Self-efficacy in the primary classroom: An investigation into the relationship with performance.

Jane Webb-WilliamsFaculty of Education, University of Cambridge

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association New Researchers/Student Conference, University of Warwick, 6 September 2006

AbstractThis correlational study focused on research questions regarding (a) the extent of the relationship between self-

efficacy and science performance, (b) the extent to which self-efficacy measures of different levels of specificity

differ in their relationship with science performance and (c) the extent to which there exists gender differences in

self-efficacy. Fifty-two English primary school children aged between 10 and 12 years completed five Likert scale

self-efficacy questionnaires, which varied in their level of specificity, and a science performance measure based on

Key Stage 2 SATs. The results indicated that the self-efficacy instruments were valid and reliable, and that self-

efficacy was positively correlated with academic performance. Exceptions to this overall pattern and an analysis of

individual pupil’s self-efficacy scores in relation to performance were used to identify children with grossly distorted

self-beliefs. These findings are presented together with those regarding the optimal level of specificity of self-

efficacy measures and those regarding gender differences. These results are discussed in relation to the educational

implications of self-efficacy theory, such as teaching, assessment and school transfer. The study concluded that the

construct of self-efficacy and its measurement are valid in British primary school context and that teachers would do

well to attend to the self-efficacy beliefs of their pupils.

IntroductionThis paper reports a correlational study of primary school children’s self-efficacy in science at three levels of domain

specificity and their attainment in science. According to Bandura's (1986, p.391) social cognitive theory, self-

efficacy is defined as “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to

attain designated types of performances.” Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate

themselves and behave (Bandura, 1997). They constitute the key factor of personal agency and are instrumental to

the goals individuals pursue and the control individuals have over their environment.

When defining self-efficacy, researchers in the USA (e.g. Pajares and Miller, 1994, Jinks and Morgan, 1999, and

Zimmerman, 1995) tend to mention the same five key features. First, it is an assessment of competence to perform a

task not a judgment of personal qualities. Individuals are asked to judge how well they can perform given tasks, they

are not asked about their personality traits, physical features or how a task makes them feel or think. Second, self-

efficacy is domain-specific. Individuals can be highly efficacious in one domain (e.g. numeracy) but express low

self-efficacy beliefs in another (e.g. literacy). Third, it is context-dependent. The execution of a task can be

influenced by things such as competition, physiological state and environment. As such efficacy beliefs are

influenced by the surrounding circumstances. For example, self-efficacy beliefs may differ between those children in

competitive classrooms and those in more co-operative environments. Fourth, self-efficacy is measured before the

task is performed. Thus it reflects one’s perception of capability in light of the task demands rather than how one

feels having completed the activity. Fifth, self-efficacy measurement does not depend on normative data. Self-

efficacy questionnaires require respondents to rate their level of certainty about their own ability to perform a task

without making reference to the performance of others.

Likert scale questionnaires are often used to measure self-efficacy beliefs. In this way the level of the task, the

strength and generality of self efficacy can be ascertained. Some self-efficacy research has used self-report rating

scales in conjunction with concrete activities or examples of particular tasks. For example, Schunk, Hanson and Cox

(1987) administered a fractions skills test to children aged between 9 and 12 years in order to measure mathematical

achievement. The self-efficacy beliefs were measured through the presentation of a series of problems involving

fractions and children were asked to judge their capability to solve each problem according to categories ranging

from “not sure” to ”really sure”. The brief presentation (2 seconds) of the fraction problems allowed the children to

assess the difficulty of the task but not actually solve the questions. This method of assessing self-efficacy can be

deemed to be ‘task-specific’ since the self-efficacy items concern particular problems (fractions) rather than more

general questions about maths. However, the context and subject-matter specific nature of self-efficacy means that

self-efficacy beliefs may differ according to the subject that is being taught, the teacher that is teaching, the

classmates that are present etc. This has fuelled a debate within the literature regarding the optimal level of

specificity of measures. Should the measures be general, domain-specific or task-specific? General measures require

individuals to make judgments about their capabilities without reference to a particular task or activity and this,

according to Pajares (1996), means that decontextualised global scores of self-efficacy which reflect a general

personality trait are provided rather than self-efficacy as a context-specific judgment. Indeed, Bandura (1997, p48)

notes that general measures “violate the basic assumption of the multidimensionality of self-efficacy beliefs. They

are not the appropriate measure to use in tests of self-efficacy theory, nor do they have much predictive utility”.

Thus, domain-specific measures are therefore potentially more explanatory than general measures. However, Pajares

(1996) maintains that task-specific measures are superior since in some domains distinct skills are required in each

sub-domain. For example, in mathematics different skills are required to do fractions, subtraction, division, long

multiplication, to use a calculator, or to do calculus. That said, measures do not need to be so specific that they lose

their practical relevance. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) suggest that researchers should avoid either highly

general or highly specific measures.

