final report for my research

The relationship between self-efficacy, pass mark, and

student’s performance in mathematics

1In order for a student to pass mathematics, the student is required to get a

minimum of 30%. However, a lot of students still fail mathematic regardless

of this provision. This study aimed to investigate the effect of self-efficacy on

students’ performance given different pass marks; do students who are self-

efficacious perform better than their fellows who are less self-efficacious

regardless of the pass mark set (whether the pass mark is 30% or 50%). In this

study, a grade 12 mathematics class, in a school in rural areas of KwaZulu

Natal province, in uGu district participate. Grade 12 mathematics learners

were given self-efficacy likert scale and then were randomly assigned to either

experiment (50%) or control group (30%). T-test has been run and the results

show that there is no significant different between the two groups of students.

However, we note that for those were assigned to experimental group being

less-self-efficacious performance badly compared to their fellows who had

high self-efficacy.

1. Introduction and Background of the study

Many experts believe that hard work is the most important

element for one to succeed in what he/ she is doing in life

“Given the choice between ability and hard working as most

important key to success in school (and in life), experts say

hard work is hands down important” (The Parent Institute,

2005, p.11). Even though one might have the ability to do

something, he/she still must put in an effort in order to

succeed. The more effort you put the more successful you

become. People will put effort that is enough to meet their

set goals or expected outcome. So it is important that the

1Key words: self-concept, self-efficacy, effort, perseverance, performance

1 | P a g e



goal (or expected outcome) that one set is realistic and

attainable (Bandura, 1986). For instance, In South African

schoolsa learner must get a minimum of 30% to pass Maths

(Curriculum News, 201, p.5). This minimum mark should be

attainable by majority of learners. However, most learners

fail even to meet this minimum mark or percentage. Thatcher,

Lui, Kwan (2011) argue that when the expectation largely

increase (set the bar too high) two things might happen to the

pass rate or performance of the learner. It is either it

remain constant or decrease. It might remain constant or

increase when it suitable for the student and they think they

manage to reach the expectation and it might decrease when the

expectations are too high because most students will think

that it impossible for them to attain (Thatcher et al, p.50).

This can be explained using Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy,

which is defined as “the Judgements about how will one be able

to execute a specific academic behaviour in a particular

context” (Baird, Scottt, Darring, & Hamill, 2009, p.881).

Many experts believe that self-efficacy is the most important

element for one to succeed in what he/ she is doing in life.

Self-efficacy is defined as “the belief in one’s capabilities

to organize and execute the courses of action required to

manage prospective situations” (Bandura, 1995, p.2). According

to Bandura (1997) and Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, and Larivee

(1991), self-efficacy plays an influential role in academic

attainment. Bandura (1997) further argues that self-efficacy

2 | P a g e



contributes independently to intellectual performance rather

than simply reflecting cognitive skills (p.214). Even though

one might have the ability to do something, he/she still must

believe in his efficacy, which will eventually determine how

much effort he/she must expend in order to succeed. In South

African education system there has been a concern that most

learners are failing especial in mathematics even though the

set pass mark is 30%. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate

the factors that are affecting students’ performance. Hence,

this study was seeking to investigate the effect of self-

efficacy on performance in mathematics. With the hope that

this research will help the department of education to make

necessary interventions to ensure that learners do not only

have access to education but also progress especial in

subjects like maths which are crucial for the country to be

competitive in a global world.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship

between pass mark and students’ performance. The study explain

whether increasing passing pass mark to a reasonable bar

increase or decrease the performance of learners or does not

affect the performance at all.

