contextual influences on sources of academic self-efficacy

Contextual influences on sources of academic self-efficacy:a validation with secondary school students of Kerala

K. Abdul Gafoor • P. Muhammed Ashraf

Received: 27 September 2011 / Revised: 24 March 2012 / Accepted: 11 July 2012 / Published online: 1 August 2012

� Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2012

Abstract This study investigates the theorized sources

of Academic Self-Efficacy among the higher secondary

school students of Kerala, India. Mastery Experience in the

form of Academic Achievement, vicarious experience in

the form of School Image and Social Persuasion in the

form of Parental Encouragement are included as the pre-

dictor variables of Academic Self-Efficacy. Participants in

the present study were 700 higher secondary school stu-

dents of Kerala, selected using stratified random sampling.

The findings of the study confirm the theorized correlation

of Academic Self-Efficacy with previous achievement,

vicarious experience (school image) and persuasory infor-

mation (parental encouragement). In the total sample, the

percent of variance in Academic Self-Efficacy that is pre-

dictable by the three-predictor variables is nearly one

quarter (23.83 %). School Image is the best contributing

variable (9.42 %) followed by Mastery Experience

(8.67 %) and then by Parental Encouragement (5.74 %).

The findings shows that apart from cultural differences,

locale and gender difference also exist in sources of Aca-

demic Self-Efficacy. The superiority of School Image over

Mastery Experience in predicting Academic Self-Efficacy

is different from that found in the West, theoretically and

empirically. In India, self-efficacy beliefs of youngsters

continue to depend more on social and domestic factors

than personal experience and mastery.

Keywords Academic self-efficacy �Mastery experience �School image � Parental encouragement � Gender-

difference � Locale-difference � Cultural-difference

Introduction

Beliefs people have about themselves are key elements in

academic context. Self-efficacy carries great importance in

classrooms, as it mediate the effect of skill or other self-

beliefs on subsequent performance attainments. Schooling is

gauged, among other things, on its ability to help the learner

to attain the goals; by what it does to students’ beliefs about

their capabilities and to student’s sense of self-ingredients

such as efficacy, agency, confidence and purpose (Bruner

1996). Self-efficacy, according to Social Cognitive Theory

(Bandura 1986), is the peak of four interrelated motivational

processes that leads one to goal-realization; the other three

processes being self-observation, self-evaluation and self-

reaction (Redmond 2010). Students with a strong sense of

self-efficacy are well equipped to educate themselves when

they have to rely on their own initiative (Bandura 1986).

Beliefs that students develop about their academic capabil-

ities help explain why students’ academic performances

may differ markedly when they have similar ability.

Researchers have demonstrated the positive effects of self-

efficacy which impact on effort, persistence, goal setting,

performance (Pajares 2009) and perseverance (Schunk 1995;

Bandura 1997). Those with higher self-efficacy adopt mastery

and performance-approach goals; while those low in self-

efficacy tend to prefer performance–avoidance goals (Seo and

Taherbhai 2009; Khezri Azar et al. 2010; Sakiz 2011), engage

in more effective self-regulatory strategies (Bouffard-

Bouchard et al. 1991). The latter develop their skills or com-

petence and demonstrate their ability to others in class

K. Abdul Gafoor (&) � P. Muhammed Ashraf

Department of Education, University of Calicut, Malappuram,

Kerala, India

e-mail: [email protected]

123

Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (2012) 13:607–616

DOI 10.1007/s12564-012-9223-z

(Nasiriyan et al. 2011). Adolescents with a strong sense of

efficacy for learning are more resilient and better able to resist

the adverse academic influences of low-achieving peers than

are those with a weak sense of efficacy (Bandura et al. 1996).

Students’ self-efficacy beliefs correlate not only with moti-

vation constructs but also with academic performances and

achievement. Multon (1991) found 36 studies conducted

between 1977 and 1988 on the relationship between self-

efficacy and academic performance that concluded that

self-efficacy accounted for approximately 14 % of the vari-

ance in academic performance. In academic settings, one

should measure academic self-efficacy rather than generalized

self-efficacy. This study examines the sources from which

the academic self-efficacy beliefs develop in a hitherto

unexplored population of students in Kerala, India.

Sources of academic self-efficacy

In tune with emphasize of Social Cognitive Theory on

interaction of cognitive, behavioral, personal, and environ-

mental factors to determine motivation and behavior, Ban-

dura (1986) identifies four main sources of self-efficacy

beliefs, viz., mastery experience, vicarious experience, social

persuasions, and physiological indices. Mastery experience in

the academic field is the prior academic achievement level.

Vicarious experience includes the knowledge of effects pro-

duced by actions of others that act as models for them. In

school students, vicarious experiences stem from their daily

dealings with significant others in the school. Persuasory

information for the adolescents is from the parental encour-

agement and the familial influences. The anxiety, arousal,

stress, and fatigue of the students constitute the physiological

states, the least important source of self-efficacy.

The general rule that academic achievement is the prime

source of academic self-efficacy (Hampton and Mason

2003; Usher and Pajares 2006b; Lent et al. 1986) requires

further empirical support because, although mastery

experience is typically the most influential source of self-

efficacy, the strength and influence of the sources differ as

a function of contextual factors such as gender, ethnicity,

academic ability, and academic domain (Usher and Pajares

2008). The effects of models are particularly relevant in

contexts where people are uncertain about their own abil-

ities or have limited prior experience because they become

more sensitive to vicarious experiences in such situations

(Schunk 1983, 1987). Part of one’s vicarious experience

also involves the social comparisons made with other

individuals, which along with peer modeling, can be

powerful influences on developing self-perceptions of

competence (Schunk 1983). In this study, the vicarious

experience students receive from the school and peers,

conceptualized as school image is tested for its ability to

predict academic self-efficacy.