In addition to the issue of specificity, researchers (e.g. Pajares, 1996) warn that there should be a close

correspondence between the self-efficacy measure and the achievement measure. In their meta-analysis of 38 studies

of efficacy beliefs and academic achievement, Multon, Brown and Lent (1991) found that the majority of studies

assessed academic performance through basic cognitive skills and that the strongest effects were obtained when this

was correlated with self-efficacy for cognitive skills. Thus, there was correspondence between the self-efficacy

measure and the achievement measure. Pajares (1996) noted that educational research has often overlooked the

issues of specificity and correspondence. A recent set of guidelines for the construction of self-efficacy scales created

by Bandura (2001) may help to address these issues.

One issue facing self-efficacy in the UK is how it differs from other self constructs. This is a complex area in part

due to the difficulty in finding agreement on what constitutes the defining properties of each particular construct. For

example, Brown (1998) notes that the term self-esteem is often used in three different ways. Indeed, Pajares (1997)

suggested that the difficulty has to do with the large number of constructs, the similarity of their conceptualisations

and the fact that "typically most are defined in nearly identical fashion". It is not the intention of this paper to

constitute a review of these different constructs however it should be noted that self-efficacy, with its greater

specificity and sensitivity to context, appears to be a good predictor of academic performance and unlike other

constructs is open to alteration.

Self-Efficacy and EducationSelf-efficacy beliefs have been shown to affect educational performance through their effects on motivation,

achievement and self-regulation. Motivation studies have found that three indicators of motivation (choice of

activities, persistence and level of effort) are influenced by self-efficacy beliefs. For example, Bandura and Schunk,

(1981) found that children with a high sense of perceived self-efficacy were more likely to choose to continue with a

task than children with low self-efficacy, Schunk (1981) found that children with a high sense of self-efficacy

persisted longer and were more successful on difficult arithmetic tasks than children with low self-efficacy and

Collins (1982; cited in Bandura, 1997), found that children with a stronger sense of self-efficacy solved more

problems and chose to rework more problems than children of the same ability who maintained a low sense of self-

efficacy. To Bandura (1997) these studies show that “students may perform poorly either because they lack the skills

or because they have the skills but lack the perceived personal efficacy to make optimal use of them”.

Achievement studies have demonstrated that self-efficacy beliefs are positively correlated with academic

achievement (e.g. Jinks and Morgan, 1999; Pajares and Schunk, 2001 and Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons,

1992). This relationship between self-efficacy and achievement has also received support from domains other than

academic functioning. For example, McCormick and McPherson (2003) studied 332 young instrumentalists who

were completing graded music examinations. They found that self-efficacy was the best predictor of performance.

Many academic achievement studies have focused on the domains of maths and literacy with the domain of science

receiving little attention. Britner and Pajares (2001) maintain that the academic success in science is especially

imperative nowadays considering the rapid progress that is being made in areas of science and technology. In

addition to this lack of research involving science self-efficacy there appears to be an imbalance with regard to the

age of the participants of self-efficacy research. The majority of studies have been conducted in relation to

adolescents and young adults, with few studies investigating the younger age range. However, where studies

regarding children’s academic self-efficacy do exist, they support the relationship between self-efficacy and

academic performance (Jinks and Morgan, 1999). For example, research conducted in the 1980s by Schunk

suggested that children’s perceived self-efficacy beliefs influence motivation and achievement level. In a number of

investigations involving instructional programmes or interventions, Schunk and colleagues (e.g. Schunk, 1981,

1983a) have significantly contributed to the field. These studies have established that self-efficacy beliefs strengthen

when: progress is monitored daily, goals are personally set, performance feedback is attributed to effort, and social

comparative feedback communicates that others can master the material. In addition to an increase in self-efficacy

beliefs, many of these studies found that skills and performance also increase.

An area of interest to the current study is the gender differences in self-efficacy that have been reported in recent

research. For example, Britner and Pajares (2001) reported that girls had higher self-efficacy beliefs and attainment

in science than boys with their sample of 262 7th Grade pupils, and Pajares, Miller and Johnson (1999) investigated

gender differences and self-efficacy for writing and reported that girls had a stronger self-efficacy for self-regulated

learning coupled with higher attainment. These findings are very interesting since gender gaps in performance have

long been a concern for educationalists in the UK.

Self-regulation studies have shown that self-efficacy beliefs influence the self-regulatory sub-functions of goal

setting, strategy use, time planning and management, self-evaluation and self-monitoring. Thus, any skills only lead

to high performance if they are used effectively. Low performance can arise, not through a lack of knowledge, but

from inefficient use of skills. Pintrich and De Groot (1990) suggested that increased self-efficacy beliefs may lead to

increased use of metacognitive strategies and thus, to increased performance levels. They conclude that students

must have both the ‘will’ and the ‘skill’ to be successful in classrooms” (p38).

Research aims, design and methodMany issues and gaps in the literature informed the current study; the scarcity of UK based self-efficacy research, the

relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and academic performance, the lack of research in science compared with

other academic domains, the debate regarding the optimal level of specificity of self-efficacy measures and the

research that suggests that self-efficacy beliefs differ between girls and boys.

The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and academic performance forms the backbone of the study. Measures

of self-efficacy were modified in terms of their usage in British settings and measures were constructed at different

levels of specificity in accordance with Bandura’s (2001) guidelines. Comparison of children’s responses to domain-

specific, task-specific and general measures of self-efficacy would allow one to determine which measure would

potentially best identify children with distorted self-perceptions. In addition, these data, together with data from a

measure of science performance, would also allow one to consider how well each self-efficacy measure is correlated

with academic performance.

