How do we call the belief of an individual in his own ability?

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is part of developing mathematical resilience. Bandura defined self-efficacy as “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (Bandura, 1995, p. 2). Hence the term “self-efficacy” concerns the belief in an individual’s ability to succeed in specific situations. Many of the reasons that adults put forward for not wishing to engage in mathematics are rooted in a belief that they cannot do it; they experience low self-efficacy with regard to mathematics. A strong sense of self-efficacy enables learners to view challenging problems as tasks to be mastered; giving a deep interest in and commitment to the activity and an ability to recover quickly from setbacks (Hoffman, 2010). Sources for self-efficacy are important in our thinking. Bandura (1995) suggests the following four sources:

A mastery experience: achieving success in situations where there are high levels of demand. Generally over time, with effort and sufficient challenge successfully met, self-efficacy is developed

Vicarious experience: observing people demonstrating mastery; if a learner believes they are similar have similar knowledge and skills, then a vicarious experience can prompt the learner to feel more self-efficacious

Verbal persuasion: encouragement and positive feedback can contribute to self-efficacy. The encouragement that is important in self-efficacy is recognition of making appropriate attempts and persevering rather than getting a correct answer.

Physiological and emotional states influence self-efficacy: someone who regards mathematics with apprehension will not feel self-efficacious and conversely, helping someone overcome their anxieties will help them to become more self-efficacious.

The fourth source of self-efficacy in particular adds to the previous discussions. Anxiety is common in learners when approaching mathematics (Ashcraft, 2002) hence we developed the “growth zone model” discussed earlier as a way to discuss the physiological and emotional state of a learner and support learners to position themselves to feel able to maximize learning.

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy beliefs have the potential to influence imagery outcomes and can show if an intervention has had an effect. We measured general perceived self-efficacy with the German version of the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995), estimated balance-related self-efficacy in simple and complex tasks with the German version of the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (Schott, 2008), and measured gait-related self-efficacy with a translated version of the modified Gait Efficacy Scale (Newell, VanSwearingen, Hile, & Brach, 2012).

Abstract

Self-efficacy, or perceived capabilities for learning or performing actions at designated levels, is grounded in Bandura's social cognitive theory that postulates reciprocal interactions among personal, behavioral, and social and environmental factors. Self-efficacy has been shown to influence various achievement outcomes, including motivation, learning, and self-regulation. Calibration, or how well self-efficacy corresponds to performance, can affect students' motivation and achievement. Self-efficacy is important for teachers as well as students. Areas for future self-efficacy research include assessment, developmental changes, cultural comparisons, and applications to learning with technology.

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in having the required skills to perform a given task (Cassidy and Eachus, 1997). Noted social psychologist Albert Bandura defined it as ‘a belief in one’s own capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required to attain a goal’ (Bandura, 1998). It is the confidence one has in doing something, and it is the foundation of motivation for just about everything humans do (Kurbanoglu, 2009). If a person believes they cannot do something, there is very little incentive to act or persist in completing a task. Bandura believes that possession of the necessary skills only fulfills half the requirements in completing a given task. He claims that an individual must also have the self-confidence to use the skills effectively in order to successfully complete the task (Bandura, 1997; Kurbanoglu, 2009). Low levels of self-efficacy will most likely lead to failure, when the individual believes the task is insurmountable and has no ambition to continue. However, individuals with a high level of self-efficacy in a certain skill will continue at a challenging task, anticipating eventual success, and persist until they succeed. Serap Kurbanoglu, an information management professor at Hacettepe University in Ankara, Turkey, claims that besides learning information literacy skills, individuals in today’s societies must also develop confidence in the skills that they are learning. Many of today’s students lack self-efficacy when confronted with using library resources. They do not see library resources, especially electronic databases, as being straightforward or easy to use. They are used to Internet search engines such as Google and when confronted by failures in their search strategies using library databases, usually give up (Waldman, 2003). Karbanoglu writes, ‘attainment of a strong sense of self-efficacy beliefs becomes as important as possessing information literacy skills’ (Kurbanoglu, 2009). Students who believe they can access and use information effectively will do so effectively.

