Contextual Influences on Sources of Academic Self-efficacy

Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (2012) 13:607–616 DOI 10.1007/s12564-012-9223-z

Contextual influences on sources of academic self-efficacy: a validation with secondary school students of Kerala K. Abdul Gafoor • P. Muhammed Ashraf

Received: 27 September 2011 / Revised: 24 March 2012 / Accepted: 11 July 2012 / Published online: 1 August 2012 Ó Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2012

Abstract This study investigates the theorized sources of Academic Self-Efficacy among the higher secondary school students of Kerala, India. Mastery Experience in the form of Academic Achievement, vicarious experience in the form of School Image and Social Persuasion in the form of Parental Encouragement are included as the predictor variables of Academic Self-Efficacy. Participants in the present study were 700 higher secondary school students of Kerala, selected using stratified random sampling. The findings of the study confirm the theorized correlation of Academic Self-Efficacy with previous achievement, vicarious experience (school image) and persuasory information (parental encouragement). In the total sample, the percent of variance in Academic Self-Efficacy that is predictable by the three-predictor variables is nearly one quarter (23.83 %). School Image is the best contributing variable (9.42 %) followed by Mastery Experience (8.67 %) and then by Parental Encouragement (5.74 %). The findings shows that apart from cultural differences, locale and gender difference also exist in sources of Academic Self-Efficacy. The superiority of School Image over Mastery Experience in predicting Academic Self-Efficacy is different from that found in the West, theoretically and empirically. In India, self-efficacy beliefs of youngsters continue to depend more on social and domestic factors than personal experience and mastery.

K. Abdul Gafoor (&) P. Muhammed Ashraf Department of Education, University of Calicut, Malappuram, Kerala, India e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords Academic self-efficacy Mastery experience School image Parental encouragement Genderdifference Locale-difference Cultural-difference

Introduction Beliefs people have about themselves are key elements in academic context. Self-efficacy carries great importance in classrooms, as it mediate the effect of skill or other selfbeliefs on subsequent performance attainments. Schooling is gauged, among other things, on its ability to help the learner to attain the goals; by what it does to students’ beliefs about their capabilities and to student’s sense of self-ingredients such as efficacy, agency, confidence and purpose (Bruner 1996). Self-efficacy, according to Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura 1986), is the peak of four interrelated motivational processes that leads one to goal-realization; the other three processes being self-observation, self-evaluation and selfreaction (Redmond 2010). Students with a strong sense of self-efficacy are well equipped to educate themselves when they have to rely on their own initiative (Bandura 1986). Beliefs that students develop about their academic capabilities help explain why students’ academic performances may differ markedly when they have similar ability. Researchers have demonstrated the positive effects of selfefficacy which impact on effort, persistence, goal setting, performance (Pajares 2009) and perseverance (Schunk 1995; Bandura 1997). Those with higher self-efficacy adopt mastery and performance-approach goals; while those low in selfefficacy tend to prefer performance–avoidance goals (Seo and Taherbhai 2009; Khezri Azar et al. 2010; Sakiz 2011), engage in more effective self-regulatory strategies (BouffardBouchard et al. 1991). The latter develop their skills or competence and demonstrate their ability to others in class

