The Concept of Self Efficacy - Essay Example

Self Efficacy Introduction: The concept of self efficacy is an important one in the performance of a learning task. A positive perception and confidence in one’s ability to perform a task can be an aid in performance while a negative self efficacy is likely to undermine performance. Self efficacy is equally relevant both for students as well as teachers. A student with high self efficacy will perform well in learning tasks, similarly a teacher with high self efficacy will teach well, despite any complexity in the subject matter being taught. Teacher efficacy has been defined as “their beliefs in their ability to have a positive effect on student learning”(Ashton, 1985: 142). Traditional methods of teaching and assessment are increasingly being questioned in the light of self efficacy – a factor that has not been taken into consideration previously in assessing learning outcomes but which is becoming more and more relevant in today’s educational context. According to Fullan (2001), “leading in a culture of change is about unlocking the mysteries of living organizations.” On this basis old and established systems of education are increasingly being found in need of reform. Structural reforms have been mooted in the educational system, in order to bring about changes in teaching and learning practices (Cohen, 1995). The E 2020 computer program has been designed for the use of special education students in high school. It consists of computerized lessons and tests and each student works individually on these programs. The use of technology as an aid to learning, especially for high school, career oriented students has been shown to result in positive payoffs in terms of enhancing student achievement at several high schools.(Readers Digest 2002). The use of computers enables students to take responsibility for their own learning and thereby enhances their self efficacy, producing better results in terms of achievement. There are three basic areas regarding teacher perceptions about students that do not take into account the following factors: (a) Different needs among different students, particularly students belonging to one minority or the other in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc (b) The need to recognize the levels of self regulation that is possible among students rather than underestimating their ability to tackle complex problems (c) The needs to alter traditional testing and assessment methods in order to include the significant variable of self efficacy. These aspects must be taken into consideration by teachers in order to enhance self efficacy of students and maximize the potentially beneficial effects of using the E 2020 computer program to enhance student achievement. Addressing different needs: The first aspect identifies the importance of addressing the concerns of the minorities within a majority setting in order to ensure that they are able to develop self efficacy. This would require that differences need to be accounted for and addressed. As an example, the theories of Michael Gurian have highlighted the fact that boys are not faring well under the current educational systems and there is an urgent need for reform, because more and boys are failing to reach college levels and are being consistently outperformed by girls.(Gurian 2005a:B01). Gurian (2005b) discusses three stages by which gender differences are wired into the human brain. The first stage is at birth, when different chromosome markers for boys and girls are included in their genomes. In the second stage, these chromosome markers result in surges of male and female hormones. In the last stage, the societal acculturation produces appropriate male and female cues. Therefore, people are born with maleness or femaleness, which is the result of a complex interplay between “genetic, hormonal, neural and social forces.”(Gurian 2005b:89). This is relevant in the field of learning because contrary to traditional beliefs, “the gender of the human brain is not plastic.” (Gurian 2005b:91). Brian differences between males and females are not only genetic, but also socialized and they include differences in (a) P cells and M cells (b) neural rest states (c) development of the frontal lobe (d) spatial and verbal differences (e) the communication between hemispheres and (f) the natural aggression in boys which is not so pronounced in girls.(Kelly and Gurian, 2006). As a result of these differences, boys bring aggressiveness, spatial and kinesthetic skills into the classroom; they tend to get bored easily if their minds are not stimulated by adequate levels of physical activity. Moreover, boys find multi tasking difficult and are genetically geared to perform better when working individually and focusing on one task at a time. As opposed to this, girls work well in teams and are able to sit still in class and take notes, while also enjoying the ability for multitasking. Therefore, the traditional notion that the brain is plastic and that both male and female minds are like plastic and can be molded in the same way through education is a flawed concept. In relation to girls, Gurian (2002) presents a comprehensive assessment of the needs of young girls from childhood to adulthood. In applying