Need for investigators to sort out the diverse forces with

which students contend when forming their self-efficacy

beliefs is evidenced from the literature review. Usher and

Pajares (2008) after a detailed review recommended

researchers to broaden their examination of the sources of

the collective efficacy beliefs among students. Self-efficacy

is both a personal and a collective belief. Elements of both

school climate and family environment have strong direct

effects on academic performance (Niebuhr 1995) and other

outcomes. Children, parents, teachers, and school adminis-

trators operate collectively as well as individually. Schools

develop collective beliefs about the capability of their stu-

dents to learn. Schools with a strong sense of collective

efficacy—‘‘can-do’’ effective schools—with perceivable

climate exercise empowering and vitalizing influences on

their constituents (Pajares 1996). Families too have a

climate and ‘‘feel’’ generated from the collective action.

Collective efficacy of a family pays dividends for children

and fosters qualities essential to adjustment and well-being.

Helping and encouragement are common parent actions that

are likely to influence student self-efficacy. Parental support,

especially emotional support, is likely to influence students’

self-belief. Positive persuasions encourage and empower;

negative persuasions defeat and weaken self-beliefs. Inci-

dentally, boys may be more apt to define their developing

identity in terms of their academic accomplishments

whereas girls may rely more on information gained from

their relationships with others (Usher and Pajares 2008).

Lately, there is growing recognition that findings

obtained with measures of vicarious experience in which

only peer or adult modeling experiences are assessed may

provide incomplete insights about the nature of this source

(Usher and Pajares 2008). Usher and Pajares (2008) noted

that correlations between vicarious experience and self-

efficacy have been inconsistent, ranging from 0.09 to 0.58

(median r = 0.34), with lower values emerging from sev-

eral studies. Vicarious experience failed to predict self-

efficacy in multiple regression models that include the

other sources as well (Gainor and Lent 1998; Pajares et al.

2007; Usher and Pajares 2006b). Hence, this study turns to

collective sources of vicarious experiences as predictor of

self-efficacy. Vicarious learning is learning from observa-

tions of the success of others, including one’s group.

Observing and modeling success of own school generate

expectation of own success in students.

Family is the centre of initial sources of self-efficacy.

Beginning in infancy, parents and caregivers provide

experiences that differentially influence children’s self-

efficacy. Home influences that help children interact effec-

tively with the environment positively affect self-efficacy

(Bandura 1997; Meece 1997). Parents also are key providers

of self-efficacy information. Parents who arrange for varied

mastery experiences, parents who steer their children toward

608 K. Abdul Gafoor, P. Muhammed Ashraf

123

efficacious peers, parents who encourage their youngsters to

try different activities and support provide vicarious boosts

in self-efficacy (Bandura 1997). As parental encouragement

is a proper indicator of the persuasion from home, this study

examines to what extent it influences academic self-efficacy.

Physiological and emotional states of the children are

important in understanding self-efficacy. Physiological and

emotional states such as anxiety, stress, fatigue, and mood

provide information about efficacy beliefs. Physiological

arousal has typically been assessed as students’ anxiety

toward a particular academic subject, and quantitative

measures of positive dimensions of physiological arousal

are not usually assessed; and it makes little sense to com-

pare the sources of general academic self-efficacy with

students’ subject-specific efficacy judgments (Usher and

Pajares 2008). Early on, these researchers have proposed

curvilinear relation of physiological arousal to self-efficacy

(Usher and Pajares 2006a, b). Further, anxiety, stress,

fatigue, mood, and their interpretations are less stable,

especially during adolescence. Considering the above fac-

tors, the fourth theorized source of self-efficacy is not built

into this study.

Importance of this study

Present study investigates the theorized sources of aca-

demic self-efficacy among the higher secondary school

students of Kerala. Mastery experience in the form of

Academic Achievement, vicarious experience in the form

of School Image, and the social persuasion in the form of

Parental Encouragement are included in the study as the

predictor variables of Academic Self-Efficacy. This study

responds to the following questions, specifically in Kerala

context. What is the nature and extent of relationship of

Academic Self-Efficacy with each of the independent

variables viz. (1) Mastery Experience (2) School Image,

and (3) Parental Encouragement in higher secondary

school students for the total sample and subsamples?

Which among the independent variables significantly pre-

dict Academic Self-Efficacy, for the total sample and

subsamples viz., (1) Boys, (2) Girls, (3) Rural school stu-

dents, (4) Urban school students, (5) Government school

students, and (6) Private school students? How do the

influences of the sources of academic self-efficacy differ as

a function of contextual factors such as gender, locale, and

types of schools in Kerala?

Self-efficacy beliefs are contagious and hence can gen-

eralize across activities or situations (Pajares 2005). Schools

with high images have social attractiveness that in turn

affects how students perceive the school and their motiva-

tion. A positive image perception positively effects student

loyalty and satisfaction level (Nguyen and LeBlanc 2001;

Palacio et al. 2002). Students can learn success by watching

their school being successful, especially so when young

people are uncertain about their own abilities. Increased

sense of belonging to the school community by way of

encouragement, and positive interactions with teachers,

administrators, and peers, develop school satisfaction and

achievement (Taylor 1991). Conversely, higher achieving

students possess positive feelings about their school expe-

riences. Sakiz (2007), for example, reported positive rela-

tionship between perceived teacher affective support and

academic self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students.