2. Theoretical Framework

This study is based on Bandura’s Self-efficacy theory ofmotivation. Self-efficacy is defined as “personal judgement ofone’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of actionto attain designated types of educational performances”(Zimmerman, 1995 citing Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 1989). Self-

3 | P a g e



efficacy is the main construct in Bandura's social- cognitive,which refers to student’s beliefs in their ability to masternew skills and tasks, often in a specific academic domain suchas mathematics (Pajares and Miller, 1994). Students' self-efficacy is often viewed as the more influential variable onachievement. Findings from empirical research indicate thatself-efficacy is one of the constructs most highly related toachievement (e.g.Pajares and Miller, 1994; Wolters, Yu, andPintrich, 1996; Walsh, 2008; Levpuscek and Zupancic, 2009;Ferla,Valcke and Cai, 2009; Ayotola and Adedeji, 2009). Alsothe findings of Hackett (1992) suggest that efficacy beliefsoverride everything including past achievements andperformances, in predicting college-level achievement.Furthermore, Bandura (1997) says that the canon of self-efficacy have been tested repeatedly in different fields,consistently demonstrating a strong link between self-efficacyand human behavior. Higher self-efficacy correlates with, andmay even lead to, higher achievement; just as lower self-efficacy relates to lower achievement. Students with strongsenses of self-efficacy tendency involve in challenging tasks,invest more effort and persistence, and show excellentacademic performance in comparison with students who lack suchconfidence (Bong, 2001). In addition, self-efficacy isespecially important when students facing tasks difficulties.Students with strong self-efficacy are less likely to abandonthan are those who are has doubts about their abilities(Alderman 2004). Furthermore, Bandura (1997, 1986) says that expectations and

personal motivation will be determined by their perceived

self-efficacy. According to Bandura (1977), efficacy beliefs

influence level of effort, persistence, and choice of

activities. This simple means if one is self-efficacious

he/she will put more effort and persevere regardless of

failure and difficulties in the activities he/she believes

him/herself to be capable of attaining. Hence, people will

not pursue goals they judge themselves to be incapable of

4 | P a g e



attaining. Nor do they passionately aspire to goals they

believe they can never achieve.

In addition, Bandura argues (1997) that goal attainment

strengthens self-efficacy, reciprocal determination. Those who

are self-assured are much likely than those who are self-

doubting to set themselves challenging standards (or goals) by

which they increase their level of motivation. In other words

those who highly believe in themselves will set high standards

which will increase their self-efficacy, when they have

attained those standards. By contrast those who do not

strongly believe in themselves as capable will tend to set

standards that are very low such their achievement will not

motivate them. Bandura (1986) argues that those who are self-

doubting are easily discouraged by failure unlike those who

are self-assured, who will put more effort when their

performance fall short and will persist till they become

successful. He says that the stronger the perceived self-

efficacy that one will achieve his standards, the more one

intensify his effort towards achieving the standards (p.371).

Those who have strong self-efficacy are dissatisfied with sub

standards performance, they put more and more effort to

achieve their standards, and thus they improve. On the other

hand, those who are self-doubting are satisfied with their

underperformance, believing that they cannot improve and hence

put very low effort. Thus, they show a decline in improvement.

This has been proven in several studies. A study conducted by

5 | P a g e



Bouffard et al (1991), Collins (1982), and Bandura and Schunk

(1981)has shownthat within each level of ability, children who

possessed higher self-efficacy were more interested in and

persistent with the maths tasks and eventually performed

better. Therefore, if goals are challenging and realistic yet

attainable children are likely to improve in self-efficacy

when they achieve them and hence, put more effort to further

increase their performance.

Hence, self-efficacy is often viewed as more influential in

student’s achievements (Nasiriyan, Khezri Azar, Noruzy, & Reza

Dalvand, 2011).Higher self-efficacy correlates with, and may

even lead to, higher achievement; just as lower self-efficacy

relates to lower achievement. Students with strong senses of

self-efficacy tendency involve in challenging tasks, invest

more effort and persistence, and show excellent academic

performance in comparison with students who lack such

confidence (Bong, 2001). In addition, self-efficacy is

especially important when students facing tasks difficulties.

Students with strong self-efficacy are less likely to abandon

than are those who are has doubts about their abilities

(Alderman, 2004).

According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy is derived from

four sources: mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal

persuasion, and physiological state. Firstly, mastery

experiences are the most influential source of self-efficacy

information since they provide empirical evidence that one is

able to succeed. Bandura (1997) says successes built a robust

6 | P a g e



belief in one’s personal efficacy while failures undermine

one’s personal efficacy, especial when failure occurs before a

sense of efficacy is strongly established. Hence, if one

experience success in an easy task and when they perform

another task and fail, they tend to be discouraged. However,

if one experience repeated successes, especial in difficult

task one is likely to be self-efficacious especial in the

tasks similar to those he/she experienced successes in.