123

608

(Nasiriyan et al. 2011). Adolescents with a strong sense of efficacy for learning are more resilient and better able to resist the adverse academic influences of low-achieving peers than are those with a weak sense of efficacy (Bandura et al. 1996). Students’ self-efficacy beliefs correlate not only with motivation constructs but also with academic performances and achievement. Multon (1991) found 36 studies conducted between 1977 and 1988 on the relationship between selfefficacy and academic performance that concluded that self-efficacy accounted for approximately 14 % of the variance in academic performance. In academic settings, one should measure academic self-efficacy rather than generalized self-efficacy. This study examines the sources from which the academic self-efficacy beliefs develop in a hitherto unexplored population of students in Kerala, India. Sources of academic self-efficacy In tune with emphasize of Social Cognitive Theory on interaction of cognitive, behavioral, personal, and environmental factors to determine motivation and behavior, Bandura (1986) identifies four main sources of self-efficacy beliefs, viz., mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasions, and physiological indices. Mastery experience in the academic field is the prior academic achievement level. Vicarious experience includes the knowledge of effects produced by actions of others that act as models for them. In school students, vicarious experiences stem from their daily dealings with significant others in the school. Persuasory information for the adolescents is from the parental encouragement and the familial influences. The anxiety, arousal, stress, and fatigue of the students constitute the physiological states, the least important source of self-efficacy. The general rule that academic achievement is the prime source of academic self-efficacy (Hampton and Mason 2003; Usher and Pajares 2006b; Lent et al. 1986) requires further empirical support because, although mastery experience is typically the most influential source of selfefficacy, the strength and influence of the sources differ as a function of contextual factors such as gender, ethnicity, academic ability, and academic domain (Usher and Pajares 2008). The effects of models are particularly relevant in contexts where people are uncertain about their own abilities or have limited prior experience because they become more sensitive to vicarious experiences in such situations (Schunk 1983, 1987). Part of one’s vicarious experience also involves the social comparisons made with other individuals, which along with peer modeling, can be powerful influences on developing self-perceptions of competence (Schunk 1983). In this study, the vicarious experience students receive from the school and peers, conceptualized as school image is tested for its ability to predict academic self-efficacy.

123

K. Abdul Gafoor, P. Muhammed Ashraf

Need for investigators to sort out the diverse forces with which students contend when forming their self-efficacy beliefs is evidenced from the literature review. Usher and Pajares (2008) after a detailed review recommended researchers to broaden their examination of the sources of the collective efficacy beliefs among students. Self-efficacy is both a personal and a collective belief. Elements of both school climate and family environment have strong direct effects on academic performance (Niebuhr 1995) and other outcomes. Children, parents, teachers, and school administrators operate collectively as well as individually. Schools develop collective beliefs about the capability of their students to learn. Schools with a strong sense of collective efficacy—‘‘can-do’’ effective schools—with perceivable climate exercise empowering and vitalizing influences on their constituents (Pajares 1996). Families too have a climate and ‘‘feel’’ generated from the collective action. Collective efficacy of a family pays dividends for children and fosters qualities essential to adjustment and well-being. Helping and encouragement are common parent actions that are likely to influence student self-efficacy. Parental support, especially emotional support, is likely to influence students’ self-belief. Positive persuasions encourage and empower; negative persuasions defeat and weaken self-beliefs. Incidentally, boys may be more apt to define their developing identity in terms of their academic accomplishments whereas girls may rely more on information gained from their relationships with others (Usher and Pajares 2008). Lately, there is growing recognition that findings obtained with measures of vicarious experience in which only peer or adult modeling experiences are assessed may provide incomplete insights about the nature of this source (Usher and Pajares 2008). Usher and Pajares (2008) noted that correlations between vicarious experience and selfefficacy have been inconsistent, ranging from 0.09 to 0.58 (median r = 0.34), with lower values emerging from several studies. Vicarious experience failed to predict selfefficacy in multiple regression models that include the other sources as well (Gainor and Lent 1998; Pajares et al. 2007; Usher and Pajares 2006b). Hence, this study turns to collective sources of vicarious experiences as predictor of self-efficacy. Vicarious learning is learning from observations of the success of others, including one’s group. Observing and modeling success of own school generate expectation of own success in students. Family is the centre of initial sources of self-efficacy. Beginning in infancy, parents and caregivers provide experiences that differentially influence children’s selfefficacy. Home influences that help children interact effectively with the environment positively affect self-efficacy (Bandura 1997; Meece 1997). Parents also are key providers of self-efficacy information. Parents who arrange for varied mastery experiences, parents who steer their children toward

