junior high school setting were compared, on several variables including academic efficacy belief, with eighth graders who had completed the eighth grade in a teamed middle-school setting. The MJSES revealed no significant differences in students’ academic efficacy beliefs that could be predicted by the organizational philosophy of their immediate pre-high school experience (Curtis & Morgan, 1997). Another example of the scale’s application involves a multi-year mentoring project in which teacher education students are paired with urban elementary students for academic support, tutoring, and social events. One of the project co-directors, N. P. Carter, (personal communication, March 26, 1998) reported that the intent of the project is to provide undergraduates with a culturally diverse experience and to provide the children with a supplemental academic experience as well as informal career counseling. The investigators have identified a variety of characteristics and behaviors of both the children and the teacher education students as part of the project evaluation effort. Among these are attitudes and children’s percepts of their own abilities. Student efficacy data is being gathered as both a pre-measure and a post-measure with the resulting information contributing to the overall evaluation of the program. Preliminary results using the MJSES suggest that the dynamic between self-efficacy beliefs and achievement is in evidence in these circumstances and that those beliefs were enhanced through outside intervention. Applications in Formal Research In addition to program evaluation research, the scale is proving useful in a number of more formal research settings including master’s theses and doctoral dissertations. Among these are studies examining such issues as the various relationships that might be operating among self-efficacy beliefs, achievement, gender, socioeconomic status, school climate, and ethnicity. These researches not only confirm that self-efficacy beliefs are a powerful dynamic but they also support the premise that efficacy beliefs can be influenced by planned instruction. It remains to be seen just what the specific components of such instruction should be but that research is underway. Guiding these efforts is the theoretical premise that self-efficacy belief should be thought of as one of many antecedents to academic achievement. Such antecedents are pre-conditional, or perhaps, coconditional factors that either contribute to, or hinder achievement. A clear and obvious example of such an antecedent is nutrition. It is well known that children will not be academically successful if they are hungry, not just ready for lunch, but truly hungry. And in a case this clear-cut the solution is equally clear, feed the children, which schools have been doing with lunch and breakfast programs for years. However, antecedents such as self-efficacy are not as immediately obvious as being hungry. These are factors that work in a more subtle fashion but as the research has shown can have significant impact and therefore deserve both curricular and instructional responses. Schools as Human Development Institutes Although research supports the logic of investing time and resources in academic efficacy instruction there are potential problems in taking the antecedent view and arguing for institutional responses. One such problem is political in nature. Self-efficacy tends, in the thinking of some, to be synonymous with or at least very similar to self-esteem, which is most likely another but probably more deeply rooted antecedent to academic success. And these are the sort of issues that can be expected to raise the hackles of conservative critics who argue that the key to improving schools is to reform them with more rigorous standards, increased homework, teacher accountability and parental choice rather than "feel good" teaching. However, these essentialists appear to ignore what seems to be a clear trend. In a short period of time social and family changes have resulted in increasing numbers of students coming to school lacking the antecedents to traditional academic success. At the same time, schools have been expected to put aside any exclusionary practices and teach all students. These two countervailing forces are driving schools to develop new accommodations that the political right define as wasteful, stupid, outside the scope of tax supported agencies, or in some extreme cases, downright evil. Regardless of these conservative attacks, the schools are actually responding in a very logical way-by evolving into what might be thought of as human development institutes. If it makes not only ethical but academic sense for the school to feed a child breakfast before class, the reasoning goes, it makes just as much sense to deal with other barriers that hamper academic success, such as lack of motivation or even some psychological barrier like impoverished self-esteem. Should public schools continue to be expected to teach everyone, and there is no reason to believe that they will not (or that they should not), criticisms for reaching beyond the traditional and basic curriculum are both unreasonable and counter productive. Fortunately such criticisms are unlikely to stop the emergence of schools into the more complex institutions that must, by necessity, focus on the whole learner. However such criticism does hurt. It also detracts from the job at hand because even if schools see the inherent logic in addressing the antecedents to academic success they will fear having to defend their practices from the strident attacks of fuzzy thinking and ineptitude that invariably follow implementations from a humanistic philosophy. One might assume, however, that continued research into the role that academic antecedents such as self-efficacy belief play in achievement as well as gaining greater insight into how to develop these beliefs will silence the critics. It might also add impetus to the emergence of schools into the next stage of their evolution— the human development institute that deals not only with academic growth but also with the antecedents that underlie academic success. Table 1 MORGAN-JINKS STUDENT EFFICACY SCALE Statement Really Agree Agree Kind of Kind of Really Disagr Disagr ee ee 1. I work hard in school 1 2 3 4 2. I could get the best grades in class if I tried enough. 1 2 3 4 3. Most of my classmates like to do math because it is easy. 1 2 3 4 4. I would get better grades if my teacher liked me better. 1 2 3 4 5. Most of my classmates work harder on their homework than I do. 1 2 3 4 6. I am a good science student. 1 2 3 4 7. I will graduate from high school. 1 2 3 4 8. I go to a good school. 1 2 3 4 9. I always get good grades when I try hard. 1 2 3 4 10. Sometimes I think an assignment is easy when the other kids in class think it is hard. 1 2 3 4 11. I am a good social studies student. 1 2 3 4 12. Adults who have good jobs probably were good students when they were kids. 1 2 3 4 13. When I am old enough I will go to college. 1 2 3 4 14. I am one of the best students in my class. 1 2 3 4 15. No one cares if I do well in school. 