Self-Efficacy_Education Aspects

Self-Efficacy: Education Aspects Dale H Schunk, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA Maria K DiBenedetto, The City University of New York, New York, NY, USA Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Abstract Self-efficacy, or perceived capabilities for learning or performing actions at designated levels, is grounded in Bandura’s social cognitive theory that postulates reciprocal interactions among personal, behavioral, and social and environmental factors. Self-efficacy has been shown to influence various achievement outcomes, including motivation, learning, and self-regulation. Calibration, or how well self-efficacy corresponds to performance, can affect students’ motivation and achievement. Self- efficacy is important for teachers as well as students. Areas for future self-efficacy research include assessment, develop- mental changes, cultural comparisons, and applications to learning with technology. Self-efficacy refers to perceived capabilities for learning or per- turn be affected by them (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Schunk, 2012). forming actions at designated levels (Bandura, 1997). The Students with high self-efficacy for learning are apt to engage in operation of self-efficacy has been explored in various domains, self-regulation (e.g., set goals, use effective learning strategies, including education, business, athletics, careers, health, and monitor their comprehension, evaluate their goal progress) wellness. Researchers have found that self-efficacy influences and create effective environments for learning (e.g., eliminate individuals’ learning, motivation, and self-regulation (Bandura, or minimize distractions, find effective study partners). In turn, 1997; Pajares, 1996; Schunk and Pajares, 2009). self-efficacy can be influenced by the outcomes of behaviors (e.g., goal progress, achievement) and by inputs from the Self-efficacy is grounded in Bandura’s (1986) social cogni- environment (e.g., feedback from teachers, social comparisons tive theory, which postulates reciprocal interactions among with peers). personal (e.g., cognitions, beliefs, skills, effects), behavioral, and social and environmental factors (Schunk, 2012). Social Bandura (1997) postulated that people acquire information cognitive theory reflects a view of human agency in which to gauge their self-efficacy from their performance individuals exert a large degree of control over the outcomes accomplishments, vicarious (e.g., modeled) experiences, forms of their actions. They hold beliefs that allow them to influence of social persuasion, and physiological indexes (Figure 1). their thoughts, feelings, actions, social interactions, and Learners’ performances provide the most reliable information aspects of their environments. Thus, teachers who want to for assessing self-efficacy because they are tangible indicators improve their skills enroll in courses and seek mentoring from of one’s capabilities. Successful performances raise self- more-experienced teachers. But at the same time, people are efficacy, whereas failures can lower it, although an occasional influenced by their actions and facets of their social environ- failure (success) after many successes (failures) may not have ments. Teachers are apt to change their behaviors in response to much of an impact. advice from their mentors. Individuals acquire much information about their capabil- According to social cognitive theory, strategies for increasing ities through knowledge of how others perform (Bandura, well-being can be aimed at improving emotional, cognitive, or 1997). Similarity to others is a cue for gauging self-efficacy motivational processes, increasing behavioral competencies, or (Schunk, 1995). Observing similar others succeed can raise improving aspects of one’s social and physical environments. observers’ self-efficacy and motivate them to try the task Teachers are responsible for promoting learning among their because they may believe that if others can do it they can as students. Using social cognitive theory as a framework, teachers well, although a vicarious increase in self-efficacy can be can improve their students’ emotional states and correct their negated by subsequent performance failure. Persons who faulty beliefs and habits of thinking (personal factors), raise their academic skills and self-regulation (behaviors), and alter Performance classroom features and social interactions (social and envi- accomplishments ronmental factors) to ensure student success. Vicarious Self-efficacy This article discusses the role of self-efficacy in education experiences contexts. Following a review of self-efficacy theory, factors affecting self-efficacy and the measurement and prediction of Forms of social self-efficacy are discussed. Applications of self-efficacy to self- persuasion regulation and teaching are explained. The article concludes with suggestions for future research. Physiological indexes Self-Efficacy Theory Figure 1 Sources of self-efficacy information. Reproduced from Ban- Self-efficacy – a key variable in social cognitive theory – is dura, A., 1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman, New York. hypothesized to influence behaviors and environments and in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.92019-1 515