Though the study of the effects of ILI on self-efficacy is limited, the research has shown that information literacy instructional sessions are effective in improving students’ self-efficacy in using the library and its resources (Martin, 1989; Ren, 2000; Nahl-Jakobovitz, 1993). A study performed by Wen-Hau Ren, a librarian at Rutgers University in New Jersey, showed a significant increase in student self-efficacy in using the library’s electronic databases after instruction. In an article describing her study she writes, ‘This study shows that college students’ self-efficacy in electronic information searching was significantly higher after library instruction’ (Ren, 2000). The effectiveness of the instruction was measured with pre- and posttest surveys. The surveys contained four sections: (1) self-efficacy in using library electronic sources; (2) attitudes toward acquiring online search skills; (3) use frequency of computer, e-mail, the Internet, and library electronic databases; and (4) individual background information. The posttest survey questionnaire was filled out by the students after they submitted the library assignment. The second questionnaire contained the same first two sections in the preinstruction questionnaire.

Additionally, it asked the participants to assess their electronic searching performance and report any negative emotions experienced when completing the assignment. Thirteen tasks/skills were listed in regard to searching the library online catalog, online periodical databases, and the library’s website. Students were asked how confident they were at performing each task and confidence levels were rated on a 10 point scale, with 1 being not confident and 10 being very confident. Students were also asked to self-assess their own searching performance as well as being evaluated by a librarian. Results determined that the instruction was not only effective at increasing the students’ technical skills, it also cultivated and improved the self-efficacy of the students, increasing learning outcomes.

A similar 2005 study carried out at the University of Central Florida confirmed the effectiveness of ILI in increasing students’ self-efficacy. Two UCF librarians, Jenny Beile and David Boote, conducted research comparing web-based instruction with face-to-face instruction and found that, regardless of the method, self-efficacy levels increased across all groups (Beile and Boote, 2005). The effectiveness was measured by surveys that evaluated self-efficacy (see Figure 2.6). ‘Self-efficacy scores were determined by responses on a library skills self-efficacy scale. Participants responded to statements such as, ‘I can identify equivalent or related search terms’, and ‘I can search for books by author in the library catalog’, or ‘I can easily differentiate between primary and secondary resources by indicating how strongly they agreed with the statement on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)’ (Beile and Boote, 2005). An analysis of the results showed a significant improvement in self-efficacy levels and proved that repeated exposure to ILI offers even more positive effects on self-efficacy levels. The researchers suggested that, within the context of library skills, increased levels of self-efficacy are positively related to greater learning outcomes. These findings are consistent with other studies measuring the effectiveness of instruction in increasing self-efficacy levels and the increases having a positive correlation with increasing student learning outcomes. As mentioned, measuring affective outcomes such as increases in self-efficacy levels can be difficult; however, as Beile and Boote recommend in their discussion, ‘these and other similar findings suggest librarians would do well to attend to the affective domain as well as the cognitive’ (Beile and Boote, 2005). Self-efficacy is an individual’s belief in the ability to perform a given task. Bandura’s self-efficacy research showed that individuals’ belief systems affect their behaviors and how much they are willing to do to succeed in the informationseeking process. Self-efficacy is a predictor of research achievement (Mellon, 1986) and should be considered an important alternative approach when evaluating the effectiveness of ILI.

Efficacy Beliefs

Self-efficacy refers to the belief in one's ability to accomplish intended outcomes. This belief influences an individual's behavior, motivation, effort, ultimately their success or failure. The reviews of research on teacher self-efficacy have summarized that teachers' self-efficacy was linked to teaching practices in their classrooms and student outcomes such as students' self-efficacy beliefs and student engagement, motivation, and achievement (Tschannen-Moran and McMaster, 2009). Compared to teachers with lower self-efficacy beliefs, teachers with stronger perceptions of self-efficacy tend to use more challenging teaching techniques, try innovative strategies, and employ classroom instruction that are more organized and better planned, student centered, and humanistic (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001). Efficacy is also a personal resource that can protect teachers from experiences of job stress and burnout (Schwarzer and Hallum, 2008).