A validation with secondary school students of Kerala

efficacious peers, parents who encourage their youngsters to try different activities and support provide vicarious boosts in self-efficacy (Bandura 1997). As parental encouragement is a proper indicator of the persuasion from home, this study examines to what extent it influences academic self-efficacy. Physiological and emotional states of the children are important in understanding self-efficacy. Physiological and emotional states such as anxiety, stress, fatigue, and mood provide information about efficacy beliefs. Physiological arousal has typically been assessed as students’ anxiety toward a particular academic subject, and quantitative measures of positive dimensions of physiological arousal are not usually assessed; and it makes little sense to compare the sources of general academic self-efficacy with students’ subject-specific efficacy judgments (Usher and Pajares 2008). Early on, these researchers have proposed curvilinear relation of physiological arousal to self-efficacy (Usher and Pajares 2006a, b). Further, anxiety, stress, fatigue, mood, and their interpretations are less stable, especially during adolescence. Considering the above factors, the fourth theorized source of self-efficacy is not built into this study. Importance of this study Present study investigates the theorized sources of academic self-efficacy among the higher secondary school students of Kerala. Mastery experience in the form of Academic Achievement, vicarious experience in the form of School Image, and the social persuasion in the form of Parental Encouragement are included in the study as the predictor variables of Academic Self-Efficacy. This study responds to the following questions, specifically in Kerala context. What is the nature and extent of relationship of Academic Self-Efficacy with each of the independent variables viz. (1) Mastery Experience (2) School Image, and (3) Parental Encouragement in higher secondary school students for the total sample and subsamples? Which among the independent variables significantly predict Academic Self-Efficacy, for the total sample and subsamples viz., (1) Boys, (2) Girls, (3) Rural school students, (4) Urban school students, (5) Government school students, and (6) Private school students? How do the influences of the sources of academic self-efficacy differ as a function of contextual factors such as gender, locale, and types of schools in Kerala? Self-efficacy beliefs are contagious and hence can generalize across activities or situations (Pajares 2005). Schools with high images have social attractiveness that in turn affects how students perceive the school and their motivation. A positive image perception positively effects student loyalty and satisfaction level (Nguyen and LeBlanc 2001; Palacio et al. 2002). Students can learn success by watching

609

their school being successful, especially so when young people are uncertain about their own abilities. Increased sense of belonging to the school community by way of encouragement, and positive interactions with teachers, administrators, and peers, develop school satisfaction and achievement (Taylor 1991). Conversely, higher achieving students possess positive feelings about their school experiences. Sakiz (2007), for example, reported positive relationship between perceived teacher affective support and academic self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. This study among other things explores to what extent the image developed by the student via observations and experiences of the school affects academic self-efficacy. Studies indicate that the classroom environment variables of involvement, knowledge, professional skills, and higherorder thinking skills as the predictor variables explained 32 % of the variance in academic self-efficacy and 45 % of the variance in course evaluations (Byer 2002). These factors viz. expectation about student–faculty interactions, classroom environment variables are the components of the broader concept, school image. Hence, School Image is taken as one of the predictor variables for academic selfefficacy which also represents the ‘vicarious experience’, the second theorized source of efficacy. Likewise, expectations, encouragement, and actions that enhance learning opportunities are the major ways by which families positively influence the educational achievements of their teens. Parental involvement to reinforce school values itself is mechanisms of influence through modeling of behaviors (Hoover et al. 1995). As a number of researchers using a variety of indicators and data sources (Astone and McLanahan 1991; Sui-Chu and Willms 1996; Milne et al. 1986) report positive effects of parental educational aspirations and encouragement, parental encouragement as the persuasory source of self-efficacy is added. Studies on gender difference in academic self-efficacy are not yet settled. While some report females as having lower self-perceptions of ability than males (Phillips and Zimmerman 1990; Ku 2002), others see no gender difference in academic self-efficacy (Owen and Froman 1992; Kelly 1993; Santiago and Einarson 1998; Hampton and Mason 2003). However, none of the reviewed studies reported higher academic self-efficacy in girls. This is particularly surprising since many studies that have examined actual achievement or performance (Linn and Hyde 1989) show few gender differences and that in many cases, females actually outperform males. Although this discrepancy between actual achievement and self-perceptions of ability among females may be due to a response bias, with boys being more self-congratulatory and girls being more modest (Eccles et al. 1984; Wigfield et al. 1991), often the difference appears serious enough. Phillips and Zimmerman (1990) found that females had lower