516 Self-Efficacy: Education Aspects observe similar peers fail may believe they lack the competence collective self-perceptions formed through experiences with to succeed, which may not motivate them to attempt the task. and interpretations of the environment and influenced by reinforcements and evaluations by others (Shavelson and Individuals also develop self-efficacy from the social Bolus, 1982). Self-concept typically is viewed as hierarchically persuasions (e.g., “I know you can do it”) they receive from organized with a general self-concept on top and subarea others (Bandura, 1997). Social persuasions must be credible self-concepts below, and multidimensional elements, such as and cultivate people’s beliefs in their capabilities for self-confidence and self-esteem (Marsh and Shavelson, 1985; successfully attaining outcomes. Although positive feedback Schunk and Pajares, 2009). Self-perceptions of specific can raise self-efficacy, the increase will not endure if students competencies influence subarea self-concepts (e.g., subject subsequently perform poorly (Schunk, 1995). Conversely, areas such as history and biology), which in turn combine to negative persuasions can lower self-efficacy. form the academic self-concept. Because self-efficacy involves perceived capabilities in specific areas, it should contribute to Individuals acquire self-efficacy information from self-concept (Schunk and Pajares, 2009). physiological and emotional states, such as anxiety and stress (Bandura, 1997). Strong emotional reactions to a task provide Self-esteem is a general affective evaluation of one’s self that cues about anticipated success or failure. When students often includes judgments of self-worth (Schunk and Pajares, experience negative thoughts and fears about their capabilities 2009). Like self-concept, it differs markedly from self-efficacy. (e.g., feeling nervous thinking about taking a test), those Self-efficacy involves questions of can (e.g., ‘Can I write this reactions can lower self-efficacy and trigger additional stress essay?’), whereas self-esteem reflects questions of feel (e.g., and agitation that help ensure the inadequate performance. ‘How do I feel about myself as a writer?’). One’s beliefs about Learners may feel more efficacious when they perceive that what one can do may bear little relation to how one feels they are less anxious about academic outcomes. about oneself, as seen in students with high self-efficacy for learning but low self-esteem because they are socially Although self-efficacy is important, it is not the only unpopular with peers. influence on behavior. Social cognitive theory contends that no amount of self-efficacy will produce a competent Perceived control (or agency) also differs from self-efficacy. performance when the necessary skills to succeed are lacking In Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory, agency is the (Schunk, 1995). Students’ values (perceptions of importance capability to control one’s life events. One’s system of and utility of learning) also can affect behavior (Wigfield personal agency includes self-efficacy and outcome expecta- et al., 2004). Even students who feel highly efficacious in tions (discussed earlier). Although self-efficacy is a key science may not take science courses that they believe are not component of personal agency (Bandura, 1997), it is not the germane to their goal of becoming a medical doctor. Also only one. A responsive environment is necessary for self- important are outcome expectations, or beliefs about the efficacy to exert its effects. Students may feel self-efficacious anticipated outcomes of actions (Bandura, 1997). Students for learning yet make no effort to do so because they believe typically engage in activities that they believe will result in that in their present environment learning will not be positive outcomes and avoid actions that they believe may rewarded. lead to negative outcomes, even when they feel efficacious about attaining the latter. Assuming requisite skills and The notion of perceived control figures prominently in the positive values and outcome expectations, social cognitive theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985, 1991). In this theory, theory predicts that self-efficacy is a key determinant of the intention to engage in a behavior is its primary determi- individuals’ motivation, learning, self-regulation, and nant. In turn, intention is affected by the perceive value of the achievement (Schunk, 2012). outcome of the behavior, social norms, and pressures from others to perform the behavior, and perceived behavioral Self-efficacy can influence the choices people make and the control (i.e., perceived difficulty in performing the behavior). actions they pursue (Bandura, 1997). Individuals tend to select The effects on behavior of variables such as self-efficacy are tasks and activities in which they feel competent and confident mediated through their influence on intention. Some research and avoid those in which they do not. Unless people believe shows that perceived behavioral control corresponds closely that their actions will produce the desired consequences, they to self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Furthermore, placing a heavy have little incentive to engage in those actions. burden on intention as the primary determinant of behavior is risky, because there are many reasons why people do not Self-efficacy also helps determine how much effort students always act based on their intentions. Education researchers expend, how long they persist when confronting obstacles, and have shown that self-efficacy can affect achievement both how resilient they are in the face of adversity. Students with directly and indirectly through other variables (e.g., persis- a strong sense of self-efficacy approach difficult tasks as tence, effort; Pajares, 1996; Schunk and Pajares, 2009). challenges to be mastered rather than as threats to be avoided. They set challenging goals and maintain strong Self-efficacy differs from self-confidence, or a general belief commitment to them, heighten and sustain their efforts in about one’s capabilities that often does not specify the object of the face of failure, and quickly recover their sense of self- the belief (e.g., ‘She is highly self-confident’). Self-efficacy is efficacy after setbacks. situated within Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory and has a clear and specific meaning. Although self-confident Distinctions with Other Variables individuals often are self-efficacious, there is no automatic relation between these variables. People who know they will Other variables bear some conceptual similarity to self-efficacy fail at a task are highly self-confident but have low self- (Schunk and Zimmerman, 2006). Self-concept refers to one’s efficacy (Bandura, 1997).