The following specific research questions were formulated:

Is it possible to develop reliable self-efficacy measures in science for use with 10 and 11 year olds?

Is the relationship between self-efficacy and performance demonstrated in the USA replicable in England,

and if so, to what extent?

To what extent do self-efficacy measures of different levels of specificity differ in their relationship with

science performance?

To what extent, if any, do self-efficacy beliefs differ according to gender?

Related hypotheses arising from these four research question are:

self-efficacy is a valid construct within the UK

high sense of self-efficacy is associated with high academic performance

task-specific measures of self-efficacy are more highly correlated with performance than general measures

girls tend to have higher self-efficacy beliefs than boys

These four statements make up the predicted results of the study.

Design

The quantitative methods involved the completion by 10 and 11 year old pupils of Likert scale self-efficacy

questionnaires at different levels of specificity and science performance tests in the form of shortened versions of the

Standard Assessment Tasks (SATs) in science for 11 year old pupils. Additionally, the class teachers provided

predictions of their pupils’ self-efficacy and performance scores and a limited amount of complementary data in

informal interviews. The interviews were included to provide some insight into the teacher’s perceptions of self-

efficacy and its usefulness within the primary classroom. A brief outline of each self-efficacy measure is given

below:

A. Self-efficacy for general academic achievement.

This scale measures self-efficacy for achievement in three core subjects: English, Maths and Science e.g.

“How well can you learn science?” It represents a modified shortened version of the original academic

achievement scale in Bandura’s Children’s Self-Efficacy scale.

B. Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning.

This scale measures self-efficacy beliefs for self- regulatory processes such as time planning and

management e.g. “How well can you study when there other interesting things to do?”. It was taken, without

modification, from Bandura’s Children’s Self-Efficacy scale.

C. Self-efficacy for general science attainment

Items in this scale refer to one’s confidence to achieve attainment levels in science (levels 3, 4 and 5) e.g.

“How confident are you that you can get a level 5 in science?”. It replicates an approach used by other self-

efficacy researchers in the USA.

D. Domain-specific self-efficacy for science

This scale measures self-efficacy for a number of core topics in the science curriculum e.g. “How well can

you answer questions about keeping healthy?”

E. Task-specific self-efficacy for science

Items specifically regarding scientific enquiry are the focus of this measure e.g. “How well can you write a

conclusion for an investigation?”

Each of the five self-efficacy scales went through six processes namely; pre-pilot testing, instrument

modification/construction, pilot study, instrument refinement, main study and analysis (for details see Webb, 2004).

Method

Participants

Fifty two students (24 girls: 28 boys), organised into two classes, from one school located in the east of England

participated in the present study. Ages ranged from 10 years to 12 years.

A non probability sampling strategy was used in order to draw a mixed gender, mixed ability, sample of children

from a midsize (two form entry) school in a market town typical of those spread across the region.

Procedure

The administration of the self-efficacy and performance instruments for the two Year 6 classes was conducted by the

researcher, both classes being seen on the same day. The success of the pilot study, which involved 28 students aged

9 to 11 yrs from one school located in the south east of England, meant that the same procedure could be used in the

main study. Only four minor issues resulted from the pilot. These four modifications concerned aspects of the

administration procedure (e.g. time allowance and instructions on completion of the tasks) rather than the structure or

the content of the instruments.

In order to familiarise the children with the rating scale practice items were presented on a white board and the rating

scale explained to the whole class by the researcher. Pupils were then given the following guidelines regarding the

completion of the questionnaires:

1. complete the questionnaire according to how you think, not your parents, your teacher or your friend

2. be as honest as you can, usually the first thing that pops into your head

3. this is not a test, there is no right or wrong answer

4. do not discuss your answers

5. give only one answer to each question

6. put up your hand if you are unclear of any item.

Next, each student was given a pack of materials, the two questionnaires and a science test. There was no time limit

for completion of the self-efficacy questionnaires but pupils were given 20 minutes to complete the science test. The

measures were administered in the order:

Questionnaire 1 which included four measures: general academic achievement, general science attainment,

self-regulated learning and domain-specific self-efficacy for science

Questionnaire 2 which included task-specific self-efficacy for science

Science Test which included the science performance measure

It took approximately 45 minutes for the students to answer the self-efficacy measures and the performance test. On

completion the researcher debriefed each class.

Analysis

Scores for the self-efficacy measures were taken directly from the pupil questionnaires. The science test was marked

strictly according to the Key Stage 2 2003 Science Tests Mark Scheme produced by the Qualifications and

Curriculum Authority (QCA). In the rare occasion where an answer was ambiguous a second marker (a primary

school teacher) was consulted and independently assessed the entire test paper. Any discrepancies were then

discussed and jointly agreed. The data were analysed using standard descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations and t

tests with the assistance of SPSS.

Results and InterpretationTwo pupils were excluded from the data set since they were deemed to be outliers, in that their scores were at the

extremes of the distribution and far from the main body of data. As Antonius (2003) suggests, even if outliers

represent extreme scores rather than errors it is often desirable to disregard extreme cases in some of the statistical

calculations. The results presented below, therefore, are based on a sample size of 50 and all of the analyses exclude

the ‘outliers’ except for the analysis that involves identification of children with distorted self-beliefs.