123

610

perceptions of their competence than males, although the gender difference did not emerge till ninth grade. Clearly, there is a need for more research into the nature of these differences. Many studies researched cultural, ethnic, and racial differences in academic self-efficacy and its sources. Graham (1994) reviewed 14 experimental studies, and in 12 of them, African American students had higher expectations for success than Caucasian children did. Klassen (2004a, b) reviewed 20 studies on self-efficacy beliefs through crosscultural comparisons in which almost all studies showed academic self-efficacy beliefs to be lower for non-western cultural groups. Klassen (2004a, b) further observed differences in the individualistic and collectivistic sources of academic self-efficacy between South-Asian and AngloCanadian students. In addition, the island students reported lower academic self-efficacy than the mainland students (Yamauchi and Greene 1997) did. Further, studies that examined the four sources of selfefficacy in academic setting are few in number. Hampton and Mason (2003) reported direct impact of all the four sources on academic performance. Usher and Pajares (2006b) examined the four sources and identified mastery experience as the best predictor of academic self-efficacy for the total sample, mastery and vicarious experience only as predictors for boys, but mastery and social persuasions only as predictors for the girls, and mastery and social persuasions as predictors for African American students. Generally, studies found mastery experiences as the most common and most influential basis for the self-efficacy beliefs of adolescent students; other efficacy sources were mentioned much less often (Lent, et al. 1996). For less dominant cultural group, social persuasion is reported to be the strongest predictor of academic self-efficacy and the mastery experience as related to it; though vicarious experience in the form of family attainment did not predict their academic self-efficacy (Chin and Kameoka 2002). As little research has investigated racial–ethnic differences in academic self-efficacy and those that investigate the sources of academic self-efficacy are incomplete and inconclusive, exploration of the process by which self-efficacy beliefs are created and how this process might differ among subpopulations is a research priority in this area (Schunk and Meece 2005) to inform the dynamics of the development of self-efficacy, especially in non-western settings. Further investigations need to identify and trace the genesis and development of self-efficacy beliefs. As selfefficacy beliefs constitute the key factor of human agency, investigating the genesis of these beliefs and the factors that either nurture or deteriorate them is warranted (Usher and Pajares 2008), especially on sources of academic selfefficacy information other than those typically used, viz. aptitude, ability, and previous achievement. What is known

123


about self-efficacy theoretically and practically is contributed from the West. Not only it was formulated in the west but also most of the reviewed studies are in the same context. As theories have to be replicated in the cultural, social, and educational settings other than where they were formulated and tested, the need and significance of further expansion of the studies to Kerala situation is clear and distinct. As socio-educationally Kerala is the best developed state of India with quality-of-life indices comparable to the west and is comparable in literacy only with the best literate regions of Philippines, South Africa, Peru from the third world (Unesco 2010), findings from the study will help bridge the recognized incongruities between western and non-western contexts in strength of theorized sources in effecting self-efficacy.

Measures Mastery experience Mastery Experience refers to the previous experience of achievement or past performance. In this study, Mastery Experience of a student enrolled in a higher secondary school is the grade point average he/she has secured in the standard X public examination, as studies elsewhere show that preceding achievement in terms of high school grade point average (HSGPA) predicted both self-efficacy (Diseth 2011). In Kerala, the most crucial examination a student has to undergo is the board examination in standard X, because it decides the course of further education one can have. As opportunities for quality education is less, the performance at this examination is crucial. In addition, students, teachers, educators, and administrators take the grade attained in this examination as a valid index of academic merit. Hence, having passed the examination and qualified for higher secondary education is taken as the most powerful mastery experience the student has derived in the immediate past as the data were collected during December while the results were out during previous May. The required data directly obtained from the official website of the board of examinations, Kerala was converted in each subject into score in the order, ‘9’ for grade ‘A?’, ‘8’ for ‘A’, ‘7’ for ‘B?’, ‘6’ for ‘B’, ‘5’ for ‘C?’, ‘4’ for ‘C’, ‘3’ for ‘D?’, ‘2’ for ‘D’, and ‘1’ for ‘E’. The derived Grade Point Average (GPA) is taken as the score in Mastery Experience. School Image Image is positive or negative thoughts about an object or an entity. Organizational image is the general impression an organization forms in people (Hatch and Schultz 2002); it