This study among other things explores to what extent

the image developed by the student via observations and

experiences of the school affects academic self-efficacy.

Studies indicate that the classroom environment variables

of involvement, knowledge, professional skills, and higher-

order thinking skills as the predictor variables explained

32 % of the variance in academic self-efficacy and 45 % of

the variance in course evaluations (Byer 2002). These fac-

tors viz. expectation about student–faculty interactions,

classroom environment variables are the components of the

broader concept, school image. Hence, School Image is

taken as one of the predictor variables for academic self-

efficacy which also represents the ‘vicarious experience’,

the second theorized source of efficacy. Likewise, expecta-

tions, encouragement, and actions that enhance learning

opportunities are the major ways by which families posi-

tively influence the educational achievements of their teens.

Parental involvement to reinforce school values itself is

mechanisms of influence through modeling of behaviors

(Hoover et al. 1995). As a number of researchers using a

variety of indicators and data sources (Astone and

McLanahan 1991; Sui-Chu and Willms 1996; Milne et al.

1986) report positive effects of parental educational aspi-

rations and encouragement, parental encouragement as the

persuasory source of self-efficacy is added.

Studies on gender difference in academic self-efficacy

are not yet settled. While some report females as having

lower self-perceptions of ability than males (Phillips and

Zimmerman 1990; Ku 2002), others see no gender differ-

ence in academic self-efficacy (Owen and Froman 1992;

Kelly 1993; Santiago and Einarson 1998; Hampton and

Mason 2003). However, none of the reviewed studies

reported higher academic self-efficacy in girls. This is

particularly surprising since many studies that have

examined actual achievement or performance (Linn and

Hyde 1989) show few gender differences and that in many

cases, females actually outperform males. Although this

discrepancy between actual achievement and self-percep-

tions of ability among females may be due to a response

bias, with boys being more self-congratulatory and girls

being more modest (Eccles et al. 1984; Wigfield et al.

1991), often the difference appears serious enough. Phillips

and Zimmerman (1990) found that females had lower

A validation with secondary school students of Kerala 609

123

perceptions of their competence than males, although the

gender difference did not emerge till ninth grade. Clearly,

there is a need for more research into the nature of these

differences.

Many studies researched cultural, ethnic, and racial

differences in academic self-efficacy and its sources. Gra-

ham (1994) reviewed 14 experimental studies, and in 12 of

them, African American students had higher expectations

for success than Caucasian children did. Klassen (2004a, b)

reviewed 20 studies on self-efficacy beliefs through cross-

cultural comparisons in which almost all studies showed

academic self-efficacy beliefs to be lower for non-western

cultural groups. Klassen (2004a, b) further observed dif-

ferences in the individualistic and collectivistic sources of

academic self-efficacy between South-Asian and Anglo-

Canadian students. In addition, the island students reported

lower academic self-efficacy than the mainland students

(Yamauchi and Greene 1997) did.

Further, studies that examined the four sources of self-

efficacy in academic setting are few in number. Hampton

and Mason (2003) reported direct impact of all the four

sources on academic performance. Usher and Pajares

(2006b) examined the four sources and identified mastery

experience as the best predictor of academic self-efficacy

for the total sample, mastery and vicarious experience only

as predictors for boys, but mastery and social persuasions

only as predictors for the girls, and mastery and social

persuasions as predictors for African American students.

Generally, studies found mastery experiences as the most

common and most influential basis for the self-efficacy

beliefs of adolescent students; other efficacy sources were

mentioned much less often (Lent, et al. 1996). For less

dominant cultural group, social persuasion is reported to be

the strongest predictor of academic self-efficacy and the

mastery experience as related to it; though vicarious

experience in the form of family attainment did not predict

their academic self-efficacy (Chin and Kameoka 2002). As

little research has investigated racial–ethnic differences in

academic self-efficacy and those that investigate the sour-

ces of academic self-efficacy are incomplete and incon-

clusive, exploration of the process by which self-efficacy

beliefs are created and how this process might differ among

subpopulations is a research priority in this area (Schunk

and Meece 2005) to inform the dynamics of the develop-

ment of self-efficacy, especially in non-western settings.

Further investigations need to identify and trace the

genesis and development of self-efficacy beliefs. As self-

efficacy beliefs constitute the key factor of human agency,

investigating the genesis of these beliefs and the factors

that either nurture or deteriorate them is warranted (Usher

and Pajares 2008), especially on sources of academic self-

efficacy information other than those typically used, viz.

aptitude, ability, and previous achievement. What is known

about self-efficacy theoretically and practically is contrib-

uted from the West. Not only it was formulated in the west

but also most of the reviewed studies are in the same

context. As theories have to be replicated in the cultural,

social, and educational settings other than where they were

formulated and tested, the need and significance of further

expansion of the studies to Kerala situation is clear and

distinct. As socio-educationally Kerala is the best devel-

oped state of India with quality-of-life indices comparable

to the west and is comparable in literacy only with the best

literate regions of Philippines, South Africa, Peru from the

third world (Unesco 2010), findings from the study will

help bridge the recognized incongruities between western

and non-western contexts in strength of theorized sources

in effecting self-efficacy.