Self-Efficacy: Education Aspects 517 Factors Affecting Self-Efficacy congruent self-efficacy and skill measures. Self-efficacy also correlates positively with indexes of self-regulation (e.g., goal Research has explored the effects of instructional and other setting, strategy use, performance monitoring; Schunk and classroom processes on self-efficacy (Schunk and Pajares, Pajares, 2009). 2009). This research shows that instructional, social, and environmental factors inform students about their learning, Based on findings from meta-analysis, Brown and Lent and they use this information to assess their self-efficacy for (2006) reported that self-efficacy is a significant predictor of continued learning. education interests and mediates the relation of prior performance and ability measures to interests. Using meta- At the outset of an activity, students’ self-efficacy for analysis with self-beliefs that include self-efficacy and more- learning is a function of their prior experiences, personal global measures, such as self-concept, Valentine et al. qualities (e.g., abilities, attitudes), and social supports. The (2004) found a small positive influence of self-beliefs on latter include the extent that teachers, parents, and others achievement and that the influence was stronger with self- encourage students to learn, facilitate their access to resources beliefs specific to academic domains (e.g., self-efficacy). necessary for learning (e.g., materials, facilities), and teach them self-regulatory strategies that enhance skill development. Researchers have used causal models to test the predictive and mediational power of self-efficacy. Using path analysis, As students engage in learning activities, they are influenced Schunk (1981) found that self-efficacy exerted a direct effect by personal factors (e.g., goal setting, cognitive information on children’s achievement and persistence in mathematics. processing) and situational variables (e.g., feedback, social Pajares and Kranzler (1995) demonstrated that mathe- comparisons). These influences provide students with cues matics self-efficacy has as powerful and direct effect on about how well they are learning. Self-efficacy is enhanced mathematics performance as does cognitive or mental ability. when students believe they are performing well. Lack of Zimmerman and Bandura (1994) found that self-efficacy success or slow progress will not necessarily lower self- affected achievement directly as well as indirectly through its efficacy if students believe they can perform better, such as by influence on goals. Schunk and Gunn (1986) found that expending greater effort or using more-effective learning children’s mathematical achievement was directly influenced strategies (Schunk, 1995). In turn, self-efficacy enhances by use of effective strategies and self-efficacy. Relich et al. motivation, learning, self-regulation, and achievement. (1986) showed that self-efficacy exerted a direct effect on achievement and that instruction had both a direct and an Experimental research supports these hypothesized rela- indirect effect on achievement through self-efficacy (Figure 2). tions with students in different grade levels (e.g., elementary, middle, high, postsecondary), with diverse abilities (e.g., Self-Efficacy Assessment regular, remedial, gifted), and in different content areas (e.g., reading, writing, mathematics, computer applications; The earliest self-efficacy studies were conducted in clinical Schunk, 1995; Schunk and Ertmer, 2000). Some instructional settings. Bandura et al. (1977) administered a self-efficacy and social processes that raise self-efficacy are having students and a behavioral test to adults with snake phobias. The test pursue proximal and specific goals, exposing children to items consisted of progressively more threatening encounters social models, providing students with performance and attri with a snake (e.g., touch it, allow it to sit in one’s lap). For butional feedback, teaching students learning strategies, the self-efficacy assessment, participants designated which having learners verbalize strategies while they apply them, tasks they felt they could perform and rated how sure they linking students’ rewards to their learning progress, and were that they could perform the tasks they felt they could having students self-monitor and evaluate their learning perform. To measure generality, participants rated the same progress. These processes differ in many ways, but they all tasks with a type of snake different from the type used on the help to inform students of their learning progress, which test. This is a microanalytic research methodology; self- raises self-efficacy. efficacy and skill were assessed at the level of specific tasks. Prediction of Education Outcomes Instruction Achievement Research shows that self-efficacy for learning or performing Self-efficacy tasks correlates positively and significantly with subsequent achievement on those tasks (Pajares, 1996; Schunk and Figure 2 Self-efficacy effects on achievement. Reproduced from Relich, Pajares, 2009). Correlations between academic self-efficacy J.D., Debus, R.L., Walker, R., 1986. The mediating role of attribution and and performance in investigations in which self-efficacy self-efficacy variables for treatment effects on achievement outcomes. corresponds closely to the criterion task have ranged from Contemporary Educational Psychology 11, 195–216. .49 to .70; direct effects in path analytic studies have ranged from b ¼ .349 to .545 (Pajares and Urdan, 2006). Self- efficacy explains approximately 25% of the variance in the prediction of academic outcomes beyond that of instructional influences. Using meta-analytic procedures, Multon et al. (1991) found that self-efficacy related to academic performance (rm ¼ .38) and accounted for 14% of the variance. Stronger effects were obtained with highly

