Motivation: Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy beliefs are defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). More simply put, it is the belief that you can or cannot accomplish a given task.

The relationship between self-efficacy theory and the construction of knowledge is a bit convoluted, but it is important to examine. If knowledge is constructed by the knower, the knower becomes the active participant, or the agent in the learning process. How might the learning process be hindered if the agent (the student) self-assesses him or herself as incapable of accomplishing a learning task?

Readings (Self-Efficacy)

Schunk, D. H. & Pajares, F. (2004). Self-efficacy in education revisited: Empirical and applied evidence. In D. M. McInerney & S. V. Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 115–138). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Introduction: Learner Autonomy

As you read this week’s material, I would suggest the following: Take an index card, and on the card, write the question, “How did I learn to study?” Keep this in your line of sight while you are reading the material for this week. This will guide your thinking and help you reflect on your personal experience regarding autonomy and learning.

Constructivist views of learning stress the importance of the metacognitive processes of monitoring and evaluating one’s learning strategies. Being aware of one’s learning processes and the factors affecting them is the first step. Controlling or regulating those processes comes next. The first reading for this topic examines the concept of self-regulation and how it might be encouraged in academic studying. An interesting discussion in this paper relates to self- regulatory processes used by experts in various contexts to enhance their learning. Also note how the author introduces self-efficacy into the discussion. Note, Zimmerman is one of the leading researchers in self-efficacy theory.

The second reading for this topic is by Harris (1993) and comes from a Humanist, rather than a Cognitivist perspective. Rather than self-regulation, Harris discussed the concept of self-direction. Grow (1991) expands on the ideas that self-direction and autonomy are developmental and that adult learners may vary in their degree of self-direction. In line with this, teachers or facilitators of adult learners will need to be aware of the level of self-direction desired by their learners and their skills in relation to being autonomous learners.

Readings (Learner Autonomy)

Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 73–80.

Harris, R. (1993). Reflections on self-directed adult learning: Some implications for educators of adults. In R. Harris & P. Willis (Eds.), Striking a balance: Adult and community education in Australia towards 2000 (pp. 177–192). Adelaide, SA: Centre for Human Resource Studies, University of South Australia and the South Australian Branch of the Australian Association of Adult and Community Education.

Grow, G. O. (1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(3), 125–149

One of the topics we did not get to explore in class was a very practical question: How do we build SE in our students? In particular, what strategies have you used (might you use), when (the context) and why?

If self-efficacy is defined as type of judgement about one's own capabilities, and that this judgement can be derived from sources such as actual performance and knowledge how others perform (Schunk and Pajares, 2004, p166-117), is it really too daring to suggest that self-efficacy can be built and strategically implemented as a contribution to overall formal assessment? Certainly it could be assumed that learner's would abuse the process, but this cynical assessment of the moral reasoning of adult learners is perhaps too pessimistic. In any case, as a modest contribution to overall assessment, the experiment should be given the opportunity.

There are good arguments (Ramsden, 1992) that assessment needs to move away from being purely summative, from being too orientated towards allocating rewards and punishments. Instead, the argument continues, assessments should be orientated towards being a part of the teaching process, which are orientated towards higher levels of cognitive activity (application and analysis, synthesis and evaluation).

Whilst an interesting topic in its own right, it is not necessary at this point to elaborate in detail a specific sample of assessment, but rather an orientation of what the learner would be encouraged to assess in terms of their own performance, and the purpose for doing so. In this model, self-efficacy assessment could involve a practical task at the conclusion of a lesson module which allows for a combination of individual and group implementation of a shared task that is carefully designed to require both an understanding of taught material and the capability to implement it the task in a manner that requires a synthesis of comprehended knowledge.

One careful element of this self-assessment is to ensure that the learner understands that the purpose is not orientated towards how well they have done in the allocated task (a performance outcome), but rather their confidence in carrying out future tasks of a similar nature. The two may have a high degree of correlation, but are not identical (Schunk and Pajares, 2004, p119), as a point of the self-evaluation activity is for accurate estimations future learning capability (p126).