Therefore, success teaches someone that he/she can succeed and

hence, enhance one’s sense of self-efficacy. In addition,

students who are struggling tend to avoid those tasks which

are similar to those previously failed (Baker and Wigfield,

1999; Bandura,1993; Casteel, Isom, and Jordan, 2000;

Chapmanand and Tunmer, 2003; Henk and Melnick, 1995; Jinks and

Morgan, 1999; Lipson and Wixson, 1997; Lynch, 2002;Pajares,

1996; Pintrich and Schunk, 2002; Schunk and Zimmerman, 1997;

Walker, 2003).NB: 13938477

Secondly, people do not only depend on their personal mastery

experiences as the sole source of their level of self-efficacy

(Bandura, 1997). People’s self-efficacy is also enhanced by

seeing others who are similar to them (may by ability)

performing the same activity successful (Bandura, 1986; Schunk

& Miller, 2002). In other words, people say to themselves “if

they can do it, I can do it also”. Same goes to seeing others

failing leads to people believing that they are also not

capable of performing the task and therefore, their self-

7 | P a g e



efficacy is undermined. Furthermore, Tuckman and Monetti

(2011), say that reliance on other’s experiences for one’s

judgement of self-efficacy is especial great when one is

uncertain about his/her abilities to perform a given task.

Verbal persuasion also makes people believe in their

capabilities. When a person is being told that he/she is

capable or incapable of performing a certain task if he puts

enough effort, they believe and act accordingly. However,

Bandura (1997) says that “it is easier to undermine self-

efficacy by persuasion than to enhance it” (Tuckman & Monetti,

2011, p. 396). According to Tuckman and Monetti (2011), the

effectiveness of persuasion depends of the perceived

credibility and expertness of the persuader. The more the

persuader is believed, the more the recipient with change

his/her self-perception of capability. However, it important

to note that if one is persuaded that he/she is able to

perform a task, if he/she tries and fails his/her regard for

the persuader is likely to decline (Tuckman & Monetti, 2011).

Persuaders often rely on suggestion (such as “be all you can

be”), exhortation (e.g. “you can do it”, and feedback (Tuckman

and Monetti, 2011). It is believed that encouraging feedback

that leads to high self-efficacy leads to students putting

more effort and to accomplish more (Tuckman and Monetti, 2011

citing Schunk, 1983; Tuckman, 1992).

Lastly, people also rely partly on their physiological state

(emotional state or state of arousal) to judge whether they

8 | P a g e



are capable of doing a task successful (Tuckman & Monetti,

2011). When people are not nervous, they are much more likely

to expect success on a task than when they are nervous. “Fear

and anxiety create the anticipation of stress in an upcoming

task and thus reduce the sense of self-efficacy” (Tuckman &

Monetti, 2011). Therefore, techniques to eliminate this

anticipatory fear and anxiety increase sense of self-efficacy

and hence, lead to improvement in performance.

3. Literature Review

Pass mark is defined as a mark that an individual need to

score in order to pass an exam or a test or any form of

assessment (Society of Actuaries, 2012). For instance, in

South Africa pass mark in grade 12 for maths is 30%

(Department of Basic Education, 2008, p.13). According to

Bandura (1997), what will determine whether the students

achieve pass mark is their perceived self-efficacy.

Many studies internationally have shown that self-efficacy is

the most important factor in academic achievement. Wasserstein

(1995) invested student’ expectations in 200 middle school

students in Coronado. This study showed that suitable amount

of expectation from the teachers was acceptable and

motivating. Also Thatcher, Lui and Kwan (2011), conducted an

experiment with first and second year science students. They

gave each group a pass mark of 70% (experiment) and another

50% (control group). In this study they have found the result

similar to those found by Wasserstein (1995), increasing9 | P a g e



expectation (or pass mark) extremely high resulted in decline

in students’ performance. It is however important to note that

in this study better able students did better and less able

students did worse under a regime of high expectation. But on

average students did better with or without high expectations

(pass mark) placed on them (Thatcher et al, 2011).