518 Self-Efficacy: Education Aspects Participants were not asked for a general rating of how well they calibrated because of the lack of correspondence between felt they could deal with snakes. self-efficacy and performance. Early education studies used a similar methodology. Calibration involves intentions, as stressed by the theory of Schunk (1981) gave children with low mathematical skills self- planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In discussing implementation efficacy and skill tests. For self-efficacy, children were shown intentions, Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006) noted that even pairs of long-division problems; the two problems within with positive attitudes and social norms people may not each pair were comparable in form and difficulty. For each perform behaviors if they doubt their capabilities of doing so pair, they judged how certain they were that they could solve successfully. problems of that type. For the skill test, children attempted to solve problems that corresponded in form and difficulty to Calibration is educationally important. Motivation suffers those on the self-efficacy test. when students who overestimate their capabilities perform poorly. Although self-efficacy that slightly exceeds what one Since Bandura’s (1977) initial formulation of self-efficacy, can do is desirable because such overestimation can raise researchers have moved beyond his definition of self-efficacy effort and persistence (Bandura, 1997), recurring over- as a domain-specific variable and assessed self-efficacy at estimation can lead to continued failure with resulting more-general levels with such items as, “How well can you decrements in students’ motivation and learning. get teachers to help you when you get stuck on school work?” and, “How well can you study when there are other Overestimation can result when students do not fully interesting things to do?” (Schunk and Pajares, 2009). To understand the demands of the task. Greater task experience arrive at these types of judgments, students must integrate informs students of the skills needed to succeed. Calibration their perceptions across different situations (e.g., involving also can be affected by instructional and social factors (Schunk mathematics, science, social studies, and so forth). and Pajares, 2009). Although instructional practices that provide information about skills required for the task can There is some research evidence for a generalized sense of increase calibration (Schunk, 1981), such practices also can self-efficacy (Smith, 1989). Certain education conditions might lower it. Students in low-ability groups from which they foster it. School curricula are structured for positive transfer; for cannot move may feel demoralized and perform poorly, even example, learning how to divide requires knowing how to though they feel efficacious about learning. Teachers who estimate, subtract, and multiply. Students who perform well indiscriminately encourage students (e.g., “Come on, I know in mathematics might approach division with higher self- you can do this.”) without ensuring that they learn skills may efficacy than those who have encountered difficulties. produce highly efficacious students who lack the skills to succeed. Even in the absence of specific curricula structure, general- ization also might occur when students believe that the new The social cultures of schools also may affect calibration learning will require skills that they previously have mastered. (Schunk and Pajares, 2009). Students may perform less than their Thus, writing a research paper requires identifying a topic, best – and lower than their self-efficacy would predict – so that conducting a literature review, synthesizing and organizing they do not become socially isolated as a consequence of being information, and drawing conclusions. Students likely have perceived by their peers as overly intelligent. used these skills to write papers in English. Students who feel competent in the requisite skills may have higher self-efficacy Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulation for writing a research paper than those who question their capabilities. Self-efficacy has been applied extensively to self-regulation (or self-regulated learning), which refers to learning that results Finding evidence of generality would not refute the subject from students’ self-generated thoughts, feelings, and behaviors specificity of self-efficacy, but it is important to determine how that are systematically oriented toward the attainment of students weigh and combine efficacy information to arrive at their learning goals (Zimmerman, 2000). Self-regulation generalized judgments. Developmental factors may be an involves students’ goal-directed activities that they instigate issue, because we should expect that with development and sustain, such as focusing on task demands, applying students should be better able to assess their capabilities in effective strategies to learn, establishing productive social component areas and determine the types of skills needed to and work environments, assessing learning progress, and succeed. making strategic adjustments