Self-Efficacy Measures

The measures, which differed in length from 3 questions on the academic achievement scale to 11 questions on the

self-regulated learning scale, were scored using a 7 point Likert scale ranging from 1= not very well to 7= very well.

Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of the five self-efficacy instruments. 4 of the 5

measures proved to be highly reliable with coefficients ranging from 0.81 to 0.90 and indicates that the questions

within each self-efficacy scale do measure the same construct. The data was found to contain a good amount of

variability by examining the range and the standard deviation (SD) reported in the Table 1 below. The shape of the

distribution of the scores on the self-efficacy instruments were found to be negatively skewed, indicating that there

exist low frequency, extreme low scores but no corresponding low frequency, high scores. The skewness coefficients

were between -1.0 and +1.0 and were therefore not considered to be extreme (Huck, 2004) and the kurtosis values

were considered normal.

Measures of central tendency

Table 1 below shows the distribution characteristics of the data for each of the self-efficacy and performance

measures. The children in the sample appear to be on the whole quite positive about their capabilities. According to

Bandura (1997), people do generally overestimate their capabilities. He suggests that optimistic self-efficacy beliefs

are not a failing but a benefit since they raise aspirations and sustain motivation.

Table 1: Overall mean scores for self-efficacy scales (N = 50)

Self-Efficacy

Scale

Cronbach’s

Alpha

No.

Items

M

(SD)

Item

M

Mdn Mo Rnge Skew Kurtosis

Academic

Achievement

.51 3 15.12

(2.87)

5.04 15 17 12 -.358 -.628

Science

Attainment

.87 3 11.88

(4.51)

3.96 12 18 18 -.077 -.900

Self-Regulated .90 11 51.12

(12.3)

4.65 51 49 50

-.167 -.702

Domain-specific .81 8 37.24

(8.12)

4.66 37 37 30 -.110 -.662

Task-specific .86 8 35.16

(7.97)

4.40 36 37 34 -.093 -.526

Analysis of Individual Item Scores

The means and standard deviations for each item across the five self-efficacy measures are presented in Table 2. The

mean scores for self-efficacy for science attainment shows that as the level of attainment rises the confidence to

achieve this level falls. Children believe that it is easier to achieve a level 3 (M= 4.76), then a level 4 (M = 3.90) and

the hardest is level 5 (M = 3.22). This demonstrates that pupils correctly interpreted the self-efficacy questions.

Analysis of the self-efficacy for academic achievement measure showed that pupils rated their self-efficacy highest

for learning reading, writing and literacy skills (M = 5.42) and lowest for learning science (M = 4.80). A paired

samples t-test was used to establish statistical significance. Self-efficacy for learning science was significantly

different from learning English (t = -3.394, df = 49, p = < .01). Previous research has revealed a similar pattern. For

example, Pollard, Broadfoot, Croll, Osborn and Abbott (1994) reported that science was the least liked subject

amongst 5 to 7 years old.

Table 2: Self-Efficacy Item Means and Standard DeviationsN = 50

M SDSelf-efficacy for general academic achievementHow well can you:1 learn general mathematics 4.90 1.402 learn science 4.80 1.183 learn reading, writing and literacy skills 5.42 1.44

Self-efficacy for general science attainmentHow confident are you that you can:1 get a level 3 in science 4.76 1.522 get a level 4 in science 3.90 1.693 get a level 5 in science 3.22 1.84

Domain-specific self-efficacy for scienceHow well can you answer questions on:1 green plants 4.02 1.322 keeping healthy 5.26 1.443 planning science investigations 4.20 1.484 Light 5.06 1.485 the earth, moon and sun 5.20 1.736 separating mixtures of materials 4.60 1.597 the results from science investigations 4.34 1.668 reversible and irreversible changes 4.56 1.62

Task-specific self-efficacy for scientific enquiryHow well can you:1 recognise the need for a fair test 4.72 1.292 identify the one factor that has been changed in an investigation 3.92 1.403 describe relationships/patterns using a table of results 4.74 1.384 write a conclusion for an investigation 4.58 1.375 describe how to test children's ideas/questions in science 3.94 1.386 what method of measurement is needed to collect the evidence for an

investigation4.14 1.62

7 identify the question children are investigating from their table of results?

4.62 1.35

8 decide whether the results of an experiment support the prediction 4.50 1.45

Self-efficacy for self-regulated learningHow well can you:1 finish your homework assignments by deadlines 4.60 1.852 study when there are other interesting things to do 3.64 1.823 concentrate on school subjects 4.98 1.524 take class notes of class instruction 4.56 1.705 use the library to get information for class assignments 5.28 1.446 plan your school work 4.84 1.467 organise your school work 4.86 1.568 remember information presented in class and textbooks 4.32 1.619 arrange a place to study without distractions 4.26 1.4310 motivate yourself to do school work 4.96 1.4111 participate in class discussions 4.82 1.55

Science Performance MeasureAnalysis of the scores on the science performance test showed that the mean score was 8.24 (SD 3.69), the median

8.00 and the mode 6.00. The lower mode reflects a positively skewed distribution in which there are a large number

of low scores and a smaller number of high scores. Confirmation of this distributional shape was found by examining

the frequency distribution together with the skewness coefficient of .317 which indicated that the distribution was

slightly positively skewed.