Furthermore, Seegers and Boekaerts (1993) in their study

showed that learners’ beliefs about their capabilities (self-

efficacy) have a strong influence on their performance. Hence,

a decline in self-efficacy accompanies a decline in

Mathematics achievement (Hammouri, 2004 citing Love & McVevey,

2011). This suggests that negative perceptions about one’s

mathematics ability will lead to poor performance in

mathematics. When the expectations are unreasonable high those

students who have low sense of self-efficacy will put less

effort and hence perform badly “research evidence is clear:

domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs influence effort

investment, and not the other way around” (Boekaerts, 2002).

In addition, a study done by Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, and

Larivee (1991) and Collins (1982), where they selected

students of the same level of mathematical ability, who judged

themselves to be high or low self-efficacious and gave them

difficult mathematics problems. Within each level of ability,

those learners with high self-efficacy managed their work time

better, were more persistent; even if they fail but they will

rework a problem till they solve it, and were less likely to

reject correct solutions prematurely (Bouffard-Bouchard et al,

10 | P a g e



1991 and Collins, 1982). On the other hand, other students of

the same mathematics ability, who doubted their efficacy, did

the opposite.

Research Questions

1. How does increasing the pass mark in mathematics for

Grade 12 students affect their performance?

2. Is performance influenced by self-efficacy?

Hypothesis

Null hypothesis, H0: There is no significant difference in

self-efficacy and maths performance between male and

female students.

There is no significant difference in maths

performance between students given pass mark of 30%

and those given pass of 50%.

There is no significant difference in Maths

performance between male and female students

Alternate Hypothesis: HA: There is a significant difference in

self-efficacy and maths performance

between male and female students.

There is a significant difference in maths

performance between students given

pass mark of 30% and those given pass mark of

50%.

11 | P a g e



There is a significant difference in Maths

performance between male and female students

4. Research Methodology

Paradigm

This study followed post-positivist paradigm which is defined

as “an organised method for combining deductive logic with

precise empirical observations of individual behaviour in

order to discover and confirm a set of probabilistic causal

laws or principles that can be used to predict general

patterns of human activity” (Neuman, 2006, p.82). This

paradigm was useful for this study since it was seeking to

investigate the causal relationship that exists between pass

mark and students’ performance in maths in relation to

students’ perceived self-efficacy, which can help to predict

the performance of students in mathematics under a certain set

pass mark according to their perceived efficacy.

Research type

This research was an explanatory research. According to Terre

Blanche, Durrheim, & Painter (2006), Explanatory research is

the research that aims to provide causal explanations of a

phenomenon. It seek to provide a cause and effects

relationship between two or more variables (pass mark and

performance based on perceived self-efficacy). This study was

12 | P a g e



seeking to give an explanation of the correlation between pass

mark (or the passing bar set) and performance. Hence, this was

a suitable type of research to answer the research question of

this research.

Participant

Grade 12 maths students, were selected from KwaZulu-Natal,

rural school, uGu district. The ages of the participants were

between 17 and 23. They consisted of equal males and females

(30 males and 30 females). The school, which was selected, has

been lately performing badly in mathematics.

Data collection method

Data was collected through questionnaire and experiment. For

questionnaire, self-efficacy scale developed byRalf Schwarzer

& Matthias Jerusalem in United Kingdom in 1995 was used. This

scale is suitable for all contexts (Schwarzer & Jerusalem,

1995). Questionnaire was used to discover the accuracy of the

results from the experiment, i.e. are those students who have

high sense of perceived efficacy from their mastery experience

perform better than those who lack self-efficacy from their

failing experience. This questionnaire consisted of 20

questions concerning self-efficacy and it was answered using

likert scale ranging from 1-absolute not true to 4-exactly

true. For experiment a number of grade 12 learner taught maths

by the same teacher in the same school were assigned randomly

into either experimental group (group with high pass mark) and

13 | P a g e



controlled group (group with normal pass mark) after they

filled the questionnaire. Then 30 students were assigned into

either group (experimental, 50% pass mark or control group,

30% pass mark) and they were told separately their pass mark.