is the way organization members believe others see the organization to gauge them (Dutton and Dukerich 1991). Factors that determine the image of education institutions are name awareness, academic properties, facilities, physical environment (Arpan et al. 2003), personal and organizational environment, academic programmes, (Kazoleas et al. 2001), academic staff and relations with students, and stories about the school (Paden and Stell 2006). School Image thus is the sum of subjective opinions about the quality of the learning and social environment, the collective feeling developed by the student because of observations and experiences of the school (Renihan and Renihan 1988). School Image scale has items on the feelings developed by students about seven dimensions, namely Leadership, School vision, School climate, Involvement with parents and local community, Academic focus, Collegiality of staff members and physical environment which are the factors that play major roles in determining the public reputation of a school. Forty-two statements—six from each of seven the components—like ‘‘Many say that it is useless to study in our school for those who have to excel in the academic field’’ to which students can respond on 5 levels; ‘completely true’ to ‘completely false’ is used. Test–retest reliability (r = 0.76, N = 31), split half reliability (r = 0.90, N = 370), and Internal consistency (Cronbach Alpha = 0.90, N = 370) were ensured. Coefficient of concurrent validity obtained by correlating the scores with scores on School Social System Questionnaire (Gafoor and Farooque 2006); a correlated factor of school image is 0.71 (N = 30). Parental encouragement Parental Encouragement is the inspiration, encouragement, and stimulation, etc., given by the parents for the child in his/ her education through material and non-material rewards and communication. A subscale ‘Parental Encouragement’ of ‘Parental Involvement Rating Scale’ (Gafoor 2001) with a test–retest reliability (r = 0.83, N = 40), internal consistency (Cronbach’s coefficient alpha = 0.84, N = 370), and criterion validity (r = 0.81, N = 32) was used. There are 13 items like ‘‘On passing the examination my parents reward me with gifts’’ to which student responds on a 3-point ‘always true never true’ scale. Academic self-efficacy Academic self-efficacy is operationally defined as the scores of students on Academic Self-Efficacy Scale with 40 items on dimensions of academics namely Learning process, Reading, Comprehension, Memory, Curricular activities, Time management, Teacher Student relationship, Peer relationship, Utilization of resources, Goal orientation,

611

Adjustment and Examination. Statements like ‘‘I can arrange the help of my teachers in learning’’ to which student can respond at 5 levels— ‘completely true’ to ‘completely false’ is used. Test–retest coefficient of correlation was 0.85 (N = 30), Split half reliability of the scale is 0.90 (N = 370), and Concurrent validity coefficient against scores on the criterion ‘General Self-efficacy scale’ (Schwarzer and Jerusalem 1995) was 0.68 (N = 58). Participants The sample of the present study is from the higher secondary school students of Kerala. The schools were randomly selected, taking into account the two factors of stratification: first locality and then type of management of schools. Age of the participants is in between 15 and 16.5 years, and they have completed nearly 4-month instruction in grade XI after the completion of a public examination based on the result of which they were admitted to the present grade. By maintaining the boy/girl ratio in higher secondary schools of Kerala (Kerala State Planning Board 2010), the factor of gender is represented in the ratio 2:3 in the total sample. The final sample of 700 students consists of 280 boys, 420 girls, 490 rural school students, 210 urban school students, 280 Government and 420 privately managed school students, and 226 humanities, 274 commerce, 200 science students. Statistical analyses used Mastery experience is typically the most powerful source of efficacy-building information (Bandura 1997); but no claims about the relative contribution of the other three sources or order in which the sources be entered in statistical models (Usher and Pajares 2008) is made by the theory. As Bandura theorized that the sources as exercising a causal influence on self-efficacy beliefs, from early on, researchers have created stepwise regression models (Hampton 1998; Lopez and Lent 1992; Matsui et al. 1990). The same mode of analysis is adopted here. Before proceeding to multiple regression analysis, relation of selfefficacy with three predictors in the total and subsamples were estimated, followed by test of significance of difference in r’s obtained for the relevant subsamples. For the comparison of r’s using z statistic, Fisher’s Z transformation of the correlation coefficient r is applied.

