Theoretical Frameword - Criticism's

Criticism’s of Self-Efficacy

Criticism’s of Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy include Hagen’s (2007) assertion that continual praise creates a false sense of ability. That is, if a student who is failing is continually told he or she is doing a good job, the student will have little urgency to try to better oneself. “Self-efficacy comes from the reality of accomplishing a task rather than from praise; further, empty praise raises all sorts of issues related to honesty, trust, and belief” (Hagen, 2007, para. 6). Thus, in order to raise students self-efficacy, one must be certain to do so appropriately.

Further criticism of providing praise is found when Stout (2001) discussed the dumbing down of education in America. Stout suggested that self-esteem ought to come through a student’s successes. The motivation to build one’s efficacy, according to Stout, is coming at the expense of academic success as students are being provided evaluations they do not deserve in order to save their feelings.

Additionally, efficacy measurements have been criticized for their generality (McMaugh & Debus, 1998). That is, seeking an individual’s general competence and supplying him with positive feedback will result in a student not focusing on areas of potential weaknesses. Not evaluating a specific academic task can result in a student having a wrongful self image.

Further criticism of self-efficacy occurs when Hawkins (1995) questions “whether attitudes cause behavior or whether behavior causes attitudes” (p. 238). That is, Hawkins maintained that it is not ones attitudes which cause an individual to act, rather, it is his or her actions which cause them to believe. Although Hawkins does believe that self-efficacy can be utilized as a predictor there may be superior factors which influence an individual’s performance than self-efficacy, such as gender.

Theoretical Framework - Connection with Study

Connection with Study

Self-efficacy can be linked with the classroom through asserting that the teachers actions matter as much as the content. Schunk and Zimmerman (2007) tested Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy through teaching primary aged students a new element of art, as clay modeling. The authors discovered that teaching the student’s the skills necessary to accomplish the task and creating confidence would improve the overall results-the learner is thus utilizing the skills from the instruction. Furthermore, a child’s self-efficacy can be improved by noting another student’s ability to succeed. Thus, the conclusion after this study was that “the modeling, practice, and feedback, combined with learning goals and evaluations of strategy effectiveness” enhanced the child’s ability to learn (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007, p. 19). In doing so, an instructor will enhance the child’s self-efficacy.

In another study, Mills, Pajares, and Herron (2006) researched how a Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy played a role in a student’s anxiety levels. “Student’s efficacy beliefs possesses a positive relationship to their academic performance” (p. 277). Furthermore, there was a relationship between student self belief and his or her ability to read and concluded that 14% of academic achievement was due to a student’s self-efficacy.

Further studies revealed that Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy affected the possibility of a student “undertak[ing] challenging tasks, expend[ing] greater effort, show[ing] increased persistence, demonstrate[ing] lower anxiety, display[ing] flexibility with learning strategies, and [displaying superior skills of] self-regulat[ion]” (Mills et al., 2006, p. 278). Additional research found that gender made an impact on student’s self-efficacy. That is, males were found to have a higher self-belief about their math and science skills then did females.

Tang, et al. (2004), investigated Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy from the perspective of counselors of school-aged children. Thus, a counselors feeling of their personal worth will have an enormous affect on the students he or she is counseling (Tang et al., 2004). “To be confident in their ability” the authors (2004) write, is “to use these skills in real-life settings [which] has a direct influence on the quality of counseling in services they provide” (p. 70). That is to say, the more experience a counselor has within the training portion of his or her academics, the better served he or she will be to appropriately counsel students in the long run.

Through understanding how the effects of self-efficacy of a counselor can have on a student, it is undeniable that these same self belief factors would play a role in the classroom. Tang et al. (2004) concluded, “past experience and actual involvement in related tasks help individuals to develop more confidence in accomplishing a task” (p. 77). Thus, by placing students in real-world scenarios, a teacher can better prepare his or her students.

Further evidence of Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy affecting a student’s education is concluded by Gallavan (2003) who suggests that “the areas of school where young students excel academically may initiate lifelong patterns of achievement and reward them psychologically and socially” (p. 15). Building confidence and creating a level of high self-efficacy will push a student in one direction or away from another (Gallavan, 2003). Career education encourages student engagement and better prepares students with relevant, current issues of today as well as tomorrow. That is, a student’s positive outlook of current issues will have a lasting effect (Gallavan). Thus, Gallavan concludes, “by examining the world around them, individuals consider their personal beliefs about themselves, along with their distinct personal control and management of learning” (p. 17). That is to say, an individual will create a self image based on what he or she sees around oneself.