his nature based theory to the development of girls, the theorist Gurian (2002) discusses the hormonal effect that impacts the emotional needs of girls. He states that the way girls are can be explained on the basis of the neurobiological and biochemical constituents of their brains and bodies, coupled with the expectations from them that exist in society and culture. Due to the impact of the hormonal biological development, it becomes crucial for girls to develop close attachments and relationships if they are to develop into healthy adults. For instance, the author highlights how the self esteem of girls is closely related to their hormonal cycles and is an internal process. Therefore, girls may sometimes suffer from low self esteem during hormonal cycles that occur especially during puberty and onward into adolescence. Gurian (2002) points out that there are differences between boys and girls, both biologically and in terms of societal expectations and this is the reason for their developmental differences. Since girls need to form meaningful and intimate attachments, they are particularly suited to the role of mothering. On the basis of these differences, Guiran (2005b:93) has suggested that the educational system must be changed to cater to the needs of boys. He points out how the educational system was revamped to include more verbal exercises into science and Math lessons, together with the inclusion of writing and group conversation in teaching these subjects, as a result of which girls have begun to do as well as boys or even outperform them in these subjects. Therefore, the verbal abilities and the learning styles of girls were not viewed as an impediment or a problem, rather the educational system was changed to suit their needs and has been successful in improving their performance. On this basis, he suggests that similar changes need to be made to cater to the educational needs of boys, so that their physical aggressiveness or inability to multi task is not viewed as a problem but an indication that the mode of teaching needs to change. Similarly, Hacket and Betz (1991) were also able to show that boys and girls were different in that girls possessed a lower self efficacy and self belief where subjects such as Mathematics were concerned, as a result of which their grades and performances were correspondingly lower. Mathematics which is viewed as a difficult and high performance subject, several students experience mathematics anxiety or a feeling of helplessness that generates stress when working with mathematics and ultimately results in lower scores in mathematics and reduced performance overall. Research has shown that anxiety and negative performance are associated with the social and economic background of the students. (Ma, 1999). As a result, individuals from minority groups or those who come from a socially or economically disadvantaged background may experience a higher degree of stress and consequent negative performance in mathematics. Moreover, students who experience such high degrees of mathematics anxiety are likely to possess a correspondingly lower self efficacy. A study by Buchmann (2000) specifically examined self efficacy among students of different socio economic backgrounds and found that it was an important variable that helped to explain differences in performance and achievement. For instance, educational outcomes were negatively affected for individuals from lower socio economic backgrounds and in the case of immigrants, the question of language in itself impacted upon self efficacy, even in those instances where the socio economic background was not factored in. Thus, in view of the above, this is one very important aspect of self efficacy that needs to be examined in more detail in the field of educational research, i.e, the impact of differences between various groups and differing perceptions among minority groups which may function as an inhibiting factor. This corroborates the views of Pollock(2006) expressed in the context of bullying of middle and high school students, where it is pointed out that there is an invisible minority of students who are the victims of oppression by their peers in one form or the other, which in turn impacts negatively upon their self efficacy and may therefore produce negative educational outcomes when compared to the average student. Hence improving the self efficacy of such students through an understanding of minority issues and dealing with those problems as part and parcel of motivating a student is likely to achieve better educational outcomes. When dealing with special education students, there is an even greater need to pay heed to the gender differences and differences in minority backgrounds and socio-economic status which are often factors that affect educational outcomes. Therefore, the use of the E 2020 computer program is beneficial in enhancing skills in areas where the respective genders are weak. For example, a study conducted by Fante (1995) showed that computer assisted instruction that was combined with the traditional lecture/discussion methods resulted in improved performance in language and verbal assignments. Such programs could therefore be specifically targeted at boys, while computer assisted programs focusing