Measures

Mastery experience

Mastery Experience refers to the previous experience of

achievement or past performance. In this study, Mastery

Experience of a student enrolled in a higher secondary

school is the grade point average he/she has secured in the

standard X public examination, as studies elsewhere show

that preceding achievement in terms of high school grade

point average (HSGPA) predicted both self-efficacy (Dis-

eth 2011). In Kerala, the most crucial examination a stu-

dent has to undergo is the board examination in standard X,

because it decides the course of further education one can

have. As opportunities for quality education is less, the

performance at this examination is crucial. In addition,

students, teachers, educators, and administrators take the

grade attained in this examination as a valid index of

academic merit. Hence, having passed the examination and

qualified for higher secondary education is taken as the

most powerful mastery experience the student has derived

in the immediate past as the data were collected during

December while the results were out during previous May.

The required data directly obtained from the official web-

site of the board of examinations, Kerala was converted in

each subject into score in the order, ‘9’ for grade ‘A?’, ‘8’

for ‘A’, ‘7’ for ‘B?’, ‘6’ for ‘B’, ‘5’ for ‘C?’, ‘4’ for ‘C’,

‘3’ for ‘D?’, ‘2’ for ‘D’, and ‘1’ for ‘E’. The derived Grade

Point Average (GPA) is taken as the score in Mastery

Experience.

School Image

Image is positive or negative thoughts about an object or an

entity. Organizational image is the general impression an

organization forms in people (Hatch and Schultz 2002); it


123

is the way organization members believe others see the

organization to gauge them (Dutton and Dukerich 1991).

Factors that determine the image of education institutions

are name awareness, academic properties, facilities, phys-

ical environment (Arpan et al. 2003), personal and orga-

nizational environment, academic programmes, (Kazoleas

et al. 2001), academic staff and relations with students, and

stories about the school (Paden and Stell 2006). School

Image thus is the sum of subjective opinions about the

quality of the learning and social environment, the col-

lective feeling developed by the student because of

observations and experiences of the school (Renihan and

Renihan 1988). School Image scale has items on the feel-

ings developed by students about seven dimensions,

namely Leadership, School vision, School climate,

Involvement with parents and local community, Academic

focus, Collegiality of staff members and physical envi-

ronment which are the factors that play major roles in

determining the public reputation of a school. Forty-two

statements—six from each of seven the components—like

‘‘Many say that it is useless to study in our school for those

who have to excel in the academic field’’ to which students

can respond on 5 levels; ‘completely true’ to ‘completely

false’ is used. Test–retest reliability (r = 0.76, N = 31),

split half reliability (r = 0.90, N = 370), and Internal

consistency (Cronbach Alpha = 0.90, N = 370) were

ensured. Coefficient of concurrent validity obtained by

correlating the scores with scores on School Social System

Questionnaire (Gafoor and Farooque 2006); a correlated

factor of school image is 0.71 (N = 30).

Parental encouragement

Parental Encouragement is the inspiration, encouragement,

and stimulation, etc., given by the parents for the child in his/

her education through material and non-material rewards

and communication. A subscale ‘Parental Encouragement’

of ‘Parental Involvement Rating Scale’ (Gafoor 2001) with a

test–retest reliability (r = 0.83, N = 40), internal consis-

tency (Cronbach’s coefficient alpha = 0.84, N = 370), and

criterion validity (r = 0.81, N = 32) was used. There are 13

items like ‘‘On passing the examination my parents reward

me with gifts’’ to which student responds on a 3-point

‘always true never true’ scale.

Academic self-efficacy

Academic self-efficacy is operationally defined as the scores

of students on Academic Self-Efficacy Scale with 40 items

on dimensions of academics namely Learning process,

Reading, Comprehension, Memory, Curricular activities,

Time management, Teacher Student relationship, Peer

relationship, Utilization of resources, Goal orientation,

Adjustment and Examination. Statements like ‘‘I can

arrange the help of my teachers in learning’’ to which student

can respond at 5 levels— ‘completely true’ to ‘completely

false’ is used. Test–retest coefficient of correlation was

0.85 (N = 30), Split half reliability of the scale is 0.90

(N = 370), and Concurrent validity coefficient against

scores on the criterion ‘General Self-efficacy scale’

(Schwarzer and Jerusalem 1995) was 0.68 (N = 58).

Participants

The sample of the present study is from the higher sec-

ondary school students of Kerala. The schools were ran-

domly selected, taking into account the two factors of

stratification: first locality and then type of management of

schools. Age of the participants is in between 15 and

16.5 years, and they have completed nearly 4-month

instruction in grade XI after the completion of a public

examination based on the result of which they were

admitted to the present grade. By maintaining the boy/girl

ratio in higher secondary schools of Kerala (Kerala State

Planning Board 2010), the factor of gender is represented

in the ratio 2:3 in the total sample. The final sample of 700

students consists of 280 boys, 420 girls, 490 rural school

students, 210 urban school students, 280 Government and

420 privately managed school students, and 226 humani-

ties, 274 commerce, 200 science students.

Statistical analyses used

Mastery experience is typically the most powerful source

of efficacy-building information (Bandura 1997); but no

claims about the relative contribution of the other three

sources or order in which the sources be entered in statis-

tical models (Usher and Pajares 2008) is made by the

theory. As Bandura theorized that the sources as exercising

a causal influence on self-efficacy beliefs, from early on,

researchers have created stepwise regression models

(Hampton 1998; Lopez and Lent 1992; Matsui et al. 1990).

The same mode of analysis is adopted here. Before pro-

ceeding to multiple regression analysis, relation of self-

efficacy with three predictors in the total and subsamples

were estimated, followed by test of significance of differ-

ence in r’s obtained for the relevant subsamples. For the

comparison of r’s using z statistic, Fisher’s Z transforma-

tion of the correlation coefficient r is applied.