Thus, an individual’s self image, which is created within the early years of education, will have a lasting effect on a student. Mills, Pajares, and Herron (2006) concluded that a low self-efficacy can affect a student’s academic achievements by 14% and a high level of self-efficacy can further improve that. Furthermore, a student’s belief about his or her own abilities may influence a career path which may be less desirable, however more along the lines of self-efficacy.

Through building self-efficacy at an early age, a student can build his or her ability to go beyond what would have been with a low self-efficacy. Thus, utilizing Bandura’s social learning theory as a lens to views articles regarding gender in education, one will be able to see what affects a student’s gender has, if at all, on achievement levels.

Theoretical Frameword - Self-Efficacy

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is another component of Bandura’s social learning theory. Self-efficacy, according to Bandura (1994), is an individual’s belief about his ability to perform at a designated level. “Perceived self-efficacy plays a pivotal role in this process of self-management because it affects actions not only directly but also through its impact on cognitive, motivational, decisional, and affective determinants” (Bandura et al., 2003, p.769). That is, a person’s impression of their abilities will have an effect on the desire to perform an activity. In addition to this, Bandura, Vittorio, Barbaranelli, Gerbino, and Pastorelli’s (2003) theory of self-efficacy discovered that an individual’s self image can play a role in whether they have a positive or negative manner in which they will perform an activity. An individual, according to Bandura (1997), will have more incentive to attempt an activity if he or she believes he or she is capable of performing it.

Self-efficacy, will influence an individual’s aspirations (Bandura, 1997). That is, one whom has a high level of self-efficacy is likely to think soundly, create difficult challenges, and commit to meeting the challenges they set forth. Conversely, those “with a low sense of efficacy avoid difficult tasks” (Bandura, 1997, p. 5). Self-efficacy can not only promote motivation for an individual with high efficacy, but it can also serve as a model to which one can imitate. That is, if one observes an individual who has similar characteristics succeed, he or she is likely to feel as if they have the ability to succeed in a similar scenario.

Self-efficacy can be influenced in four ways; mastery and vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and reducing stresses (Bandura, 1994). Mastery, is built on performing tasks successfully. Conversely, failure will establish a negative sense of efficacy. However, if an individual “experience[s] only easy successes…[he or she will] come to expect quick results and…[will be] easily discouraged by failures” (Bandura, 1994, para. 5). Thus, an individual’s efficacy beliefs will increase if he or she is being continually and gradually challenged.

Vicarious experiences are those in which an individual experiences an activity performed by a model. The belief that observing a person of similar ability will raise one’s efficacy as the individual will believe they too are capable of performing the task (Bandura, 1994). However, this too can work negatively, as experiencing an individual of similar ability fail could create self-doubt. According to Bandura (1994), a model does more than simply provide an example to which one can assert whether they will succeed or fail, a model can also teach an observer.

A third influence of self-efficacy is that of social persuasion. A motivational speaker can provide encouragement towards an individual to perform a task, and conversely, one who verbally doubts an individual’s ability to perform a task will cause that individual to “dwell on personal deficiencies” in the face of a similar situation (Bandura, 1994, para. 8). It is easier, according to Bandura (1994) to negative influence ones efficacy verbally then it is to positively influence it. Positive appraisals will be ignored if an individual believes that they are incapable of performing a task. Supportive relationships will enhance one’s sense of efficacy (Bandura et al., 2003).

Finally, reducing an individual’s level of stress can also have an impact on efficacy (Bandura, 1994). If one has an elevated level of stress, he or she will view the resulting tensions as a “sign of vulnerability” and thus blame any resulting failures on this as well as create a sense of self-doubt for future activities when similar stresses are realized (Bandura, 1994, para. 11). Furthermore, an individual will assert that a physical debility results from fatigue, or aches.

Bandura et al. (2003), asserted that individuals whom have a high sense of self-efficacy view failures and setbacks as motivation to work harder. However, those with a low sense of efficacy will see those same issues as reason to give up (Bandura et al., 2003). That is to say, an individual with low self-efficacy will avoid putting in the extra effort it may take to accomplish a task (Bandura, 2007). Self-efficacy then, can be used as a predictive measure for one’s ability to go above and beyond.