Results Preliminary analysis of the measures included in the study revealed that the distribution of academic self-efficacy follows normality in all respects, while in the independent

123

612


Table 1 Statistical constants of dependent and independent variables for the total sample Variables

Mean

SD

Academic self-efficacy

134.90

19.50

0.12

-0.17

6.72

1.05

-0.26

-0.42

155.73

21.57

-0.74

0.30

33.10

3.13

-0.85

0.98

Mastery experience School Image Parental encouragement

Skew ness

Kurtosis

N = 700 SD standard deviation

variables, it is near normal. Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics of the variables. The results of correlation analysis between academic self-efficacy and the independent variables in the total sample and the subsamples are provided in Table 2. There exists significant and positive correlation between Academic Self-Efficacy and each of the independent variables, viz., Mastery Experience (r = 0.321, Fisher’s t = 8.96, p \ .01, r2 9 100 = 10.30), School Image (r = 0.345, Fisher’s t = 9.70, p \ .01, r2 9 100 = 11.90), and Parental Encouragement (r = 0.276, Fisher’s t = 7.59, p \ .01, r2 9 100 = 7.62) in the total sample. In addition, in all the subsamples based on gender, locality of schools, and type of management of schools, the correlation of academic self-efficacy with mastery experience, school image, and parental encouragement is significant and positive. Gender, locale, and type of school management-based comparison of coefficients of correlation between Academic Self-Efficacy and the three independent variables revealed that there is no significant difference in the relationships between each of the independent variables and the dependent variable in the subsamples based on gender, locality of schools, and type of management of schools. A series of multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the efficiency of mastery experience, school image, and parental encouragement in predicting academic self-efficacy.

In the total sample, Mastery Experience (B = 5.03, SEB = 0.62, b = 0.27), School Image (B = 0.25, SEB = 0.03, b = 0.273), and Parental Encouragement (B = 1.30, SEB = 0.208, b = 0.21) together significantly predict 23.83 % variance of academic self-efficacy [R2 = 0.2383, F = 72.61, df (3,696)]. Table 3 shows that combined influence of mastery experience, school image, and parental encouragement on academic self-efficacy among boys [R2 = 0.2455, F = 29.93, df (3,276)] and girls [R2 = 0.2319, F = 41.86, df (3,416)] are almost as in the total sample. But in locality-based subsamples, there is observable difference in the combined influence of mastery experience, school image, and parental encouragement on academic self-efficacy with the influence being higher in the urban sample [R2 = 0.3589, F = 38.45, df (3,206)] compared to that of rural sample [R2 = 0.1913, F = 38.33, df (3,486)]. Combined influence of mastery experience, school image, and parental encouragement on academic self-efficacy among government school [R2 = 0.2528, F = 31.13, df (3,276)] and private school [R2 = 0.2282, F = 41.00, df (3,416)] samples are slightly different. In order to understand the extent of influence of each of mastery experience, school image and parental encouragement on academic selfefficacy, for each variable b r 9 100, percentage influence of each predictor variables on academic self-efficacy (efficiency of the predictor), were estimated. Table 4 demonstrates that School Image is the best predictor of Academic Self-Efficacy in the total sample (bxr = 9.42 %) and among Boys (bxr = 11.13 %), Rural School Students (bxr = 7.02 %), and Government School Students (bxr = 11.41 %). However, it is only the second best predictor of Academic Self-Efficacy for the Girls (bxr = 7.60 %), Urban School Students (bxr = 15.34 %), and Private School students (bxr = 8.01 %), where Mastery Experience replaces it as the best predictor [Girls (bxr = 10.58 %), Urban School Students (bxr = 16.08 %), and Private School Students (bxr = 10 %)]. Mastery Experience is only the second best predictor of Academic