Results

Preliminary analysis of the measures included in the study

revealed that the distribution of academic self-efficacy

follows normality in all respects, while in the independent


123

variables, it is near normal. Table 1 provides the descrip-

tive statistics of the variables.

The results of correlation analysis between academic

self-efficacy and the independent variables in the total

sample and the subsamples are provided in Table 2.

There exists significant and positive correlation between

Academic Self-Efficacy and each of the independent vari-

ables, viz., Mastery Experience (r = 0.321, Fisher’s t =

8.96, p \ .01, r2 9 100 = 10.30), School Image (r =

0.345, Fisher’s t = 9.70, p \ .01, r2 9 100 = 11.90), and

Parental Encouragement (r = 0.276, Fisher’s t = 7.59,

p \ .01, r2 9 100 = 7.62) in the total sample. In addition,

in all the subsamples based on gender, locality of schools,

and type of management of schools, the correlation of aca-

demic self-efficacy with mastery experience, school image,

and parental encouragement is significant and positive.

Gender, locale, and type of school management-based

comparison of coefficients of correlation between Academic

Self-Efficacy and the three independent variables revealed

that there is no significant difference in the relationships

between each of the independent variables and the depen-

dent variable in the subsamples based on gender, locality of

schools, and type of management of schools.

A series of multiple regression analyses were conducted

to examine the efficiency of mastery experience, school

image, and parental encouragement in predicting academic

self-efficacy.

In the total sample, Mastery Experience (B = 5.03,

SEB = 0.62, b = 0.27), School Image (B = 0.25, SEB =

0.03, b = 0.273), and Parental Encouragement (B = 1.30,

SEB = 0.208, b = 0.21) together significantly predict

23.83 % variance of academic self-efficacy [R2 = 0.2383,

F = 72.61, df (3,696)]. Table 3 shows that combined

influence of mastery experience, school image, and parental

encouragement on academic self-efficacy among boys

[R2 = 0.2455, F = 29.93, df (3,276)] and girls [R2 =

0.2319, F = 41.86, df (3,416)] are almost as in the total

sample. But in locality-based subsamples, there is obser-

vable difference in the combined influence of mastery

experience, school image, and parental encouragement on

academic self-efficacy with the influence being higher in the

urban sample [R2 = 0.3589, F = 38.45, df (3,206)] com-

pared to that of rural sample [R2 = 0.1913, F = 38.33, df

(3,486)]. Combined influence of mastery experience, school

image, and parental encouragement on academic self-effi-

cacy among government school [R2 = 0.2528, F = 31.13,

df (3,276)] and private school [R2 = 0.2282, F = 41.00, df

(3,416)] samples are slightly different. In order to under-

stand the extent of influence of each of mastery experience,

school image and parental encouragement on academic self-

efficacy, for each variable b r 9 100, percentage influence

of each predictor variables on academic self-efficacy (effi-

ciency of the predictor), were estimated.

Table 4 demonstrates that School Image is the best pre-

dictor of Academic Self-Efficacy in the total sample

(bxr = 9.42 %) and among Boys (bxr = 11.13 %), Rural

School Students (bxr = 7.02 %), and Government School

Students (bxr = 11.41 %). However, it is only the second

best predictor of Academic Self-Efficacy for the Girls

(bxr = 7.60 %), Urban School Students (bxr = 15.34 %),

and Private School students (bxr = 8.01 %), where Mastery

Experience replaces it as the best predictor [Girls

(bxr = 10.58 %), Urban School Students (bxr = 16.08 %),

and Private School Students (bxr = 10 %)]. Mastery

Experience is only the second best predictor of Academic

Table 1 Statistical constants of dependent and independent variables

for the total sample

Variables Mean SD Skew ness Kurtosis

Academic self-efficacy 134.90 19.50 0.12 -0.17

Mastery experience 6.72 1.05 -0.26 -0.42

School Image 155.73 21.57 -0.74 0.30

Parental encouragement 33.10 3.13 -0.85 0.98

N = 700

SD standard deviation

Table 2 Test of significance of gender-wise, locale-wise, and sector-wise difference in relationship of academic self-efficacy with mastery

experience, school image, and parental encouragement

Mastery experience School Image Parental encouragement

r z CR r z CR r z CR

Boya 0.269 0.28 -1.29 0.351 0.37 0.39 0.27 0.28 0

Girlb 0.361 0.38 0.326 0.34 0.269 0.28

Ruralc 0.277 0.29 -1.57 0.315 0.32 -1.45 0.289 0.3 0.48

Urband 0.402 0.42 0.409 0.44 0.251 0.26

Govt.e 0.282 0.29 -1.03 0.368 0.39 0.65 0.306 0.32 0.77

Privatef 0.346 0.37 0.331 0.34 0.254 0.26

All r’s are significant, p \ .01; none of the Z ratios are significant, p [ .05a,e N = 280; b,fN = 420; cN = 490; dN = 210


123

Self-Efficacy in the total sample (bxr = 8.67 %) and among

Boys (bxr = 6.80 %), but it is the least efficient predictor of

Academic Self-Efficacy in the case of Rural School Students

(bxr = 5.46 %) and Government School students (bxr =

6.62 %).

Parental Encouragement is the second best predictor

of Academic Self-Efficacy for Rural School Students

(bxr = 6.65 %) and Government School Students (bxr =

7.25 %) while it is least in predictive efficiency in the total

sample (bxr = 5.74 %) and among Boys (bxr = 6.61 %),

Girls (bxr = 5.0 %), Urban School Students (bxr = 4.47 %),

and Private School students (bxr = 4.80 %).