However, the teacher was not told which group has received

which pas mark, so that She could not teach the groups

unfairly (blind teaching). As the same teacher taught the

students, they also wrote the same test moderated by Maths and

Science head of department (HoD). Moderation was done to

ensure that the test is in a right standard and to check for

validity.

The same teacher who is their normal Mathematics teacher did

the marking. The average scores of both groups were compared

using t-test. This method was appropriate for this study since

it was seeking to explain the causal effects (of pass mark in

performance) (Terre Blanch et al, 2006, p.44) and their

connection to self-efficacy.

Approach of the study

In this study, quantitative approach (experimental design) was

used. This means that, in this study the data that was

collected, was in the form of numbers and statistics was used

to analyses it (Terre Blanch et al, 2006). This was

appropriate since the study seek to investigate the

correlation between pass mark and performance, which was

investigated through collecting data in a form of numbers, and

was analysed using statistics. 14 | P a g e



Sampling method of the study

Random sampling of maths grade 12 learners was done. All maths

grade 12 students were put together and the 60 (30 for each

group) was selected randomly and assigned randomly to each

group of 30 (experimental group and controlled group). This

was done as to make sure that the data is representative of

all grade 12 learners both those who performing good and those

who are performing badly. Furthermore, once the groups were

allocated t-test was done to check for equivalence and hence,

if there was no equivalence certain individuals were going to

be swapped so as to ensure that the groups were equivalent

enough and groups were found to be equivalent; . According to

Terre Blanche et al (2006), this form is useful especial in a

case where by the result are going to be generalized. Hence,

this method of sampling was useful for this study since it

aimed to generalize the results to all maths grade 12 students

in the school investigated. In addition the sample size of

this study was 60 (30 in each group) which is more than 30% of

the population (necessary according to Terre Blanche et al ,

2006) of the grade 12 maths students in the school the school

that was investigated.

When I arrived at the school, groups were already randomly

selected and were taught in different classroom but by the

same teacher. So when I came in I was told that they are

randomly assigned to these different classes, so it became

unnecessary to randomly assign them to groups (either

15 | P a g e



experiment or control group). Hence, I just treated one group

as experiment group and the other as control group. However,

to ensure that the groups were equivalent I did t-test using

their previous marks (June exam marks). The significance level

was found to be .741 (alpha, 0.05<sig, 0.741) and hence, the

two groups were not significantly different and if there is a

difference was due to chance.

5. Results and Discussion

Regardless of the difference in pass mark (30% vs. 50%), there

was no significant difference in performance between the two

groups. The significance level was calculated to be .400

(>p_.05) (see Appendix 1). Therefore, we failed to reject null

hypothesis (there is no significant difference in mathematics

performance between the group given 30% pass mark {M_47.53,

SD_21.02} and the group given 50% pass mark {M_43.23, SD_17.94})

and hence, concluded that the two groups do not significantly

differ in performance. There is little evidence that

increasing pass mark affect performance, whether by increasing

it or decreasing it. However, it is important to note that on

average those students who performed better on June exam (pre-

test), performed better even in the test (whether given 30%

pass mark or 50% pass mark).

16 | P a g e



Group Statistics

Group N MeanStd.

DeviationStd. Error

MeanScores Control Group 30 47.5333 21.20301 3.87112

Experiment Group

30 43.2333 17.94183 3.27571

Independent Samples TestLevene'sTest forEquality ofVariances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig.(2-tailed)

MeanDifference

Std.ErrorDifference

95% ConfidenceInterval ofthe DifferenceLower Upper

Scores

Equalvariancesassumed

1.616 .209 .848

58 .400 4.30000 5.07108 -5.85088

14.45088

Equalvariancesnot assumed

.848

56.454

.400 4.30000 5.07108 -5.85680

14.45680

5.1. Student’s pass rate under experiment group and

control group.

17 | P a g e



Experiment Group

control Group012345678910 Students categories of performance

<30%30%-39%40%-49%50%-59%60%-69%70%-79%80%-89%90%-99%

Group

Frequency

Graph 1: Students’ categories of performance (from those who failed to those who got 90% and above)

From the graph we can see that most of the students in the

experiment group got marks between 40%-49%. This might mean

they were trying only enough to get 50% so that they can pass.