on Math could target girls. Since computer assisted education requires greater levels of skill and allows students a higher degree of control over their own learning, it could significantly improve self efficacy of the students. Recognition of the self: The second scenario addresses the need to recognize the innate capabilities of adolescents in educational practice in order to foster self efficacy. Bandura (1993) views the process of development of self efficacy in an individual as a function of not only the social environment which shapes the individual but also as a part of a comprehensive personal learning theory, in which a learner directs his or her own learning process. He has defined student self efficacy as their “judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (Bandura, 1986:391). On this basis therefore, Bandura is of the view that human motivation and behavior both influence each other on a reciprocal basis so that in effect, enhancing and strengthening an individual’s beliefs about his/her own abilities is likely to be a strong motivating factor in better performance. Hence as Sizer and Sizer(1999) have pointed out, the one mistake teachers make is in undermining the ability of adolescents to grapple with complex problems and master them. Improving student efficacy will therefore entail to a large extent, the motivation of students through the tapping of their inherent abilities and recognition of their self, i.e, tapping into self efficacy. A student who is motivated enough to self regulate himself/herself and tap into inherent abilities is likely to enjoy higher self efficacy which in turn could lead to better performance. This is also an important aspect of teacher efficacy. The major tasks of the teachers involve the motivation of students, maintaining classroom order and effective preparation and grading of assignments in order to assess student capabilities. Research suggests that a recognition of the self and self regulation of teachers plays an extremely important role in determining the extent of teacher efficacy (Randi 2004). Therefore, it is ultimately the underlying efficacy beliefs of teachers coupled with their skill and ability to self regulate their teaching activities which could be a significant contributing factor in their success. Teachers who possess a high recognition of the self and have a positive attitude about their own skills strongly influences the academic performances of their students, especially since such teachers are also able to cultivate the self efficacy of their students and encourage self regulation of student activity by encouraging them to utilize their inherent skills. Negative teacher efficacy on the other and an inability to regulate oneself would produce a teacher who is largely plagued by negative feelings about his/her own inadequacy. As a result, such teachers are also likely to underestimate the inherent abilities of their students, particularly adolescents, and their ability to regulate themselves. In fact, as Randi (2004) has pointed out, the evaluation of teacher effectiveness is now centered around the extent of their efficacy beliefs and their ability for self regulation, as opposed to earlier modes of assessment which centered around determining a teacher’s knowledge of his/her subject, the ability to develop effective lesson plans and classroom management. On this basis Randi (2004) also proposes that both students and teachers alike should be allowed to develop the opportunity for self regulation – students during their classes and the teachers during their training programs. The E 2020 computer program could also be beneficial for teachers, since most of them do not know how to incorporate computer skills into their classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). With technology playing an increasingly important role in the world today, older teachers may feel ill equipped to impart these skills to their students, thereby impacting negatively upon their self efficacy. However, the use of the E 2020 program allocates some responsibility upon students as well, thereby easing some of the burden from teachers and enabling them to more effectively utilize their time in ensuring that the best possible environment and tools are provided to students to enhance self efficacy and thereby improve achievement. Addressing the need for change in testing practices: The third aspect is the need to modify established systems of testing in order to accommodate a wider range of activities involving intelligence. As a result, standardized testing procedures may not effectively test true intelligence since they are restricted to testing certain types of skills such as logical and verbal while other areas may be ignored. In this context, Gardner has formulated the multiple intelligences model, according to which there are eight varying levels of intelligence. These are (a) linguistic (b) logical-mathematical (c) visual-spatial (d) musical intelligence (e) body-kinesthetic (f) inter-personal (g) intra personal and (h) naturalist intelligence. For example, in the field of art, Gardner in his formulation of the multiple intelligences model states, “Assessment of learning is crucial in the arts. The success of an arts program cannot be asserted or taken on faith.”