Discussion

The findings of the study confirm the theorized correlation of

academic self-efficacy with previous achievement, vicarious

experience (school image), and persuasory information

(parental encouragement). Academic self-efficacy of higher

secondary school students is predictable using the three

independent variables, in the total sample and all of the sub

samples. A few other studies testifies the theorized stem-

ming of self-efficacy from the three sources viz., previous

achievement, vicarious experience, and persuasory infor-

mation (Bandura 1986; Multon 1991; Lent et al. 1996; Chin

and Kameoka 2002; Usher and Pajares 2006b), especially in

secondary schools (Zimmerman et al. 1992; Jinks and

Morgan 1999).

In the total sample, the percent of variance in academic

self-efficacy that is predictable by the three-predictor vari-

ables is nearly one quarter (23.83 %). School Image is the

Table 3 Summary of multiple regression analysis for academic self-efficacy in total sample and subsamples

Sample Predictorsa R F df B SE(B) b t

Total Mastery experience 0.4882 72.61** 3,696 5.03 0.62 0.270 8.08**

School Image 0.25 0.03 0.273 8.06**

Parental encouragement 1.30 0.21 0.208 6.20**

Boys Mastery experience 0.4954 29.93** 3,276 4.92 1.02 0.253 4.83**

School Image 0.28 0.05 0.317 6.03**


Girls Mastery experience 0.4815 41.86** 3,416 5.26 0.79 0.293 6.67**

School Image 0.24 0.05 0.233 5.25**


Rural Mastery experience 0.4374 38.33** 3,486 3.86 0.83 0.197 4.67**

School Image 0.21 0.04 0.223 5.22**


Urban Mastery experience 0.5991 38.45** 3,206 7.25 1.01 0.400 7.18**

School Image 0.34 0.05 0.375 6.60**


Govt. Mastery experience 0.5028 31.13** 3,276 4.73 1.05 0.235 4.49**

School Image 0.28 0.05 0.310 5.86**


Private Mastery experience 0.4776 41.00** 3,416 5.12 0.78 0.289 6.59**

School Image 0.26 0.05 0.242 5.44**


a Dependent variable: academic self-efficacy

** p \ .01

Table 4 Percentage influence of each of mastery experience, school

image, and parental encouragement on academic self-efficacy

Sample Percentage influence on academic self-efficacy

(b xr X 100)

Mastery

experience

School

Image

Parental

encouragement

Total variance

(R2 9 100)

Total 8.67 9.42 5.74 23.83

Boys 6.80 11.13 6.61 24.54

Girls 10.58 7.60 5.00 23.18

Rural 5.46 7.02 6.65 19.13

Urban 16.08 15.34 4.47 35.89

Govt.

school

6.62 11.41 7.25 25.28

Private

school

10.00 8.01 4.80 22.81


123

best contributing variable (9.42 %) followed by Mastery

Experience (8.67 %) and then by Parental encouragement

(5.74 %). The superiority of school image over mastery

experience in predicting academic self-efficacy is different

from that theoretically (Bandura 1986) and empirically

(Usher and Pajares 2006b; Lent et al. 1996) known from

west. In developing countries like India, self-efficacy

believes of youngsters continues to be influenced more by

social and domestic factors than personal experience and

mastery. This conclusion is corroborated by the urban–rural

difference in the sources of self-efficacy revealed by the

present study. While one third (35.89 %) of Academic self-

efficacy among urban students in Kerala who have the socio-

economic and quality-of-life indices comparable to the west

is predictable from the three-predictor variables originating

from western theories, academic self-efficacy attributable to

the three-predictor variables of typical rural sample is only

one fifth (19.13 %). The best contributing variable in rural

sample is School Image (7.02 %) and in urban sample is

Mastery experience (16.08 %). Mastery experience con-

tributes much less (5.46 %) in rural sample. Predictability of

Academic self-efficacy of urban students from the source

variables hints to their comparability to western condition.

However, rural students in third-world settings are far dif-

ferent from their western counterparts, and hence, the dif-

ference in sources of self-efficacy from those hypothesized.

This indicates the advocated (Yamauchi and Greene 1997;

Klassen 2004a, b) cultural differences in the development of

Academic self-efficacy.

Though boys and girls do not differ too much in Mastery

Experience (t = -1.19), the percent of variance it con-

tributes to Academic self-efficacy of girls is 10.58, but it is

only 6.80 among boys. Girls have better School Image

(t = -8.24); its contribution to Academic self-efficacy

(7.60 %) is less than that among boys (11.13 %), sug-

gesting that academic self-efficacy in girls springs more

from individualistic and that in boys spring more from

collective sources.

The percent of variance contributed by mastery experi-

ence to academic self-efficacy of government sample is

only 6.62 but it is 10 in the case of private sample. Again,

the percent of variance attributable to School Image is 8.01

only in private sample but 11.41 in government sample.

Parental Encouragement occupies the second best predictor

position (7.25 %) in government sample outplaying the

role of Mastery Experience. It seems government school

students are more reliant on the external forces in devel-

oping ability beliefs while the private school students are

more self-sufficient in this respect. Parental encouragement

occupies the second best predictor position in the subs-

amples of rural and government school students, indicating

higher dependency of rural students than urban students do,

and of government school students over private school

students, upon what they expect and receive from their

parents. Verbal persuasion may be a weaker source of self-

efficacy beliefs than performance outcomes but it is widely

used because of its ease and ready availability (Redmond

2010), especially where opportunity for performance is

limited.

Findings from the study while hinting to the cultural

differences in self-efficacy sources have a few limitations.