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a prominent construct within SCT and is quite similar to the expectancy component of EVT. Individuals who are self-efficacious believe that they can be successful at engaging with specific tasks (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996; Schunk, 1989, 1991; Schunk and Pajares, 2002). Self-efficacy is related positively to academic achievement, the use of effective learning strategies, and effort (Schunk and Pajares, 2009). Self-efficacy beliefs can be focused on highly specialized tasks (e.g., one's feelings of self-efficacy at being able to solve a specific algebra problem), or toward more generalized domains (e.g., self-efficacy in mathematics). Researchers have studied the relations of self-efficacy to valued outcomes in numerous domains, including literacy (Schunk and Zimmerman, 2007), mathematics (Fast et al., 2010), and teaching (Ashton and Webb, 1986; Guskey and Passaro, 1994; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a person's belief that he or she can perform the actions needed to attain a specified level of performance (Bandura, 1997), and is conceptually related to the expectancy concept in VIE theory. Self-efficacy is shaped by a variety of factors, with past experiences having the strongest influence (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is a center piece of Bandura's (1997) social cognitive theory and was incorporated into Locke and Latham's (1990) goal-setting theory. As a result, self-efficacy is one of the most commonly studied predictors of task-specific motivation. In general, self-efficacy has been shown to have positive effects on a variety of motivational and performance outcomes across a large number of studies and research contexts (e.g., Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998). However, a stream of research in recent years has challenged the causal role of self-efficacy in positively influencing performance, with some researchers finding that self-efficacy is primarily a reflection of past performance (and does not cause future performance; Heggestad and Kanfer, 2005) and that the causal role it plays in influencing effort and performance can sometimes be negative (e.g., Vancouver and Kendall, 2006).

Recent studies have attempted to reconcile these conflicting findings. For instance, Vancouver et al. (2008) theorized and found support for a nonmonotonic and discontinuous model in which self-efficacy has positive effects up to the decision to pursue a task and then has negative effects as self-efficacy further increases. That is, an increase in self-efficacy can lead individuals who would not pursue a goal to suddenly switch and decide to pursue the goal (producing a positive effect). However, after the person has adopted the goal, further increases in self-efficacy may lead individuals to become overconfident and, as a result, not exert as much effort in the pursuit of the goal, resulting in a negative effect of self-efficacy on performance.

Other research has also attempted to further clarify these conflicting effects. For instance, Schmidt and DeShon (2009) found that challenging circumstances led to a positive relationship between self-efficacy and performance (i.e., very confident individuals rose to the challenge following poor performance), whereas less challenging situations resulted in a negative relationship (i.e., very confident individuals did not exert as much effort as individuals with low confidence following successful performance). Further, Schmidt and DeShon (2010) found that ambiguity moderated the self-efficacy and performance relationship, such that under conditions of high ambiguity a negative relationship was observed, but under low ambiguity a positive relationship was observed. Together, these studies suggest that the self-efficacy and performance relationship is complex and that there are conditions under which high self-efficacy can be beneficial or harmful. More work on this interesting and complex topic is needed.

Efficiency in a work context

Self-efficacy influences information use in an occupational context. When a self-assured person has been hired to a new workplace, he/she often actively searches out information in order to improve his/her work performance (Tan and Zhao, 2003). A self-reliant person does not remain passive in challenging situations, but instead actively takes charge. Confident persons do not only look for information related to work tasks, but also actively seek feedback on their own achievement. They do not worry about the possibility of a negative evaluation, but are instead convinced that whatever response they will get will help them to enhance their practice (Northcraft and Ashford, 1990).

Later in their careers, employees with high self-efficacy continue to be task-focused and use complex information efficiently. Persons with low self-efficacy, on the other hand, often appear less capable of comprehending and using information to improve their work performance. The explanation for this may be that they doubt their own ability to obtain and interpret information, which in turn may lead them towards ineffective information-seeking strategies. The decisive factor here is not how frequently one searches for information, but the ability to make efficient use of resources both when information is acquired and when it is applied (Brown et al., 2001).

Social and Cultural Principles in Promoting Physical Activity

Self-Efficacy/Social Cognitive Theory: PA self-efficacy is a term used to describe individuals' specific self-confidence in their ability to engage in PA. More broadly, self-efficacy is part of the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) (Bandura, 1986) and postulates that the more confident one feels in their capabilities and skills to succeed, the more likely they will engage in that behavior (Bandura, 1977). SCT provides a theoretical framework for understanding PA adoption (McAuley and Blissmer, 2000) and emphasizes reciprocal determinism, or the interaction between individuals and their environments. SCT identifies three main factors that influence behavior and behavioral choices: (1) the environment (e.g., neighborhood, proximity to gym), (2) individual personality characteristics and/or experience (including cognitions), and (3) behavioral factors. Behavior is the product of the interplay between these three factors. In other words, the environment can influence individuals and groups, but individuals and groups can also influence their environments, and in turn, govern their own behaviors. Intervention studies indicate that self-efficacy is like an important component of PA behavior change across a variety of populations (Lewis et al., 2002; White et al., 2011; Haas, 2011). Self-efficacy is a product of four sources of information: (1) enactive mastery experience, (2) vicarious experience, (3) verbal persuasion, and (4) physiological or affective states. Each of these sources can be used individually or collectively to increase self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Assessing PA self-efficacy enables the practitioner to tailor feedback and encouragement to each client. To conduct the assessment, ask individuals how confident they are in their ability to regularly engage in PA. Using a PA self-efficacy scale of 1 (not confident) to 5 (very confident), individuals can be categorized as low or high PA self-efficacy, then tailored feedback can be offered, particularly for those with low confidence.