as needed. Developing and maintaining a sense of self-efficacy for self-regulated learning Calibration motivates students and promotes their learning (Schunk and Usher, 2011). The issue of calibration, or how well self-efficacy relates to actual performance on the corresponding tasks (Schunk and Usher, Zimmerman (2000) developed a self-regulated learning 2011), has been studied by researchers. When people judge model that highlights the role of self-efficacy (Figure 3). that they are capable of performing a task and then perform This cyclical and recursive model includes three phases: it, or when they judge that they are incapable of performing forethought, performance, and self-reflection. The forethought it and cannot perform it, they are well calibrated because self- phase involves processes students engage in prior to learning efficacy accurately predicts performance. Conversely, when and includes motivational beliefs and task analysis. Key people judge that they are capable of performing a task but motivational beliefs are self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, do not perform it, or when they judge that they are incapable intrinsic interest, and goal orientations (reasons why students of performing a task but then perform it, they are poorly want to learn). Task analysis includes goal setting (short- and

Self-Efficacy: Education Aspects 519 long-term goals) and strategic planning, or deciding what planning, thus forming the recursive loop in the self- methods to use. Although each of these processes has been regulation cycle. Students who are self-efficacious about their shown to be related to achievement, self-efficacy is a strong self-regulatory capabilities are likely to sustain efforts and predictor and affects goal setting and strategic planning persist even when they form negative evaluations (Schunk, (Schunk, 2012; Zimmerman and Bandura, 1994). 2012). These students may attribute performance to strategy use and effort and make adjustments in the forethought The forethought phase initiates the learning activities that phase as they plan for subsequent learning. occur during the performance phase, during which students systematically and actively engage in learning. Key self-regulatory Although self-efficacy is an integral motivational belief in processes are self-control and self-observation. Students exert the self-regulatory cycle, it is the development of self-regulatory self-control by using such strategies as imagery, self-instruction, competence that explains how self-efficacy becomes an internal attention focusing, and others targeted at reaching goals motivational force behind self-regulated learning. Schunk and (Zimmerman, 2002). Self-observation includes self-monitoring Zimmerman (1997) formulated a model of development of and self-recording learning progress. Students gain progress self-regulatory competence as consisting of four levels: information from their perceptions and feedback from others observation, emulation, self-control, and self-regulation. This (e.g., teachers, peers, parents). Research suggests that students is not a stage model in which learners move to the next level who are highly self-efficacious about their capability to learn after satisfying the criteria of the preceding level. Rather, sustain their efforts and adapt their performances better than learners may freely move among the levels while engaged those with lower self-efficacy (Pajares, 2008). in the same task as they develop increasing self-regulatory competence. On the basis of their self-monitoring and feedback from others, students form self-judgments and experience self- Initially, social models – such as teachers and peers – serve reactions in the self-reflection phase. Self-judgments include as important sources of self-regulatory behavior and self- self-evaluations and attributions of performance to perceived efficacy. At the observation level, students observe models as causes (Schunk, 2012). Self-evaluations are based on they perform actions and learn many self-regulatory performance standards that may derive from previous processes, such as strategic planning, self-monitoring, and performances, performances by others (e.g., teachers), or performance adaptations (Zimmerman, 2000). In addition, absolute standards (Zimmerman, 2002). Causal attributions students may observe models as they receive rewards, such as may reflect controllable causes, such as strategy use and praise and good grades. These observations vicariously build effort, or uncontrollable ones, such as luck or ability (Weiner, students’ self-efficacy for learning. 1985). Students also react to their performances with self- satisfaction and adaptive or defensive responses. Self- At the emulation level, students practice the behaviors previ- satisfaction refers to the level of contentment students feel ously demonstrated by the model and imitate the general about their performance relative to a standard or goal. pattern or style with assistance from the model (Zimmerman, Adaptive or defensive responses include emotional reactions 2000). Students receive reinforcement from the model and to performances. Students who react defensively exhibit from their own senses and motoric feedback. Students’ apathy, helplessness, procrastination, and cognitive dis- perceptions of their ability to discriminate and differentiate the engagement for future learning to preserve images of self- self-regulatory processes needed to complete a task, along with worth (Garcia and Pintrich, 1994). Students