Criticism’s of Self-Efficacy

Criticism’s of Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy include Hagen’s (2007) assertion that continual praise creates a false sense of ability. That is, if a student who is failing is continually told he or she is doing a good job, the student will have little urgency to try to better oneself. “Self-efficacy comes from the reality of accomplishing a task rather than from praise; further, empty praise raises all sorts of issues related to honesty, trust, and belief” (Hagen, 2007, para. 6). Thus, in order to raise students self-efficacy, one must be certain to do so appropriately.

Further criticism of providing praise is found when Stout (2001) discussed the dumbing down of education in America. Stout suggested that self-esteem ought to come through a student’s successes. The motivation to build one’s efficacy, according to Stout, is coming at the expense of academic success as students are being provided evaluations they do not deserve in order to save their feelings.

Additionally, efficacy measurements have been criticized for their generality (McMaugh & Debus, 1998). That is, seeking an individual’s general competence and supplying him with positive feedback will result in a student not focusing on areas of potential weaknesses. Not evaluating a specific academic task can result in a student having a wrongful self image.

Further criticism of self-efficacy occurs when Hawkins (1995) questions “whether attitudes cause behavior or whether behavior causes attitudes” (p. 238). That is, Hawkins maintained that it is not ones attitudes which cause an individual to act, rather, it is his or her actions which cause them to believe. Although Hawkins does believe that self-efficacy can be utilized as a predictor there may be superior factors which influence an individual’s performance than self-efficacy, such as gender.

Theoretical Framework - Social Learning Theory

The belief one has in his own abilities, Albert Bandura (1994) refers to as self-efficacy. This belief, Bandura (1994) revealed, enhances an individual’s ability to accomplish desired goals, as well as his personal well being. According to Crain (2005), the theory of self-efficacy was created from Bandura’s social learning theory which stated that one acquires information through observation. Bandura asserted that observational learning, in social settings, allows for an individual to learn more rapidly. Bandura concluded that social learning can occur in four modes; no-trial, cognitive, vicarious reinforcement, and symbolic. Each of these modes involves an individual observing from another.

Social Learning Theory

Social learning involves four components; attentional, retention, motor reproduction, and motivational processes (Crain, 2005). Attentional, according to Bandura (1977) is an individual’s attention to a model. Accurate perception of a behavior allows for it to be easily recreated. Modeling can vary in its effectiveness. That is, a model which is considered to be highly influential will have a greater affect on those whom he or she is modeling towards.

The retention process is one’s ability to recall a modeled behavior when the model is no longer present (Bandura, 1977). The observer then, must retain the behaviors of the model in symbolic form, and imitate those behaviors at a later time. In addition to this, the observer must also rehearse the models actions, be it mentally or physically. Doing so, allows the observer to be less likely to forget the modeled behavior.

The third process involved in modeling is motor reproduction. Motor reproduction is essentially one’s ability to perform a modeled activity. Bandura (1977) stated, “learners who possess the constituent elements can easily integrate them to produce the new patterns; but if some of these response components are lacking, behavioral reproduction will be faulty” (p. 28). Bandura expanded on this idea asserting that skills are not developed through trial-and-error alone. That is, an individual who fumbles through an activity, despite observing a respected model, will not achieve the desired outcome if he or she is incapable of performing the activity to begin with.

Finally, the motivational process is that which encourages an individual to perform a modeled activity. An individual, Bandura (1977) posited, is “more likely to adopt modeled behavior if it results in outcomes they value than if it has unrewarding or punishing effects” (p. 28). In referencing Bandura, Crane (2005) placed this into perspective through stating “if a boy sees his neighbor admired for swearing, the boy is likely to imitate him. If he sees the neighbor punished, he is less likely to do so” (p. 201). Thus, if the risk outweighs the reward, a modeled behavior may be ignored. In addition to this, motivation is best provided prior to the individual performing the modeled act rather than “waiting until they happen to imitate a model” (Bandura, 1977, p. 37). That is to say, individuals will perform at a higher level if they recognize the reward prior to committing to the action. Furthermore, if individuals can relate to the model, they are more likely to act upon the modeled behavior.