Considering the power of the public exams in the qualities

of reliability and validity and the fact that XIth standard

students have not passed so long after this exam to attend

another public exam, it would give an optimum measure of

their previous achievement. However, other experiences of

mastery need to be accounted as well. Further physiolog-

ical sources of self-efficacy were not included in the scope

of the present study. As suggested earlier, Kerala presents

a unique social and educational setting, within India as

well as in comparison with other economically developing

countries. Further studies in non-western cultures, espe-

cially where social than individual values are preferred,

on the factors that contribute to efficacy beliefs will

strengthen the findings from this study. To conclude, this

study corroborates observation (Usher and Pajares 2008)

that the rich and complex interplay among the sources of

self-efficacy and between the sources and other environ-

mental contingencies create situations in which any given

source is neither most influential nor especially predictive

of self-efficacy in a particular context or with a particular

group.

References

Arpan, L. M., Arthur, A., & Zivnuska, S. (2003). A cognitive

approach to understanding university image. Corporate Com-munications: An International Journal, 8(2), 97–113.

Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental

practices and high school completion. American SociologicalReview, 56, 309–320.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: Asocial cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of self-control. New

York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996).

Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic func-

tioning. Child Development, 67, 1206–1222.

Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larive, S. (1991). Influence of

self-efficacy on self-regulation and performance among junior

and senior high-school age students. International Journal ofBehavioral Development, 14, 153–164.

Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Byer, J. L. (2002). Measuring interrelationships between graduatestudents’ learning perceptions and academic self-efficacy. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED467601).

Chin, D., & Kameoka, V. A. (2002). Psychosocial and contextual

predictors of educational and occupational self-efficacy among


123

Hispanic inner-city adolescents. Hispanic Journal of BehavioralSciences, 24(4), 448–464.

Diseth, A. (2011). Self-efficacy, goal orientations and learning

strategies as mediators between preceding and subsequent

academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences,21(2011), 191–195. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.003.

Dutton, J., & Dukerich, J. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror:

Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy ofManagement Review, 34, 517–554.

Eccles, J., Adler, T., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differences in

achievement: A test of alternate theories. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 46, 26–43.

Gafoor, A. K. (2001). Influence of certain parental variables onacademic achievement of primary school pupils. Unpublished

Doctoral Thesis. Calicut: University of Calicut.

Gafoor, A. K., & Umer Farooque, T. K. (2006). Comparison of high

and low efficient schools in terms of school, pupil and home

related variables. Journal of Indian Education, 33(2), 89–105.

Gainor, K. A., & Lent, R. W. (1998). Social cognitive expectations

and racial identity attitudes in predicting the math choice

intentions of Black college students. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 45, 403–413.

Graham, S. (1994). Motivation in African Americans. Review ofEducational Research, 64, 55–118.

Hampton, N. Z. (1998). Sources of self-efficacy scale: An assessment

tool of rehabilitation counselors. Rehabilitation CounselingBulletin, 41, 260–277.

Hampton, N. Z., & Mason, E. (2003). Learning disabilities, gender,

sources of efficacy, self-efficacy beliefs, and academic achieve-

ment in high school students. Journal of School Psychology,41(2), 101–112. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

EJ664141).

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2002). The dynamics of organizational

identity. Human Relations, 55(8), 989–1018.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental

involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a

difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310–331.

Jinks, J., & Morgan, V. (1999). Children’s perceived academic self-

efficacy: An inventory scale. Clearing House, 72(4), 224–230.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ581375).

Kazoleas, D., Kim, Y., & Moffit, M. A. (2001). Institutional image: A

case study. Corporate Communications: An International Jour-nal, 6(4), 205–216.

Kelly, K. R. (1993). The relation of gender and academic achieve-

ment to career self-efficacy and interests. Gifted Child Quarterly,37(2), 59–64. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

EJ465376).

Kerala State Planning Board (2010). District-wise enrolment ofstudents in higher secondary schools (in economic review 2010).

Retrieved from http://spb.kerala.gov.in/images/ec2010/chapter11/

18.pdf.

Khezri Azar, H., Lavasani, M. G., Malahmadi, E., & Amani, J.

(2010). The role of self- efficacy, task value, and achievement

goals in predicting learning approaches and mathematics

achievement. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5,

942–947.

Klassen, R. M. (2004a). Optimism and realism: A review of self-

efficacy from a cross-cultural perspective. International Journalof Psychology, 39(3), 205–230.

Klassen, R. M. (2004b). A cross-cultural investigation of the efficacy-

beliefs of South-asian immigrant and Anglo-Canadian non-

immigrant early adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 96(4), 731–742.

Ku, N. (2002). A cross-cultural study on students’ belief in self-

efficacy for self-regulated learning and academic achievement.

ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED464118.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Gover, M. R., & Nijjer, S. K. (1996).

Cognitive assessment of the sources of mathematics self-

efficacy: A thought-listing analysis. Journal of Career Assess-ment, 4(1), 33–46.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1986). Self-efficacy in

the prediction of academic performance and perceived career

options. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 33(3), 265–269.

Linn, M. C., & Hyde, J. S. (1989). Gender, mathematics and science.

Educational Researcher, 18(8), 17–27.

Lopez, F. G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Sources of mathematics self-

efficacy in high school students. Career Development Quarterly,41, 3–12.

Matsui, T., Matsui, K., & Ohnishi, R. (1990). Mechanisms underlying

math self-efficacy learning of college students. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 37, 223–238.