1 2 3 4 16. My teacher thinks I am smart. 1 2 3 4 17. It is important to go to high school. 1 2 3 4 18. I am a good math student. 1 2 3 4 19. My classmates usually get better grades than I do. 1 2 3 4 20. What I learn in school is not important. 1 2 3 4 21. I usually understand my homework assignments. 1 2 3 4 22. I usually do not get good grades in math because it is too hard. 1 2 3 4 23. It does not matter if I do well in school. 1 2 3 4 24. Kids who get better grades than I do get more help from the teacher than I do. 1 2 3 4 25. I am a good reading student. 1 2 3 4 26. It is not hard for me to get good grades in school. 1 2 3 4 27. I am smart. 1 2 3 4 28. I will quit school as soon as I can. 1 2 3 4 29. Teachers like kids even if they do not always make good grades. 1 2 3 4 30. When the teacher asks a question I usually know the answer even if the other kids don’t. 1 2 3 4 31. What grade in math did you get on your last report card? A B C D F 32. What grade in social studies did you get on your last report card? A B C D F 33. What grade in science did you get on your last report card? A B C D F 34. What grade in reading did you get on your last report card? A B C D F Table 2 MJSES Sub-scale Items Talent Items I am a good science student. Sometimes I think an assignment is easy when the other kids think it is hard. I am a good social studies student. I am one of the best students in my class. My teacher thinks I am smart. I am a good math student. My classmates usually get better grades than I do. I usually understand my homework assignments. I could get the best grades in class if I tried hard enough. I am a good reading student. It is not hard for me to get good grades in school. I am smart. When the teacher asks a question I usually know the answer even if the other kids don't. Context Items Most of my classmates like to do math because it is easy. I would get better grades if my teacher liked me better. I will graduate from high school. I go to a good school. Adults who have good jobs probably were good students when they were kids. When I am old enough I will go to college. No one cares if I do well in school. What I learn in school is not important. It does not matter if I do well in school. Kids who get better grades than I do get more help from the teacher than I do. I will quit school as soon as I can. Teachers like kids even if they do not always make good grades. It is important to go to high school. Effort Items I work hard in school. Most of my classmates work harder on their homework than I do. I always get good grades when I try hard. I usually do not get good grades in math because it is too hard. Literature Cited Andrews, G. R. & Debus, R. L. (1978). Persistence and the causal perception of failure: Modifying cognitive attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 (2), 154166. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215. Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy. In Flavel, J. H. & Ross, L. (Eds.), Social Cognitive Development: Frontiers and Possible Futures, pp. 200-239. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122147. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1989a). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25, 729-735. Bandura, A. (1989b). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184. Bandura, A. & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598. Biran, M., & Wilson, G. T. (1981). Treatment of phobic disorders using cognitive and exposure methods: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 886-899. Brookover, W., Schweitzer, J., Schneider, J., Beady, C., Flood, P., & Wisenbaker, J. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school achievement. American Educational Research Journal, , 15, (2), 301-318. Brown, I., Jr., & Inouye, D. K. (1978). Learned helplessness through modeling: The role of perceived similarity in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 900-908. Chapman, M., Skinner, E., & Baltes, P. (1989). Interpreting correlations between children's cognitive performance: Control agency or means-ends beliefs? Developmental Psychology, 246-253. Curtis, D. & Morgan, V. L. (1997). Transition concerns of ninth-graders. Transescent Trails: The Journal of the Colorado Association of Middle Level Education, 4-7. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Newbury Park, California: Sage. Dornbusch, S., Ritter, P., Leiderman, P., Roberts, D., & Fraleigh, M. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257. Feltz, D. L., Landers, D. M, & Raeder, U. (1979). Enhancing self-efficacy in high-avoidance motor tasks: A comparison of modeling techniques. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 112-122. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. Gorrell, J. & Capron, E. W. (1988). Effects of instructional type and feedback on prospective teachers' self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Experimental Education, 56, 120-123. Gorrell, J. & Capron, E. W. (1989). Cognitive modeling effects on preservice teachers with low and moderate success expectations. Journal of Experimental Education, 57, 231-244. Gorrell, J. & Partridge, M. E. (1985). Effects of effort attributions on college students' selfefficacy judgements, persistence, and essay writing. College Student Journal. 19, 227-231. Jinks, J. L. & V. L. Morgan. (1996). Students' sense of academic efficacy and achievement in science: A useful new direction for research regarding scientific literacy? The Electronic Journal of Science Education, 1, (2), http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/jinksmor.html Pintrich, P. R. & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, (1), 33-40. Pintrich, P. R., Roeser, R. W., & DeGroot, A. M. (1994). Classroom and individual differences in early adolescents' motivation and self-regulated learning. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, (2), 139-161. Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children's achievement: A selfefficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-105. Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children's perceived selfefficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 548-556. Schunk, D. H.. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational Psychologist, 19, 48-58. Schunk, D. H. (1989a). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, (1), 173-208. Schunk, D. H. (1989b). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In Zimmerman, B. J. & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.), Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theory, Research and Practice. New York: Springer-Verlag. Skinner, E. (1985). Action, control judgements, and the structure of control experience. Psychological Review, 92, (1), 39-58. Skinner, E., Chapman, M., & Baltes, P. (1988). Control, means-ends, and agency beliefs: A new conceptualization and its measurement during childhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, (1), 117-133. 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, 663-676.
Pages to are hidden for
"EFFICACY Scale 3"Please download to view full document