The group implementation, as part of self-efficacy's integration with social-cognitive theory, provides the necessary feedback from others of belief in one's own capabilities. The conduct of the exercise at the conclusion of the lesson module provides the opportunity for the learner to acquire and test skills in the first place; learners engage in self-efficacy both consciously and unconsciously, and it is necesary for self-efficacy to develop through persistence and skill acquisition (Schunk and Pajares, 2004, p121).

Calibration between self-efficacy judgements and actual performance seems to be significantly more accurate when conducted among adult learners rather than children, along with socio-cultural and psychological issues (Schunk and Pajares, 2004, p127-130). A high level of calibration is desired, as self-efficacy is meant to provide an accurate internal assessment for the learner on their capabilities. As adult learners is assumed, the other potential vector for dis-calibration can be somewhat minimised by smaller and repeated opportunities for self-assessment; four assessment grades at 5% each, rather than one at 20%, for example. Effectively, the learner would learn formalised self-efficacy - which would allow for a transition from self-efficacy in a particular subject area to a general self-efficacy.

References

Ramsden P. (1992). Assessing for understanding. Chapter 10. In P. Ramsden, "Learning to teach in higher education", London & New York: Routledge.

Schunk, D.H., Parajes F. (2004). Self-Efficacy in education revisited: Empirical and applied evidence. In D.M. McInerneyt & S.V. Etten (Eds.) "Big Theories Revisited", (pp115-118). Greenwhich, CT: Information Age Publishing

This topic really interested me particularly the comments by Schunk et al (2004) about effort and persistence vs ability. I do believe much is achieved not by ability but by persistence and effort. I do agree with Schunk et al (2004) that many people today see ability as reason for success and not effort and therefore their self efficacy is low if they believe that they don't possess the ability. I see this in my workplaces. People see successful others as talented but fail to see or consider the effort they put in to achieve. I feel that this has crept into our schooling system with students enrolling in easier subjects than more challenging ones. Through reading Schunk et al (2004) I see that this isn't due to apathy but maybe self efficacy - the belief in oneself to achieve.

The question immediately brought to mind the article by Biggs concerning student perceptions of success vis-a-vis effort vs ability among Hong Kong secondary students (Biggs 1996, p55), where effort is considered to be the cause of academic success in contrast to ability. However do perceptions of the causes of success (i.e., effort) match the reality? To the contrary there are numerous studies that imply that there is a strong correlation between cognitive ability and achievement (e.g., Rohde and Thompson, 2007) even to the extent that some studies argue that generalised and largely heritable IQ scores are the single best predictor of academic achievement (e.g., Schmidt, F.L., Hunter, J.E., 1998), even with the caveats concerning general health and culturally-contextual abstraction, cultural biases, systematic racism, etc (Neisser et al., 1996).

Whilst obviously we all want a learner to achieve to the best of their potential ability, is it not wishful thinking to want them to achieve beyond that? Intuitively it seems there would be diminishing returns from effort as the limits of ability are reached. Perhaps the effective benefits are reached rather quickly after a modicum of effort! Whilst not wishing to make too much out of personal anecdotal evidence, my own experience from undertaking "quite a few" university courses over "quite a few" years is that a moderate amount of effort generates a particular grade and an extreme amount of effort might generate one higher (there is a reason why one of my 'blogs is entitled "Diary of a B+ grade polymath").

(Hypothetical graph for a 4pt - or 1/3 EFT - course)

Interestingly Schunk has been looking at the relationship between effort, ability, and self-efficacy for some time. Earlier inquiries (e.g., Schunk, 1983) suggested that progressive feedback was the critical factor in improvements in both competence and self-efficacy, but feedback on ability alone was generated better results than feedback based on effort and ability, or feeback based on effort alone, which also seems to be confirmed in the more contemporary study.

In a practical sense effort creates ability, but potential abilities themselves seem to have practical limits. Feedback that emphasises improvements in abilities improves self-efficacy.