(Gardner, 1993: 142). One of the things that Gardner has emphasized in art assessment is the student’s ability to perceive and visualize forms and to be able to discriminate and to see the connections between works of beauty (Gardner, 1993: 143). As a result, any form of standardized testing which is to provide a true picture of intelligence must also take into account unorthodox and unconventional forms of display of intelligence skills, such as the ability to discern similarities among ideas or identifying unifying principles. Brooks (2004) is of the view that preparing for and faring well in tests is not a true measure of the level to which a student has been educated and developed self efficacy. Dorn has also stated that assessment must not be limited to multiple choice forms of testing but must also “focus on evaluating the individual and the process of expressive enquiry.”(Dorn, 1998). Therefore, the composition of intelligence and the individual’s ability to deal with problems cannot be effectively tested through current testing methods, because an individual who is unable to perform well on the limited aspects of intelligence that are covered by the test will be deemed to be of low intelligence. However this may not necessarily be the case when a more comprehensive evaluation of intelligence is undertaken, which assesses all facets of intelligence, including self efficacy. For example, Hacket and Betz (1989) have specifically examined the issue of self efficacy and its relation to performance scores in mathematics. They conclude that a student’s task specific mathematics self efficacy was a better criterion and predictor of future performance of the individual, including the career choices that the student makes, while performance in standardized tests was a poor predictor of actual performance. This further supports the view that existing standardized testing may be lacking as a means of testing student intelligence and self efficacy and may not take into consideration, the ability of the students to perform specific tasks. Research has also confirmed that there is a definite positive correlation between student performance in mathematics and the extent of self efficacy of the student (Multon, Brown and Lent, 1991). Therefore assessment tools must include the important aspect of pedogological principles, which involve a close interaction between the teacher and the students that is helpful in the process of learning and in assessing how effectively the teacher has communicated the lessons. Arter (2000) has emphasized the importance of a teacher’s role in motivating students and providing valid and reasonable assessments of learning through rubrics. It is the strong interactive role of the teacher which can also extend to the development of effective scoring rubrics that will provide a better assessment of actual learning that has taken place.(Arter 2000). The collaborative role of the teacher in student learning including acquisition and processing of information will determine the extent of learning which actually takes place and the underlying beliefs of the students form an important part of this process. Therefore any grading system cannot restrict itself to external measures assessed on material learnt by rote; rather internal assessment of both student and teacher efficacy is a vital part of assessment of true learning and the achievement of the desired educational outcomes. Studies have shown that when technology is used to develop thinking skills in students of the higher order, complex variety, then it has a significant beneficial effect on their learning and performance in tests.(Wenglinsky 1998). Traditional testing methods have been faulted as poor predictors of student performance, however by enhancing student efficacy through the use of computer aided instruction, performances are likely to improve since higher order thinking skills will be enhanced. Conclusions: On the basis of the above, it must be noted that teacher perceptions of students may be negatively conditioned by undermining the importance of self efficacy, both of students and in their own selves. Teacher efficacy is the judgment of their own beliefs about how well they can influence educational outcomes. Therefore, when teachers fail to realize the inherent self efficacy that could also motivate students, they are unable to provide the kind of stimulation necessary for students to cultivate their own self efficacy and resultant motivation. A highly motivated student will achieve better learning outcomes, however when teachers are held back by their own negative perceptions about their self efficacy, they will be unlikely to introduce new and creative modes of teaching or assessment methods. Research has shown, as illustrated above, that traditional testing methods may not provide an accurate assessment of actual student intelligence or skill. Therefore teachers must develop assessment tools that can better assess all phases of intelligence. One example that may be cited is the need to develop different kinds of teaching methods for boys as opposed to girls, to test kinesthetic and logical skills as opposed to purely verbal skills and the ability to multi-task. Moreover, when teachers fail to factor in the self