This pattern of more low scores on the science test is to be expected since pupils completed the test five months

before they would normally be expected to do so (the test is a shortened version of a SATs test which would be

normally given to pupils in the month of May). That said, the skewness coefficient (.317) and the kurtosis

coefficient (-.737) are considered slight and the data contain a good amount of variability (SD = 3.69, range = 15, 2 –

17). In order to ascertain whether the science performance test provided an accurate measurement of pupil

performance, a comparison was made between the scores on the performance measure and the scores predicted by

the class teachers. The validity coefficient of r = .75 (significant at the 0.01 level) demonstrates that the performance

instrument was a good measure of actual performance in science. Thus validity of the science test through an

assessment of criterion-related validity has been established. Moreover, the internal consistency reliability coefficient

of 0.74 shows that the test questions string together well.

Self-Efficacy and Science Performance The scatter diagrams revealed that high scores on the self-efficacy instruments tended to be paired with high scores

on the science performance measure. This pattern occurred across the self-efficacy measures and showed a linear

relationship.

Establishment of a linear relationship between science performance and self-efficacy allowed for Pearson product

moment correlations to be calculated. The Pearson correlations, shown in Table 3, in all cases were positive,

indicating that those pupils with the highest self-efficacy scores also did the best on the science performance task.

This, however, does mean that one can assume causality. Whether self-efficacy has a causal impact on performance

cannot be determined in this way.

Table 3: Relationship between self-efficacy and performance in science

N Items Pearson's r

N= 50

% of variance

accounted for

Self-regulated learning 11 0.64** 41

General Academic Achievement 3 0.65** 42

General Science Attainment 3 0.60** 36

Science - Domain specific 8 0.65** 42

Scientific Enquiry -Task specific 8 0.72** 52

** Significant to the 0.01 level

It can be seen from Table 3 that all the five correlations reached statistical significance at the 0.01 level. All the self-

efficacy measures were strongly correlated with performance, the lowest being the science attainment measure (r =

0.60) and the highest the task-specific measure (r =0.72). Indeed, task -specific self-efficacy accounted for 52% (r

= .72) of variability in science performance whereas the science attainment measure accounted for only 35% (r =

0.60). The stronger correlation between task-specific self-efficacy measure and science performance than between

the domain-specific and general measures is consistent with the present study's a priori prediction.

Identification of Distorted Self-BeliefsMean item scores for each self-efficacy scale (Table 1) show that on average pupils tended to rate their self-efficacy

beliefs between point 4 and point 5 on the Likert scale. This indicates that as a whole the sample of 50 pupils tended

to hold a good sense of self-efficacy across each of the five measures. Analysis of pupil’s individual scores in

relation to performance allowed the identification of those children who held distorted perceptions.

Figure 1 plots pupils’ task-specific self-efficacy beliefs in relation to above or below mean performance. Pupil A has

an extremely low sense of self-efficacy but a performance score greater than the mean. In contrast, pupil B has an

extremely high sense of self-efficacy together with a low performance score. He rated every question on the task-

specific self-efficacy scale on point 7, the highest rating. Both of these pupils can be viewed as having distorted

perceptions since there is a large difference between their self-efficacy beliefs and their actual performance. Informal

teacher interviews confirmed that the beliefs of both of these children affected their learning. Pupil A believes that he

is far less capable than he really is. His performance in the science task was above the mean yet his self-efficacy

score was by far the lowest in the class. He scored 11 marks on the task-specific measure rating six out of eight

questions at point 1, the lowest point on the 7 point scale. Self-efficacy theory would suggest that his distorted self-

belief would adversely effect achievement through persistence, motivation, goal setting etc which pervades his

school work.

Analysis of the teachers’ predictions of self-efficacy showed that their judgements were based on knowledge of their

pupils’ performance rather than knowledge of their self-beliefs (correlation of .92 was obtained between teachers’

judgement of performance and teachers’ judgement of confidence in science). The correlation between actual domain

specific self-efficacy and that predicted by the teachers was low (r = .47), as was the correlation between actual task-

specific self-efficacy and that predicted by the teachers (r = .52). Thus, the teachers seemed to have little knowledge

of some children’s self-beliefs and believed many to be more confident than they actually are.

Figure 1: The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and performance in science :

Individual scores on the science test and the task-specific self-efficacy instrument

Mean

10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

task

4.00

8.00

12.00

16.00

Mean = 8.13

Gender

Gender differences have been reported in previous self-efficacy research. For example, Britner and Pajares (2001)

reported that girls had both higher self-efficacy and performance than boys. This pattern was replicated in the current

study. On all five measures of self-efficacy girls were found to have higher mean scores than the boys. The girls

scored above the overall mean on all self-efficacy instruments whereas the boys’ scores fell below the overall mean.

An independent samples t-test was used to test the significance of these differences and Table 4 shows that on all

measures the girls scored significantly higher than the boys.