References

Biggs, J. (1996). Western Misperceptions of the Confucian - Heritage Learning Culture. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Ed.), The Chinese Learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextural influences. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre and Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T J. et al (1996). "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns". American Psychologist. 51:77–101.

Rohde, T.E., Thompson L.A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability. Intelligence. Volume 35, Issue 1, January-February 2007, Pages 83-92

Schmidt, F.L., Hunter, J.E. (1998). "The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings". Psychological Bulletin 124 (2): 262-74.

Schunk, D.H., Parajes F. (2004). Self-Efficacy in education revisited: Empirical and applied evidence. In D.M. McInerneyt & S.V. Etten (Eds.) "Big Theories Revisited", (pp115-118). Greenwhich, CT: Information Age Publishing

Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects on self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 848-856.

"Is a recipe an example of autonomous learning? Add these assumptions: (1) you are relatively well acquainted with cooking/baking; (2) this is a new recipe you have never followed before; (3) you did not write the recipe & you do follow the recipe accurately."

Given the preconditions of previous cooking experience, a novel recipe an external source, and accurate following of the instructions provided, there is a strong argument that the activity does not constitute autonomous learning, on the basis that it can be assumed that there is very little learning going on. Prior readings have strongly indicated learning is achieved through depth of understanding that is integrated with existing knowledge (e.g., Svinicki, M.D. (2004)); is this the case with following a recipe to the letter?

Despite initial intuitions to the contrary, when consideration of the implications of autonomous and constructivst learning is taken into account, it certainly could be. As Harris points out, autonomous learning assumes adult cognitive abilities, and where the learner has the characteristics for self-developed learning, a limited disjuncture holds the greatest potential for reflective learning (Harris, 1993, p186).

With this consideration, it seems more likely than a variety of other situations that autonomous learning is possible. Obviously without a teaching present, the learner appears to have a great deal of autonomy. A question does exist that how autonomous the learner was given the assumption that they followed the recipe accurately, and how detailed that recipe was (did it, for example, define the order of preparation?). However one feature that should be clear from the situation is that the learner chooses to follow the recipe accurately and the learner is actively involved in the task, all placing the situation firmly in the "learner choice" camp.

One other factor is worthy of consideration; following Schunk and Parajes (2004) the learner will also acquire a greater sense of self-efficacy from engaging in the process. Based on the description, it is certainly clear that the learner will be perfectly capable of carrying out the task. However, because it is a new task the successful completion will also improve their self-confidence, thus providing the opportunity and motivation for further related activities.

In summary, if it is not already obvious to those who actively engage in the activity, attempting a new receipe is most certainly a autonomous learning experience, filled with expectations, surprises, and new knowledge.

References

Harris, R. (1993). Reflection on Self-Directed Adult Learning: Some Implications for Educators of Adults, in Harris R., and Willis P. (eds), "Striking a Balance: Adult and Community Education in Australia Towards 2000". Adelaide, SA Branch of the Australian Association of Adult and Community Education an Centre for Human Resource Studies, University of South Australia

Schunk, D.H., Parajes F. (2004). Self-Efficacy in education revisited: Empirical and applied evidence. In D.M. McInerneyt & S.V. Etten (Eds.) "Big Theories Revisited", (pp115-118). Greenwhich, CT: Information Age Publishing

Svinicki, M.D. (2004). Helping students understand. In "Learning and motivayion in the postsecondary classroom". pp39-60. Boston: Anker.

"One of the topics we did not get to explore in class was a very practical question: How do we build SE in our students? In particular, what strategies have you used (might you use), when (the context) and why?"

If self-efficacy is defined as type of judgement about one's own capabilities, and that this judgement can be derived from sources such as actual performance and knowledge how others perform (Schunk and Pajares, 2004, p166-117), is it really too daring to suggest that self-efficacy can be built and strategically implemented as a contribution to overall formal assessment? Certainly it could be assumed that learner's would abuse the process, but this cynical assessment of the moral reasoning of adult learners is perhaps too pessimistic. In any case, as a modest contribution to overall assessment, the experiment should be given the opportunity.