who respond the model’s feedback, provide them with a sense of competence. adaptively make adjustments to subsequent self-regulatory behaviors that may include modifying their motivational In these first two levels, learners derive information about beliefs and task analyses. their self-efficacy primarily from external (social) sources. It is at the third level of self-control when students begin to As a consequence of self-reflections, learners may continue experience self-efficacy from within. Schunk and Zimmerman working on the task (i.e., the performance control phase) or (1997) describe the self-control level as when learners are return to the forethought phase for new goal setting and able to use strategies independently of the model. Students have internalized what they previously have observed and Forethought Self-reflection emulated; however, they are still using the representational (before task) (after task) patterns of the model to perform behaviors. During this level, students begin to experience self-efficacy internally as they are Performance control able reflect upon their capability of matching their work (during task) against the standards displayed by the model. Figure 3 Phases of self-regulated learning. Reproduced from Zimmer- Students have reached the self-regulation level when they are man, B.J., 2000. Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. able to systematically adapt their performance to different In: Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R., Zeidner, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Self- environmental and personal conditions (Zimmerman, 2000). regulation. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 13–39. At this level, students are motivated by their self-efficacy beliefs. They now are capable of initiating the use of strategies, making adjustments to behavior based on the situation, and evaluating their performance with the understanding that they are capable of competently making changes as needed. As self-regulated students engage in the three cyclical phases of self-regulated learning, they substantiate their sense of self-efficacy and regulate their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward goal attainment.

520 Self-Efficacy: Education Aspects Teacher Self-Efficacy appropriateness using the level of specificity of their items, the range of task demands that they include, and their Self-efficacy is applicable to teachers as well as students. correspondence with the outcomes of interest (Bandura, 2006). Teacher (or instructional) self-efficacy refers to personal beliefs about one’s capabilities to help students learn (Tschannen- Research is needed on the role of self-efficacy at different Moran et al., 1998; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2009). Self-efficacy developmental levels. In assessing self-efficacy, learners must should influence teachers’ activities, effort, and persistence. integrate information from the environment, their prior Teachers with low self-efficacy avoid planning activities they experiences, and their beliefs about the present situation. believe exceed their capabilities, do not persist with students Such complex cognitive processing may exceed the having difficulties, expend little effort to find materials, and capabilities of younger children, which can decrease the do not reteach content in ways students might better predictive utility of self-efficacy. Most self-efficacy research understand (Ashton and Webb, 1986). Teachers with high has been conducted on older children, adolescents, and self-efficacy are more likely to develop challenging activities, adults. Determining how younger children weigh and help students succeed, and persist with students who have combine self-efficacy information from different sources will trouble learning. These teacher behaviors enhance student substantiate its relevance for learners of all ages. learning and substantiate teachers’ self-efficacy for helping students learn. There is a need for more research studies using students from different cultures. Most self-efficacy research studies have sampled Ashton and Webb (1986) found that teachers with higher from students in the United States. Cross-cultural studies will self-efficacy were likely to have a positive classroom expand our understanding of the operation and generality of environment (e.g., less student anxiety and teacher criticism), self-efficacy. Klassen (2004) reviewed several studies and found support students’ ideas, and meet the learning needs of all that self-efficacy tended to be lower for students from non- students. High teacher self-efficacy is positively associated Western cultures (e.g., Asian and Asian-immigrant students) with teachers’ use of praise, individual attention to students, than for students from Western cultures (e.g., Western Europe, and monitoring students’ learning progress, as well as with Canada, the United States). In some cases, the more modest higher student achievement. self-efficacy expressed by the non-Western students predicted academic outcomes better than the higher self-efficacy of the Collective teacher self-efficacy represents teachers’ beliefs that Western students. The high level of achievement of Asian their capabilities as a group can enhance students’ learning students may be a product of socialization practices that (Henson, 2002). Teachers develop collective self-efficacy when promote close parent–child relationships. In these cultures, they work collaboratively to achieve common goals