Table 4: Self-efficacy scales: mean scores for girls and boys

Self-Efficacy Scale All

Mean

Girls Mean

N = 24

Boys Mean

N = 26

T-test Sig.

General Academic 15.12 16.54 13.81 P<0.001

Attainment levels 11.88 13.37 10.50 P < 0.05

Self-Regulated 51.12 59.00 43.85 P < .001

Domain-specific 37.24 40.67 34.08 P <.01

Task-specific 35.16 39.25 31.38 P <.001

Task-specific Self-Efficacy

Sci

ence

Per

form

ance

Pupil A Pupil B

Table 4 shows that girls have a higher sense of self-efficacy then boys across the measures. For example with regard

to self-efficacy for self-regulated learning boys have a much lower sense of self-efficacy for finishing homework

assignments by deadlines than girls (boys M = 3.65 , girls M = 5.63). This difference reaches significance at the .001

level (t = -4.499, df = 41.39). Girls’ higher sense of self-efficacy is coupled with higher performance on the science

task, with girls scoring a mean of 9.58 (SD =3.51) and boys scoring a mean of 7.00 (SD = 3.48). This difference was

found to be statistically significant (t =-2.612, df = 48, p =<0.05). In addition, the correlational analysis detailed in

Table 5 shows that both boys and girls self-efficacy scores are highly related to their performance in science,

however, there do exist some differences in the magnitude of this relationship.

Table 5 Gender differences: Pearson’s r correlation between self-efficacy and performance in science

Boys r

N= 26

Girls r

N= 24

Self-regulated learning 0.49* 0.67**

General Academic 0.59** 0.58**

General Science Attainment 0.61** 0.50*

Science - Domain specific 0.48* 0.69**

Scientific Enquiry - Task specific 0.65** 0.68**

* Significant to the 0.05 level

** Significant to the 0.01 level

Discussion and educational implications

The discussion presented here will endeavour to address each of the four research questions in turn.

Research Question 1

Is it possible to develop valid, reliable self-efficacy measures in science for use with 10 and 11 year olds?

The present study employed five measures of self-efficacy in the naturalist context of a primary school classroom.

The results indicated that the instruments used to measure self-efficacy were both valid and reliable. Four of the five

measures had high internal consistency reliability coefficients between 0.81 and 0.90. The data were found to be

normally distributed and to contain a good amount of variability. Thus, the self-efficacy scales appeared to be

constructed well enough to form the basis of further research and in particular for comparison with the performance

measures.

Research Question 2

Is the relationship between self-efficacy and performance demonstrated in the USA replicable in England, and if

so, to what extent?

Correlational analysis showed that self-efficacy was strongly related to academic performance in science with

correlations ranging from 0.60 to 0.72. The findings of this study correspond to those found by other researchers in

the USA. On return to the questions posed using correlation techniques one can see that:

There is a relationship

The direction of the relationship is such that high scores on the self-efficacy measure are paired with high

scores on the science test.

The magnitude of the relationship is strong.

It must be noted that the existence of a strong relationship between variables does not mean that one causes the other.

Issues of causality cannot be ascertained through correlational studies. However, relationships of the magnitude

found in the current study are not a chance occurrence. The relationships were all significant to the 0.01 level which

indicate that pupils with a high sense of self-efficacy tend to have higher performance than those pupils with a low

sense of self-efficacy. Self-belief in one’s capabilities to perform certain tasks therefore seems to be connected to

ultimate performance in those tasks.

This is an important finding since it supports Bandura’s (1986, 1997) theory and indicates that if one could alter a

child’s self-beliefs then it is highly likely that the child’s academic performance would also alter. As shown earlier,

self-efficacy beliefs influence persistence, motivation, effort and choice which ultimately affect performance

(Bandura, 1997). Thus, although no causal connection can be made on the basis of this study, altering a child’s self-

efficacy beliefs may help him or her to raise the level of effort, to persist longer on school work, to be more

motivated and to choose not to avoid certain tasks. These attributes have the potential to raise the child’s

performance. Of course, as Pajares and Schunk (2001) discuss, a high sense of self-efficacy cannot raise

performance beyond the capabilities of the child. It can merely help the child to make optimal use of them. Thus, it

appears that educationally teachers would do well to attend to the self-efficacy beliefs of their pupils.

Research Question 3

To what extent do self-efficacy measures of different levels of specificity differ in their relationship with science

performance?

As noted earlier the issue of the degree of specificity is one of the important debates currently facing the field.

Domain-specific measures, which require judgments to be made regarding capabilities in a particular subject (e.g.

science), are thought to have greater explanatory value than global measures. However, Pajares (1996) maintains that

task-specific measures are superior in some domains. The results of the present study confirmed Pajares’ speculation,

since higher correlations with achievement were found with the task-specific measure than the general-domain

measures. This finding suggests that the greater the information children are given regarding a task, the better their

resultant self-efficacy beliefs predict performance. In many ways this seems an obvious statement and yet task-

specific measures of self-efficacy are not widely utilised and there does exist a real need for instruments to be

developed that measure the self-efficacy construct in an appropriate way. As Pajares (1997) notes, self-efficacy is

plagued with mis-measurement since much self-efficacy research fails to apply Bandura's theory correctly. It is likely

that the common use of global measures of self-efficacy, which violates the basic assumption that self-efficacy is a

multi-dimensional construct, is to blame for this situation.