On the other hand, most of the students in control group got

30%-39%, and 50%-59%. Which might mean that they were also

trying enough just to achieve the pass mark, however a few set

their standards high and hence, got them into 50s. The

following group is the group that got below 30% (6) which is

surprisingly more that the group in the experiment group (5).

In both groups, the experiment and control the students who

got 60% and above are few. However, it also important to note

that in the control group two students got 80%-89% and one got

90% and 99% while on the experiment group there are no

students who got 80%-89% but only one student got a mark

between 90% and 99%. According to Bandura (1997), students who

18 | P a g e



are self-efficacious set their standards high and it might the

case even here because those who got these high marks both in

the experiment and control group perceived themselves as

highly self-officious.

5.2. Correlation between self-efficacy and pass

mark

From figure 3 we can see that there is a week relationship

between self-efficacy and mathematics performance in both

experiment group and control group. There were those learners

who had a greater sense of efficacy but performed badly in the

test. But on average those who had a greater sense of self-

19 | P a g e

Graph 2: scatter plot of Maths test scores against Self-efficacy scores



efficacy performed better than those who doubted their

efficacy.

Correlations

Efficacy

Scores

Maths test

Scores (%)

Efficacy Scores Pearson

Correlation

1 .179

Sig. (2-tailed) .172

N 60 60

Maths test Scores

(%)

Pearson

Correlation

.179 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .172

N 60 60

Table 2: Correlation Coefficient: r= .179

Correlation coefficient between self-efficacy and mathematics

performance was calculated and found to be .179, which is a

week correlation. Unlike what international literature says

(there is a strong correlation between self-efficacy and

academic performance), in this study there seems to be a week

but positive correlation. This means that as self-efficacy

increase so is the performance in mathematics. However, we can

never be sure about an increase in performance as a result of

high sense of self-efficacy; sometimes the opposite might

happen. Just like it happened in this study, if you take a

look at graph2there are many students who had a high sense of

self-efficacy but they performed badly in a test.

Nevertheless, on average those who had high sense of self-

20 | P a g e



efficacy performed better in a test than their fellows who had

low sense of self-efficacy.

5.4. Differences in self-efficacy and performance under pass

mark of 30% and 50% between male and female students

Group Statistics

Gender N MeanStd.Deviation

Std. ErrorMean

Self-efficacyscores

male 30 63.1667 5.44618 .99433

Female 30 63.3000 7.78659 1.42163

Independent Samples TestLevene'sTest forEquality ofVariances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig.(2-tailed)

MeanDifference

Std.ErrorDifference

95%ConfidenceInterval oftheDifferenceLower Upper

Self-efficacyscores

Equalvariancesassumed

1.097 .299 -.077

58 .939 -.13333 1.73486 -3.60603

3.33936

Equalvariancesnotassumed

-.077

51.895

.939 -.13333 1.73486 -3.61475

3.34808

Table 3: differences in self-efficacy by gender

21 | P a g e



From table 3, we find that there is no significant differencein self-efficacy between males and females. Sig_.939 and meandifference is -133333. This means that there are approximately94% chances that the difference, if it exists, it is due tochance. Therefore, regardless of the groups, they are in(experiment or control) males (M_63.17, SD_5.45) and females(M_63.30, SD_7.79) have equal sense of self-efficacy. When youtake a closer look and the of males and females, you find thatfemales have a mean self-efficacy above that of males, howeverit is not significant; there are 94% chances that it is due tochance.

Female Male024681012

Performance by gender in Experiment group (50%)

PassedFailed

Gender

Freq

uency

Figure 1. Performance by gender in experiment group (or under 50% pass mark); 14 females and 16 males

were part of experiment group.

22 | P a g e



FemaleMale

02468

1012

Performance by gender in Control group (30%)

PassedFailed

Gender

Freq

uency

Figure 2. Performance by gender in control group (or under pass mark of 30%); 14 males and 16 females

participated).

6. Conclusion and Recommendations for further

research

Conclusion

This study has shown that just as bandura argue that there is

a correlation between self-efficacy and performance. However,

this correlation in this study was found not to be strong as

Bandura would claim and even other researchers have found the

evidence from context (mostly in developed countries).