relational efficacy (i.e., the confidence that students have in (performance accomplishments), learn from one another and their familial and social relations), as well as social support have mentors who serve as role models (vicarious experiences), from parents, has a powerful influence on students’ academic receive encouragement and support from administrators performance. For these students, the lower levels of academic (forms of social persuasion), and work together to cope self-efficacy do not translate into lower academic performance. with difficulties and alleviate stress (physiological indexes). As collective self-efficacy is strengthened, teachers remain Research is needed on self-efficacy as students learn from motivated to collaborate to improve students’ learning. technology. The explosion of technology in instruction Collective self-efficacy bears a positive relation to teachers’ job through electronic and distance education shows its potential satisfaction (Caprara et al., 2003). to foster learning in ways that formerly were unknown (Brown, 2006). Researchers are investigating which strategies Future Directions are helpful for learning from technology and how to teach students those strategies. Similar research is needed on how Researchers will continue to test Bandura’s (1997) contention learning from technology affects students’ self-efficacy for that self-efficacy beliefs can affect virtually every aspect of learning. Thus, students’ performance accomplishments using people’s lives – their thoughts, feelings, and actions. One technology should help build their self-efficacy. But students important research issue concerns the generality of self- also learn through social networking, which suggests that efficacy. As discussed earlier, researchers have moved away other sources of self-efficacy information (vicarious, persua- from Bandura’s contextual perspective and assessed self- sive) also can build and sustain self-efficacy and motivation. efficacy with measures of greater generality. Decontextualized A better understanding of how use of technology affects self-efficacy assessments that lack consistency with the students’ self-efficacy will have implications for the design of criterion task can distort the influence of self-efficacy. To be learning activities. explanatory and predictive, self-efficacy measures should reflect the task demands within the domain being analyzed. Conclusion Evaluating the appropriateness and adequacy of a self-efficacy measure requires making theoretically informed and Theory and research support the important role of self-efficacy empirically sound judgments that reflect an understanding of in learning, motivation, and self-regulation. From instructional the domain under investigation and its different features, the and social and environmental sources, students gain types of capabilities the domain requires, and the range of information that affects their self-efficacy, and in turn, situations in which these capabilities might be applied. self-efficacy influences various achievement behaviors. The Self-efficacy measures then can be evaluated for their operation of self-efficacy in education contexts will continue to be clarified as researchers investigate such issues as the

Self-Efficacy: Education Aspects 521 generality of self-efficacy measures, how students’ capabilities Pajares, F., 1996. Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational to process self-efficacy information changes with develop- Research 66, 543–578. ment, how self-efficacy functions in different cultures, and the role of self-efficacy in learning from technology. Pajares, F., 2008. Motivational role of self-efficacy beliefs in self-regulated learning. In: Schunk, D.H., Zimmerman, B.J. (Eds.), Motivation and Self-regulated See also: Academic Self-Concept and Achievement; Cognitive Development: Mathematics Learning and Instruction; Learning: Theory, Research and Applications. Taylor & Francis, New York, Educational Learning Theory; Learning Theories and pp. 111–139. Educational Paradigms; Learning and Instruction: Social- Pajares, F., Kranzler, J., 1995. Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in Cognitive Perspectives; Learning to Learn; Mathematics mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology 20, Education; Self-Concepts: Educational Aspects; Self-Regulated 426–443. Learning: Theories, Measures, and Outcomes; Teacher Pajares, F., Urdan, T. (Eds.), 2006. Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Information Behaviours and Student Outcomes; Teacher Education. Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT. Bibliography Relich, J.D., Debus, R.L., Walker, R., 1986. The mediating role of attribution and self- efficacy variables for treatment effects on achievement outcomes. Contemporary Ajzen, I., 1985. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl, J., Educational Psychology 11, 195–216. Beckman, J. (Eds.), Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Springer, Hei- delberg, Germany, pp. 11–39. Schunk, D.H., 1981. Modeling and attributional effects on children’s achievement: a self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology 73, 93–105. Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, 179–211. Schunk, D.H., 1995. Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In: Maddux, J.E. (Ed.), Self-efficacy, Adaptation, and Adjustment: Theory, Research, and Applica- Ashton, P.T., Webb, R.B., 1986. Making a Difference: Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and tion. