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

performance.

Jane Webb-Williams
Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association New Researchers/Student

Conference, University of Warwick, 6 September 2006

Abstract
This 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 pupils 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.

Introduction
This paper reports a correlational study of primary school childrens 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 peoples 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 ones 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 Education

Self-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 childrens 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 childrens 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 method

Many 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 Banduras (2001) guidelines. Comparison of childrens 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 teachers 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 Banduras Childrens 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 Banduras Childrens Self-Efficacy scale.

C. Self-efficacy for general science attainment

Items in this scale refer to ones 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 Interpretation

Two 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.
Cronbachs 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 Cronbachs No. M Item Mdn Mo Rnge Skew Kurtosis
Scale Alpha Items (SD) M
Academic .51 3 15.12 5.04 15 17 12 -.358 -.628
Achievement (2.87)
Science .87 3 11.88 3.96 12 18 18 -.077 -.900
Attainment (4.51)
Self-Regulated .90 11 51.12 4.65 51 49 50 -.167 -.702
(12.3)
Domain-specific .81 8 37.24 4.66 37 37 30 -.110 -.662
(8.12)
Task-specific .86 8 35.16 4.40 36 37 34 -.093 -.526
(7.97)

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 Deviations

 N = 50
M SD
Self-efficacy for general academic achievement
How well can you:
1 learn general mathematics 4.90 1.40
2 learn science 4.80 1.18
3 learn reading, writing and literacy skills 5.42 1.44

Self-efficacy for general science attainment

How confident are you that you can:
1 get a level 3 in science 4.76 1.52
2 get a level 4 in science 3.90 1.69
3 get a level 5 in science 3.22 1.84

Domain-specific self-efficacy for science

How well can you answer questions on:
1 green plants 4.02 1.32
2 keeping healthy 5.26 1.44
3 planning science investigations 4.20 1.48
4 Light 5.06 1.48
5 the earth, moon and sun 5.20 1.73
6 separating mixtures of materials 4.60 1.59
7 the results from science investigations 4.34 1.66
8 reversible and irreversible changes 4.56 1.62

Task-specific self-efficacy for scientific enquiry

How well can you:
1 recognise the need for a fair test 4.72 1.29
2 identify the one factor that has been changed in an investigation 3.92 1.40
3 describe relationships/patterns using a table of results 4.74 1.38
4 write a conclusion for an investigation 4.58 1.37
5 describe how to test children's ideas/questions in science 3.94 1.38
6 what method of measurement is needed to collect the evidence for an 4.14 1.62
investigation
7 identify the question children are investigating from their table of 4.62 1.35
results?
8 decide whether the results of an experiment support the prediction 4.50 1.45

Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning

How well can you:
1 finish your homework assignments by deadlines 4.60 1.85
2 study when there are other interesting things to do 3.64 1.82
3 concentrate on school subjects 4.98 1.52
4 take class notes of class instruction 4.56 1.70
5 use the library to get information for class assignments 5.28 1.44
6 plan your school work 4.84 1.46
7 organise your school work 4.86 1.56
8 remember information presented in class and textbooks 4.32 1.61
9 arrange a place to study without distractions 4.26 1.43
10 motivate yourself to do school work 4.96 1.41
11 participate in class discussions 4.82 1.55

Science Performance Measure

Analysis 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 % of variance
N= 50 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-Beliefs

Mean 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 pupils 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 childrens 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
16.00

Science Performance

12.00

8.00

Mean
= 8.13

4.00

10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

Task-specific Self-Efficacy
task

Pupil A Pupil B

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 Girls Mean Boys Mean T-test Sig.

Mean N = 24 N = 26
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
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: Pearsons r correlation between self-efficacy and performance in science

Boys r Girls r
N= 26 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 ones capabilities to perform certain tasks therefore seems to be connected to
ultimate performance in those tasks.

This is an important finding since it supports Banduras (1986, 1997) theory and indicates that if one could alter a
childs self-beliefs then it is highly likely that the childs 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 childs 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 childs
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 findings

Having 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 conclusions

The 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 childs 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 childrens 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 Banduras 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. 7181).
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 womens 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 childrens 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.