Table 2 Test of significance of gender-wise, locale-wise, and sector-wise difference in relationship of academic self-efficacy with mastery experience, school image, and parental encouragement Mastery experience

School Image

Parental encouragement

r

z

CR

r

z

Boya

0.269

0.28

-1.29

0.351

0.37

Girlb

0.361

0.38

0.326

0.34

Ruralc Urband

0.277 0.402

0.29 0.42

-1.57

0.315 0.409

0.32 0.44

-1.45

Govt.e

0.282

0.29

-1.03

0.368

0.39

0.65

Privatef

0.346

0.37

0.331

0.34

All r’s are significant, p \ .01; none of the Z ratios are significant, p [ .05 a,e

N = 280;

123

b,f

N = 420; cN = 490; dN = 210

CR 0.39

r

z

CR 0

0.27

0.28

0.269

0.28

0.289 0.251

0.3 0.26

0.48

0.306

0.32

0.77

0.254

0.26


613

Table 3 Summary of multiple regression analysis for academic self-efficacy in total sample and subsamples Sample Total

Boys

Girls

Rural

Predictorsa

R

F

df

B

SE(B)

b

t

Mastery experience

0.4882

72.61**

3,696

8.08**

5.03

0.62

0.270

School Image

0.25

0.03

0.273

8.06**


1.30

0.21

0.208

6.20** 4.83**

4.92

1.02

0.253

School Image

Mastery experience

0.4954

0.28

0.05

0.317

6.03**


1.62

0.35

0.245

4.67** 6.67**

Mastery experience

0.4815

29.93**

5.26

0.79

0.293

School Image

0.24

0.05

0.233

5.25**


1.11

0.26

0.186

4.22**

3.86

0.83

0.197

4.67**

0.21 1.43

0.04 0.26

0.223 0.230

5.22** 5.53**

7.25

1.01

0.400

7.18**

0.34

0.05

0.375

6.60**

1.12

0.36

0.178

3.13**

4.73

1.05

0.235

4.49**

School Image

0.28

0.05

0.310

5.86**


1.51

0.34

0.237

4.48**

5.12

0.78

0.289

6.59**

Mastery experience

0.4374

41.86**

3,276

38.33**

3,416

3,486

School Image Parental encouragement Urban

Mastery experience

0.5991

38.45**

3,206

School Image Parental encouragement Govt.

Private

a

Mastery experience

0.5028

Mastery experience

0.4776

31.13**

41.00**

3,276

3,416

School Image

0.26

0.05

0.242

5.44**


1.16

0.27

0.189

4.30**

Dependent variable: academic self-efficacy

** p \ .01 Table 4 Percentage influence of each of mastery experience, school image, and parental encouragement on academic self-efficacy Sample

Percentage influence on academic self-efficacy (b xr X 100) Mastery experience

School Image


Total variance (R2 9 100)

Total

8.67

9.42

5.74

23.83

Boys

6.80

11.13

6.61

24.54

Girls

10.58

7.60

5.00

23.18

Rural

5.46

7.02

6.65

19.13

Urban

16.08

15.34

4.47

35.89

6.62

11.41

7.25

25.28

10.00

8.01

4.80

22.81

Govt. school Private school

Self-Efficacy in the total sample (bxr = 8.67 %) and among Boys (bxr = 6.80 %), but it is the least efficient predictor of Academic Self-Efficacy in the case of Rural School Students (bxr = 5.46 %) and Government School students (bxr = 6.62 %). Parental Encouragement is the second best predictor of Academic Self-Efficacy for Rural School Students

(bxr = 6.65 %) and Government School Students (bxr = 7.25 %) while it is least in predictive efficiency in the total sample (bxr = 5.74 %) and among Boys (bxr = 6.61 %), Girls (bxr = 5.0 %), Urban School Students (bxr = 4.47 %), and Private School students (bxr = 4.80 %).