There are good arguments (Ramsden, 1992) that assessment needs to move away from being purely summative, from being too orientated towards allocating rewards and punishments. Instead, the argument continues, assessments should be orientated towards being a part of the teaching process, which are orientated towards higher levels of cognitive activity (application and analysis, synthesis and evaluation).

Whilst an interesting topic in its own right, it is not necessary at this point to elaborate in detail a specific sample of assessment, but rather an orientation of what the learner would be encouraged to assess in terms of their own performance, and the purpose for doing so. In this model, self-efficacy assessment could involve a practical task at the conclusion of a lesson module which allows for a combination of individual and group implementation of a shared task that is carefully designed to require both an understanding of taught material and the capability to implement it the task in a manner that requires a synthesis of comprehended knowledge.

One careful element of this self-assessment is to ensure that the learner understands that the purpose is not orientated towards how well they have done in the allocated task (a performance outcome), but rather their confidence in carrying out future tasks of a similar nature. The two may have a high degree of correlation, but are not identical (Schunk and Pajares, 2004, p119), as a point of the self-evaluation activity is for accurate estimations future learning capability (p126).

The group implementation, as part of self-efficacy's integration with social-cognitive theory, provides the necessary feedback from others of belief in one's own capabilities. The conduct of the exercise at the conclusion of the lesson module provides the opportunity for the learner to acquire and test skills in the first place; learners engage in self-efficacy both consciously and unconsciously, and it is necesary for self-efficacy to develop through persistence and skill acquisition (Schunk and Pajares, 2004, p121).

Calibration between self-efficacy judgements and actual performance seems to be significantly more accurate when conducted among adult learners rather than children, along with socio-cultural and psychological issues (Schunk and Pajares, 2004, p127-130). A high level of calibration is desired, as self-efficacy is meant to provide an accurate internal assessment for the learner on their capabilities. As adult learners is assumed, the other potential vector for dis-calibration can be somewhat minimised by smaller and repeated opportunities for self-assessment; four assessment grades at 5% each, rather than one at 20%, for example. Effectively, the learner would learn formalised self-efficacy - which would allow for a transition from self-efficacy in a particular subject area to a general self-efficacy.

References

Ramsden P. (1992). Assessing for understanding. Chapter 10. In P. Ramsden, "Learning to teach in higher education", London & New York: Routledge.

Schunk, D.H., Parajes F. (2004). Self-Efficacy in education revisited: Empirical and applied evidence. In D.M. McInerneyt & S.V. Etten (Eds.) "Big Theories Revisited", (pp115-118). Greenwhich, CT: Information Age Publishing

The excellent thematic paper by Amelia Bourke certainly covers the topic readings in an integrated manner, using the categories of self-development (Grow, 1996), the necessity of reflection (Harris, 1993), and measures for the self-regulatory processes (Zimmerman, 1988). Placing these theoretical models within the practical application of a change management project, and especially the changing stages within the project was most illuminating.

Slightly off-topic, a consistent thought that came to my mind whilst reading the STP was the question "Where was the Project Manager in all this?". In most project management techniques that I am familiar with, if they issues weren't identified as risks at the very beginning, during the project initiation phase, they should have been reported during work packages and stage boundaries and raised as issues. It is an enormous risk for a company that has a large number of postgraduate staff, and yet creates an environment which "led to conflict, resentment and feelings of inadequacy". When the project closed was there an end project report, which commented on the lessons learned and follow-on recommendations?

It may seem an odd mix, but there is actually something in the combination of project management techniques and our thematic consideration of learner autonomy, if one takes the view that social organisations have personalities that are sui generis, independent from and greater than the sum of their natural members. A very influential paper on this subject is Lukes (1968) which carefully showed how individual behaviour is altered within the organisational context. In combining the issues raised by this example of project management and the examples of learner autonomy, a very interesting proposition is raised: Can organisations learn? Can they learn autonomously? Will they have stages of self-development, reflection, and apply measures in the self-regulatory process?

Additional References

Steven Lukes (1968), "Methodological Individualism Reconsidered," British Journal of Sociology 19, pp. 119-29.