Meece, J. L. (1997). Child and adolescent development for educators.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Milne, A. M., Meyers, D. E., Rosenthal, A. S., & Ginsburg, A. (1986).

Single parents, orking mothers, and the educational achievement

of elementary school children. Sociology of Education, 59,

125–139.

Multon, K. D. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic

outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 38(1), 30–38. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No.EJ426706).

Nasiriyan, A., Khezriazar, H., Dalvand, M. R., & Noruzy, A. (2011).

A model of self-efficacy, task value, achievement goals, effort

and mathematics achievement. International Journal of Aca-demic Research, 3(2), 612–618.

Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher

education institutions in students retention decisions. TheInternational Journal of Education Management, 15(6/7),

303–311.

Niebuhr, K. (1995).The effect of motivation on the relationship of

school climate, family environment, and student characteristics

to academic achievement (Report No. EA 027467). East

Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED393202).

Owen, S. V., & Froman, R. D. (1992). Academic self-efficacy in at-

risk elementary students. Journal of Research in Education, 2(1),

3–7.

Paden, N., & Stell, R. (2006). Branding options for distance learning

programs: Managing the effect on university image. Interna-tional Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learn-ing, 3(8), 45–54.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Reviewof Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578.

Pajares, F. (2005). Self-Efficacy during childhood and adolescence:

Implications for teachers and parents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan

(Eds.), Adolescence and education, vol. 5: Self-efficacy andadolescence (pp. 339–367). Greenwich, CT: Information Age

Publishing.

Pajares, F. (2009). Toward a positive psychology of academic

motivation: The role of self-efficacy beliefs. In R. Gilman, E.

S. Huebner, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positivepsychology in schools (pp. 149–160). New York: Taylor &

Francis.

Pajares, F., Johnson, M. J., & Usher, E. L. (2007). Sources of writing

self-efficacy beliefs of elementary, middle, and high school

students. Research in the Teaching of English, 42, 104–120.

Palacio, A. B., Meneses, G. D., & Perez, P. J. P. (2002). The

configuration of the university image and its relationship with

the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational Administra-tion, 40(5), 486–505.

Phillips, D. A., & Zimmerman, M. (1990). The developmental course

of perceived competence and incompetence among competent


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.003

http://spb.kerala.gov.in/images/ec2010/chapter11/18.pdf

http://spb.kerala.gov.in/images/ec2010/chapter11/18.pdf

children. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian Jr (Eds.), Competenceconsidered. New Haven: CT Yale University Press.

Redmond, B. F. (2010). Self-efficacy theory: Do I think that I cansucceed in my work? Work attitudes and motivation. The

Pennsylvania State University; World Campus. Retrieved from

https://cms.psu.edu/.

Renihan, F. I., & Renihan, P. J. (1988). Institutional image: The

concept and implications for administrative action. NASSPBulletin, 73(515), 81–90.

Sakiz, G. (2007). Does teacher affective support matter? Aninvestigationof the relationship among perceived teacher affec-tive support, sense of belonging, academic emotions, academicself-efficacy beliefs, and academic effort in middle schoolmathematics classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Sakiz, G. (2011). Mastery and performance approach goal orienta-

tions in relation to academic selfefficacy beliefs and academic

help seeking behaviors of college students in Turkey. Educa-tional Research, 2(1), 771–778.

Santiago, A. M., & Einarson, M. K. (1998). Background character-

istics as predictors of academic self-confidence and academic

self-efficacy among graduate science and engineering students.

Research in higher education, 39(2), 163–198. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. EJ565325).

Schunk, D. H. (1983). Progress self-monitoring: Effects on children’s

self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Experimental Educa-tion, 51, 89–93.

Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change.

Review of Educational Research, 57, 149–174.

Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, education, and instruction. In J.

E. Maddox (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment:Theory, research, and application. New York: Plenum Press.

Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2005). Self-efficacy beliefs in

adolescents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefsin adolescents (pp. 71–96). Charlotte, NC: Information Age

Publishing, Inc.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy

scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measuresin health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and controlbeliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.

Seo, D., & Taherbhai, H. (2009). Motivational beliefs and cognitive

processes in mathematics achievement, analyzed in the context

of cultural differences: A Korean elementary school example.

Asia Pacific Education Review, 10, 193–203.

Sui-Chu Ho, E., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental

involvement on eighth grade achievement. Sociology of Educa-tion, 69, 126–141.

Taylor, A. R. (1991). Social competence and the early school

transition: Risk and protective factors for African- American

children. Educational and Urban Society, 24, 15–26.

Unesco. (2010). Reaching the marginalized (p. 101). Paris: Oxford

University Press.

Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2006a). Inviting confidence in school:

Invitations as a critical source of the academic self-efficacy

beliefs of entering middle school students. Journal of Invita-tional Theory and Practice, 12, 7–16.

Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2006b). Sources of academic and self-

regulatory efficacy beliefs of entering middle school students.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 125–141. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. EJ737567).

Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school:

Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review ofEducational Research, 78(4), 751–796. doi:10.3102/00346543

08321456.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., MacIver, D., Reuman, D., & Midgley, C.

(1991). Transitions at early adolescence: Changes in children’s

domain-specific self-perceptions and general self-esteem across

the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology,27, 552–565.

Yamauchi, L. A., & Greene, W. L. (1997). Culture, gender, and thedevelopment of perceived academic self-efficacy among Hawai-ian adolescents, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED409509.

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 EducationalResearch Journal, 29(3), 663–676.


123

https://cms.psu.edu/

http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321456

http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321456

contextual influences on sources of academic self-efficacy

Documents