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 281–303. Student Achievement. Longman, New York. Schunk, D.H., 2012. Social cognitive theory. In: Harris, K.R., Graham, S., Urdan, T. Bandura, A., 1977. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84, 191–215. (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook, Theories, Constructs, and Bandura, A., 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Critical Issues, vol. 1. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. pp. 101–123. Schunk, D.H., Ertmer, P.A., 2000. Self-regulation and academic learning: self-efficacy Bandura, A., 1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman, New York. enhancing interventions. In: Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R., Zeidner, M. (Eds.), Bandura, A., 2006. Guide for creating self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares, F., Urdan, T. Handbook of Self-regulation. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 631–649. Schunk, D.H., Gunn, T.P., 1986. Self-efficacy and skill development: influence of task (Eds.), Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Information Age Publishing, strategies and attributions. Journal of Educational Research 79, 238–244. Greenwich, CT, pp. 307–338. Schunk, D.H., Pajares, F., 2009. Self-efficacy theory. In: Wentzel, K.R., Wigfield, A. Bandura, A., Adams, N.E., Beyer, J., 1977. Cognitive processes mediating behavioral (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation at School. Routledge, New York, pp. 35–53. change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35, 125–139. Schunk, D.H., Usher, E.L., 2011. Assessing self-efficacy for self-regulated learning. In: Brown, J.S., September/October 2006. New learning environments for the 21st Zimmerman, B.J., Schunk, D.H. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation of Learning century: exploring the edge. Change 38, 18–24. and Performance. Routledge, New York, pp. 282–297. Brown, S.D., Lent, R.W., 2006. Preparing adolescents to make career decisions: Schunk, D.H., Zimmerman, B.J., 1997. Social origins of self-regulatory competence. a social cognitive perspective. In: Pajares, F., Urdan, T. (Eds.), Self-efficacy Beliefs Educational Psychologist 32, 195–208. of Adolescents. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 201–223. Schunk, D.H., Zimmerman, B.J., 2006. Competence and control beliefs: distinguishing Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., Steca, P., 2003. Efficacy beliefs as deter- minants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology 95, 821–832. the means and ends. In: Alexander, P.A., Winne, P.H. (Eds.), Handbook of Garcia, T., Pintrich, P.R., 1994. Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: Educational Psychology, second ed. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 349–367. the role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In: Schunk, D.H., Shavelson, R., Bolus, R., 1982. Self-concept: the interplay of theory and methods. Zimmerman, B.J. (Eds.), Self-regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues Journal of Educational Psychology 74, 3–17. and Educational Applications. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 127–153. Smith, R.E., 1989. Effects of coping skills training on generalized self-efficacy and Gollwitzer, P.M., Sheeran, P., 2006. Implementation intentions and goal achievement: locus of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56, 228–233. a meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W.K., 1998. Teacher efficacy: its Psychology 38, 69–119. meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research 68, 202–248. Henson, R.K., 2002. From adolescent angst to adulthood: substantive implications and Valentine, J.C., DuBois, D.L., Cooper, H., 2004. The relation between self-beliefs and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research. Educa- tional Psychologist 37, 127–150. academic achievement: a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist 39, Klassen, R.M., 2004. Optimism and realism: a review of self-efficacy from a cross- 111–133. cultural perspective. International Journal of Psychology 39, 205–230. Weiner, B., 1985. An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Marsh, H.W., Shavelson, R., 1985. Self-concept: its multifaceted, hierarchical struc- Psychological Review 12, 1–14. ture. Educational Psychologist 20, 107–123. Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., Eccles, J.S., 2004. Expectancy value theory in cross-cultural Multon, K.D., Brown, S.D., Lent, R.W., 1991. Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to perspective. In: McInerney, D.M., Van Etten, S. (Eds.), Big Theories Revisited. academic outcomes: a meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 165–198. Psychology 38, 30–38. Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W.K., Davis, H.A., 2009. Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. In: Wentzel, K.R., Wigfield, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation at School. Routledge, New York, pp. 627–653. Zimmerman, B.J., 2000. Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In: Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R., Zeidner, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 13–39. Zimmerman, B.J., 2002. Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory into Practice 41, 64–70. Zimmerman, B.J., Bandura, A., 1994. Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course achievement. American Educational Research Journal 31, 845–862.