The results of the current study provide an indication that task-specific measures may be a superior form of

measurement, but whether task-specific measures can have a real practical application in the classroom is a matter

for debate. The problem is that task-specific measures by their nature dictate that the questions are tailored to specific

tasks. The only way measures of this kind can be integrated into the classroom would be for the teachers to write

their own. Is this feasible? Or would it be better to accept a lower correlation and use a measure (such as domain-

specific or self-regulated learning) that can be used ‘off the shelf’ and does not require teacher input into its

development?

Research Question 4

To what extent, if any, do there exist gender differences in self-efficacy?

The girls in the sample scored significantly higher than the boys on all the five measures of self-efficacy and were

found to perform significantly better than the boys on the science performance measure. Gender differences similar

to those reported here have been found by other self-efficacy researchers. For example, Britner and Pajares (2001)

reported a similar pattern with girls having both higher self-efficacy beliefs and higher performance in science than

boys with their sample of 262 7th grade pupils. This pattern has also been reported in domains other than science. For

example, Pajares, Miller and Johnson (1999) investigated gender differences and self-efficacy for writing and

reported that girls had a stronger self-efficacy for self-regulated learning coupled with higher writing performance.

Gender gaps in performance have long been a matter of concern for UK educationalists. Although the 2004 A level

results, as reported in the TES (Berliner, 2004), revealed that the gap between boys and girls A level performance

appears to be narrowing, girls continue to out perform boys. According to Weiner (1995) girls tend to be ahead of

boys particularly in the earlier years of schooling and as a general rule boys tend to do well in maths and the sciences

whereas girls are better at language-based subjects (Measor and Sikes, 1992).

Many reasons have been suggested to explain gender differences such as learning styles, assessment styles, cultural

issues such as the increase of ‘laddish’ behaviour’ and teacher gender values. Another explanation relates to the idea

that girls use interpersonal relationships to construct their identities (Gilligan, 1993). This idea appears relevant to

self-efficacy research since it has been suggested that girls and boys may use a different frame of reference with

which to provide self-efficacy judgements. Indeed, Pajares, Miller and Johnson (1999) speculated that girls use a

more social comparative method of evaluating their self-efficacy beliefs than boys. It is not within the scope of this

study to investigate these issues in detail and further research is needed in this area.

Summary of main findingsHaving addressed all four research questions it can be seen that the current study has shown the following:

that it is possible to develop valid, reliable self-efficacy measures in science for 10 and 11 year olds

that the strong relationship between self-efficacy and performance demonstrated in the USA is

replicable in England to the same extent

that self-efficacy measures at different levels of specificity differ in their relationship with science

performance, the greater the specificity the stronger the relationship

that gender differences in self-efficacy do exist, with girls having higher self-efficacy beliefs than boys

Educational implications and conclusionsThe ways in which educationalists can help to promote their students self-efficacy will be the focus of this

discussion. However it is worth noting that self-efficacy theory is potentially a useful explanatory construct that can

be applied to many educational issues. For example, transfer research (e.g. Galton, Edwards, Hargreaves and Pell,

2003) has indicated that moving from primary school to secondary school has a negative impact on pupil

performance. These studies involved the measurement of attitudes to school and curriculum areas, attainment and

self-esteem but not self-efficacy. Self-esteem is concerned with judgements of self-worth whereas perceived self-

efficacy is concerned with the judgements of personal capability (Bandura, 1997). They represent different

perspectives of the self. Further transfer research which includes self-efficacy beliefs is required not least since self-

efficacy beliefs have been found to be adaptable and open to alteration.

In applying self-efficacy theory to education it is logical to predict that children with a high sense of personal

efficacy would demonstrate superior performance on a task than those with low self-efficacy. Bandura (1994)

forwards a number of ways in which a strong sense of efficacy enhances human accomplishment and personal well-

being. In contrast to individuals who doubt their capabilities, people with high self-efficacy approach difficult tasks

as challenges rather than threats, they set challenging goals for themselves and maintain commitment to achieving

these goals, they sustain effort even when faced with failure and quickly recover after setbacks, they develop an

intrinsic interest in activities, and they attribute failure to factors which are adaptable e.g. insufficient effort or skills.

It is easy to see how these attributes would contribute to academic performance and learning. If teachers could

develop a strong sense of efficacy in their pupils they would equip them for life. Indeed Bandura (1997 p. 214)

maintains that “The major goal of formal education should be to equip students with the intellectual tools, efficacy

beliefs and intrinsic interests to educate themselves in a variety of pursuits throughout their lifetime.”

Thus teachers need to ensure that they positively influence their pupils’ self-efficacy beliefs. Having been set a task

by a teacher one of the first things that children do is assess their own capability to successfully complete the given

activity. Can I perform this task? This ‘Can I do it?’ question leads to the frame of reference through which the task

is subsequently approached. If a child believes he/she lacks the required capability and confidence to perform the

task then they will be less motivated, less likely to sustain effort, more likely to expect failure of a task and less

resilient to failure. In this way a self-fulfilling prophecy can be created in which low attainment and low self esteem

can result.