In addition, just like in the study done by Ayotola and

Adedeji (2009) in Nigeria, in this study I have found that

there is no significant difference in Maths self-efficacy and

Maths performance between male and female students. However,

other researcher have found the difference to be significant (

23 | P a g e



Recommendations for further research

Further research is needed to further investigate the

relationship between self-efficacy, pass mark and performance.

In South Africa, there is very little (if any) literature or

research that has been done on this area of self-efficacy and

performance. Therefore, it is necessary that research be done

on this area since this is a very important for students’

academic achievement (including mathematics achievements).

Further, it is important for future research to ensure that it

is done in long space of time. Also, the sample for the study

should be increased and be representative of all the school

(primary, high, private, public, school of all quartiles and

sections). When the sample is large enough the differences in

self-efficacy and performance between male and female, the

effect of increasing pass mark can be detected. Hence, the

result which will be found will be more accurate and

trustworthy.

7. Limitations

It is important to note that this study had some limitations.

Firstly, this study was conducted with a small sample.

Secondly, it was conducted with a school that is not well

functioning. Thirdly, this study was conducted within a very

short space of time. These factors might have affected the

results.

9. Ethical consideration

24 | P a g e



This study will be considering grade 12 learners and most of

them are 18 years and even above that. Very few learners are

below the age of 18 and hence, informed concern form will be

given and clearly explained to them and it will be translated

to IsiZulu which is the language that the parents will be able

to understand. It will be clearly stated in the consent that

participation is voluntary and the risks and benefits of the

study are going to be clearly stated “The standard form of the

consent are (a) provision of appropriate information, (b)

participants’ competence and understanding, (c) voluntariness

in participating and freedom to decline or withdraw after the

study has started, and (d) formalisation of the consent,

usually in writing..” (Terre Blanch et al, 2006, p.72).

Ethical clearance was obtained in University of KwaZulu Natal

School of Education. Furthermore, in the study there was no

obvious (or even reported) harm incurred to any student who

participated.

10. References

Ayotola,A., &Adedeji, T. (2009).The relationship between

mathematics self-efficacy and achievement in

mathematics.Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009),

953–957, accessed: 18 October 2012 <www.sciencedirect.com>

Boekaerts, M. (2002).Motivating to learn. Accessed: 07 May 2012

<http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/publication

s/EducationalPractices SeriesPdf/prac10e.pdf>

25 | P a g e



Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A

social cognitive theory. London: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1995). Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

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

York: Freeman and Company.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981).Cultivating competence, self-

efficacy and intrinsic interest through proximal self-

motivation.Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-

598.

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

of self-efficacy on self-regulation and performance among junior and

senior high-school age students. International journal of

behavioural development, 14, 153-164.

Collins, J. (1982). Self-Efficacy and ability in achievement

behaviour. New York: Paper presented at the meeting of American

Education Research Association.

Department of Education.(2010a). Education statistics in South

Africa 2008. Pretoria: Department of Education.

Department of Education.(2010b). Education statistics in South

Africa 2008 and 2009. Pretoria: Department of Education.

Neuman, W, L. (2006). Social Research Methods: qualitative and

quantitative approaches (6th Ed). New York: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.

Margolis, H, & McCabe, P. (2006). Improving Self-Efficacy and

Motivation: What to Do, What to Say. Intervention in School and

26 | P a g e



Clinic, 41(2), 218-227. Accessed: 01 May 2012

<http://isc.sagepub.com/content/41/4/218.full.pdf>

Osafehinti, F.O. (1988). Sex relationship Differences in Mathematics at Secondary School level. Journal of Mathematics Association of Nigeria.18 (1) 80 – 88.Schunk, D.H., & Miller, S.D. (2002).Self-efficacy and adolescents’ motivation. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents. Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.

Terre Blanch M, Durrheim, K, & Painter, D. (2006). Research in

Practice: Applied Methods for The Social Science (2nd edition).

Cape Town: UCT Press.

Tuckman, W. & Monetti, D, M. (2011). Educational Psychology.

(International ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth.

27 | P a g e

final report for my research

Documents