Perceived Self-Efficacy

Perceived self-efficacy portrays individuals' beliefs in their capabilities to exercise control over challenging demands (Bandura, 1997). It involves the regulation of thought processes, affective states, motivation, behavior, or changing environmental conditions. These beliefs are critical in approaching novel or difficult situations, or in adopting a strenuous self-regimen. People make an internal attribution in terms of personal competence when forecasting their behavior (e.g., ‘I am certain that I can quit smoking even if my friend continues to smoke’). Self-efficacy influences the challenges that people take on as well as how high they set their goals (e.g., ‘I intend to reduce my smoking,’ or ‘I intend to quit smoking altogether’). Some people harbor self-doubts and cannot motivate themselves. They see little point in even setting a goal if they believe they do not have what it takes to succeed. Thus, the intention to change a habit that affects health depends to some degree on a firm belief in one's capability to exercise control over that habit.

Perceived self-efficacy has been found to be important at all stages of health behavior change (Bandura, 1997), but it does not always constitute exactly the same construct. Its meaning depends on the particular situation of individuals who may be more or less advanced in the change process. A distinction between action self-efficacy, maintenance or coping self-efficacy, and recovery self-efficacy is useful, because, over the course of health behavior change, different tasks have to be mastered, and different self-efficacy beliefs are required to do so successfully. For example, a person might be confident in his or her capability to be physically active in general (i.e., high action self-efficacy), but might not be very confident to resume physical activity after a setback (low recovery self-efficacy).

Action self-efficacy (also called ‘preaction or task self-efficacy’) refers to the first phase of the process in which an individual does not yet act, but develops a motivation to do so. It is an optimistic belief during the preactional goal-setting phase. Individuals high in action self-efficacy imagine success, anticipate potential outcomes of diverse strategies, and are more likely to initiate a new behavior. Those with less self-efficacy imagine failure, harbor self-doubts, and tend to procrastinate.

Whereas (pre)action self-efficacy is instrumental in the motivation phase, the two following constructs are instrumental in the subsequent volition phase and can, therefore, also by summarized under the heading of ‘volitional self-efficacy’ that supports goal pursuit. Maintenance (coping) self-efficacy represents optimistic beliefs about one's capability to cope with barriers that arise during the maintenance period. A new health behavior might turn out to be much more difficult to adhere to than expected, but a self-efficacious person responds confidently with more adaptive strategies, more effort, and prolonged persistence to overcome such hurdles.

Recovery self-efficacy addresses the experience of failure and recovery from setbacks. If a lapse occurs, individuals may attribute their lapse to internal, stable, and global causes; dramatize the event; or interpret it as a full-blown relapse. High self-efficacious individuals, however, avoid this effect by attributing the lapse to an external high-risk situation and by finding ways to control the damage and to restore hope. Recovery self-efficacy pertains to one's conviction to get back on track after being derailed.

There is a functional difference between these three self-efficacy constructs, whereas their temporal sequence is less important. Different phase-specific self-efficacy beliefs may be harbored at the same point in time. The assumption is that they operate in a different manner. For example, recovery self-efficacy is most functional when it comes to resuming an interrupted chain of action, whereas action self-efficacy is most functional when facing a novel challenging demand. This distinction between phase-specific self-efficacy beliefs has proven useful in various domains of behavior change (Luszczynska and Schwarzer, 2003; Ochsner et al., 2013; Renner and Schwarzer, 2000). Action self-efficacy tends to predict intentions, whereas maintenance (coping) self-efficacy tends to predict behaviors. Individuals who have recovered from a setback obviously need different self-beliefs than those who have maintained their levels of activity.