There are many ways in which teachers can develop their pupils’ perceptions of self-efficacy within the classroom

context. Lefrancois (2000) maintains, “much of what teachers do – and can do –both directly and indirectly

influences students’ perceptions of their competence.” Teachers’ responses and interactions are one factor that

children rely on. Verbal comments, gestures, facial expressions, rewards, marking of books etc inform and influence

a child’s sense of self-efficacy. Moreover, teachers can enable pupils to experience success or failure through the

provision of challenging but achievable tasks. In addition they can encourage intrinsic motivation, rather than relying

on extrinsic rewards or cohesive methods. As previously discussed, research conducted in the 1980s by Schunk

suggests that children’s perceived self-efficacy beliefs influence motivation and achievement level. These studies

have established that self-efficacy beliefs strengthen when: children are encouraged to set their own goals, when

teachers give frequent and immediate feedback, when pupils attribute success to their own level of effort, when

progress is monitored daily, and when social comparative feedback communicates that others can master the

material. In addition to an increase in self-efficacy beliefs performance also increases.

Peers also serve as a major influence in the development of self-efficacy and as such disrupted and impoverished

peer relationships can adversely affect the growth of self-efficacy. School is the main setting in which social

comparisons are made. With this in mind, teachers can utilise small group approaches and provide children with

different tasks so as to minimise the opportunity for social comparison. They can encourage children to compare

their current performance with their own previous performance rather than that of others. Moreover, Zimmerman,

Bonner and Kovach (2002) suggest that instructional methods involving explicit training in goal setting, strategy use,

self-monitoring and systematic practice can be used in the classroom. They believe that “when self-regulatory

processes play an integral role in the development and use of study skills, students become more acutely aware of

improvements in their academic achievement and experience a heightened sense of personal efficacy”.

As a final statement it is worthwhile reiterating Bandura’s suggestion that “students may perform poorly either

because they lack the skills or because they have the skills but lack the perceived personal efficacy to make optimal

use of them”. Thus, with the likelihood of improved performance and personal well being it appears that it would be

educationally worthwhile for researchers and teachers to attend to the self-efficacy beliefs of the learners for whom

they work.

References

Antonius, R. (2003) Interpreting Quantitative Data with SPSS. London: Sage Publications.

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

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S.Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (vol4, pp. 71—81). New York: Academic Press

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

Bandura, A. (2001) Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales (Monograph). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

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.

Berliner, W. (2004) Why do girls get better results? Times Educational Supplement (May 7 2004) London: TSL Education Ltd

Britner, S. L., and Pajares, F. (2001) Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race and gender in middle school science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, vol7, pp. 271-285.

Brown, J. D (1998). The Self. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Galton, M. Edwards, J., Hargreaves, L. and Pell, T. (2003) Continuities and discontinuities at transfer. In Galton, M. Gray, J. and Rudduck, J. Transfer and transitions in the middle years of schooling (7-14): Continuities and discontinuities in learning. DfES Research report 443. London: DfES

Gilligan, C. (1993) In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Huck, S. W. (2004) Reading Statistics and Research, 4th Edition. Boston: Pearson Education/ Allyn and Bacon.

Jinks, J.L. and Morgan, V. L (1999). Childrens perceived academic self-efficacy: An inventory scale. The Clearing House 72: 224-230.

Lefrancois, G. R. (2000). Psychology for teaching. 10th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Thompson Learning.

McCormick, J. and McPherson, G. E. (2003) The role of self-efficacy in a musical performance examination: an exploratory structured equation analysis. Psychology of Music 31(1): 37-51.

Measor, L. and Sikes, P.J. (1992). Gender and Schools. London: Cassell.

Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38

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

Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M.Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.) Advances in motivation and achievement. Volume 10, (pp. 1-49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Pajares, F. and Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-conept and school achievement. In Riding, R., and Rayner, S. (Eds.) Perception (pp. 239-266). London: Ablex Publishing.

Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). The role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem-solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193-203.

Pajares, F., Miller, M. D. & Johnson, M. J. (1999). Gender differences in writing self-beliefs of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology. Pell, T., and Jarvis, T.(2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with children from the ages of five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education, 823 (8), 847-862.

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children's achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-105.

Schunk, D. H. (1983a). Developing children's self-efficacy and skills: The roles of social comparative information and goal setting. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 76-86

Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R. and Cox, P. C. (1987) Peer-model attributes and children’s achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol 79 (1), 54-61.

Tschannen-Moran, M. and Woolfolk Hoy, A.(2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive concept. Teaching and Teacher Education 17, 783-805.

Webb, J. L. (2004). Measuring 10-11 Year Olds’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs: An Investigation into the Relationship with Science Performance. Unpublished MEd Thesis. Cambridge: Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.

Weiner, G. (1995) Ethnic and Gender Differences. In Desforges, C. (Ed) An Introduction to Teaching : Psychological Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). New York: Cambridge University Press.

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 Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S. and Kovach, R. (2002) Developing Self-Regulated Learners: Beyond Achievement to Self-Efficacy. American Psychological Association: Washington.