efficacy of their students, they may underestimate the abilities of their students and fail to motivate them in the performance of tasks. When self efficacy is also included, the focus of assessment may shift from a generalized, standardized type of testing to specialized testing that is geared around the performance of specific kinds of tasks. In such an instance, teachers will not doubt the ability of their students to perform these complex tasks if properly motivated. Rather, teachers will shun stereotyped perceptions of student ability and will be able to develop more challenging and well formulated tests in assessing educational outcomes. The recognition of self efficacy is therefore vital in achieving better learning among students and motivating them. It is more likely to reflect the true degree of learning as opposed to standardized testing, while teacher efficacy is likely to be a better tool to assess teacher effectiveness as opposed to knowledge of subject content. The development of self efficacy, both in students and in teachers, will be aided and enhanced through the use of programs such as E 2020, since the use of such computer assisted education enables students to develop higher order thinking skills and to function more effectively in the technological environment they will enter upon graduation. On this basis, it is also likely to aid students in developing those areas in which they are weak, so that student scores and performance can be improved through the improvement in self efficacy. References: * Arter, Judith, 2000. “Rubrics, scoring guides and performance criteria: classroom tools for assessing and improving student learning.” Paper presented, based on the book “Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance” by Judith Arter and Jay Tighe, Corwin Press. * Ashton, P.T., 1985. “Motivation and teachers’ sense of efficacy.” IN Ames, C and Ames, R (edns) “Research on motivation in education: Vol II. The classroom milieu.” FL: The Academic Press, pp 141-174. * Bandura, A, 1986. “Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A social cognitive theory.” Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall * Bandura, A, 1993. “Perceived self efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.” Educational Psychologist, 28(2): 117-148 * Brooks, J.G., 2004. “To see beyond your lesson.” Educational leadership, 62(1): 10 * Buchmann, C, 2000.”Measuring Family Background in International Studies of Educational Achievement: Conceptual Issues and Methodological Challenges”. Paper presented at a symposium convened by the Board on International Comparative Studies in Education of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council on November 1, 2000, in Washington, D.C. * Cohen, D.K., 1995. “What is the System in systemic reform?” 24, Educational Researcher, 91(11): 17, 31 * Dorn, C. M., 1998. “The Aesthetically Testable Object”, in Arts Education Policy Review, Vol. 99, No. 6: 3-10 * Fante, Cheryl H, 1995. “Effects of computer assisted instruction on developmental English instruction at a Community College.” [online] available at ww.eric.ed.gov, Document ID: ED 431 470 * Fullan, M, 2001. “Leading in a culture of change” San Fransisco: John Wiley and Sons Inc. * Gardner, H., Multiple Intelligence: The Theory in Practice, New York, Basic Books, 1993, p. 142. * Gurian, Michael and King, Kelley, 2006. “The brain – his and hers” Educational leadership, 64(1): 59 * Guiran, Michael, 2005a. “Disappearing Act: Where have the men gone? No place good.” The Washintgon Post, Outlook. December 4, 2005 at B01. * Gurian, Michael, 2005b. “The minds of boys: Saving our sons from falling behind in school and life.” Jossey Bass. * Gurian, Michael, 2002. “The wonder of girls” NY: Simon and Schuster * Hacket, G and Betz, N, 1989. “An exploration of the mathematics efficacy/mathematics performance correspondence.” Journal of research into Mathematics, 20 (3): 261-273 * Ma, X., 1999. “A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Anxiety Toward mathematics and Achievement in mathematics”. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(5): 520-540. * Multon, K.B., Brown, S.D. and Lent, R.W., 1991. “Relation of self efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes. A meta analytic investigation.” Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38: 30-38. * Pollock, S.L., 2006. “Counselor roles in dealing with bullies and their LGBT victims.” Middle school Journal, 38(2):31 * Randi, J, 2004. “Teachers as self regulated learners” Teachers College Record, 106(9) : 1825-1853 * Readers Digest Fund/DeWitt Wallace, 2002. “Using technology to improve instruction and raise student achievement.” [online] available at www.eric.ed.gov, Document ID: ED 462 926 * Sizer, T.R. and Sizer, N.F., 1999. “Grappling” Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3):187 * Wenglinsky, H, 1998. “Does it compute?” Princeton: Educational Testing Service. [online] available at www.eric.ed.gov. Document ID: ED 425 191 * U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000. “Teachers tools for the 21st Century. A report on teachers use of technology. Washington, DC: Author. (ED 444 599) [online] Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/spider/webspider/2000102.shtml Read More