Discussion The findings of the study confirm the theorized correlation of academic self-efficacy with previous achievement, vicarious experience (school image), and persuasory information (parental encouragement). Academic self-efficacy of higher secondary school students is predictable using the three independent variables, in the total sample and all of the sub samples. A few other studies testifies the theorized stemming of self-efficacy from the three sources viz., previous achievement, vicarious experience, and persuasory information (Bandura 1986; Multon 1991; Lent et al. 1996; Chin and Kameoka 2002; Usher and Pajares 2006b), especially in secondary schools (Zimmerman et al. 1992; Jinks and Morgan 1999). In the total sample, the percent of variance in academic self-efficacy that is predictable by the three-predictor variables is nearly one quarter (23.83 %). School Image is the

123

614

best contributing variable (9.42 %) followed by Mastery Experience (8.67 %) and then by Parental encouragement (5.74 %). The superiority of school image over mastery experience in predicting academic self-efficacy is different from that theoretically (Bandura 1986) and empirically (Usher and Pajares 2006b; Lent et al. 1996) known from west. In developing countries like India, self-efficacy believes of youngsters continues to be influenced more by social and domestic factors than personal experience and mastery. This conclusion is corroborated by the urban–rural difference in the sources of self-efficacy revealed by the present study. While one third (35.89 %) of Academic selfefficacy among urban students in Kerala who have the socioeconomic and quality-of-life indices comparable to the west is predictable from the three-predictor variables originating from western theories, academic self-efficacy attributable to the three-predictor variables of typical rural sample is only one fifth (19.13 %). The best contributing variable in rural sample is School Image (7.02 %) and in urban sample is Mastery experience (16.08 %). Mastery experience contributes much less (5.46 %) in rural sample. Predictability of Academic self-efficacy of urban students from the source variables hints to their comparability to western condition. However, rural students in third-world settings are far different from their western counterparts, and hence, the difference in sources of self-efficacy from those hypothesized. This indicates the advocated (Yamauchi and Greene 1997; Klassen 2004a, b) cultural differences in the development of Academic self-efficacy. Though boys and girls do not differ too much in Mastery Experience (t = -1.19), the percent of variance it contributes to Academic self-efficacy of girls is 10.58, but it is only 6.80 among boys. Girls have better School Image (t = -8.24); its contribution to Academic self-efficacy (7.60 %) is less than that among boys (11.13 %), suggesting that academic self-efficacy in girls springs more from individualistic and that in boys spring more from collective sources. The percent of variance contributed by mastery experience to academic self-efficacy of government sample is only 6.62 but it is 10 in the case of private sample. Again, the percent of variance attributable to School Image is 8.01 only in private sample but 11.41 in government sample. Parental Encouragement occupies the second best predictor position (7.25 %) in government sample outplaying the role of Mastery Experience. It seems government school students are more reliant on the external forces in developing ability beliefs while the private school students are more self-sufficient in this respect. Parental encouragement occupies the second best predictor position in the subsamples of rural and government school students, indicating higher dependency of rural students than urban students do, and of government school students over private school

123


students, upon what they expect and receive from their parents. Verbal persuasion may be a weaker source of selfefficacy beliefs than performance outcomes but it is widely used because of its ease and ready availability (Redmond 2010), especially where opportunity for performance is limited. Findings from the study while hinting to the cultural differences in self-efficacy sources have a few limitations. Considering the power of the public exams in the qualities of reliability and validity and the fact that XIth standard students have not passed so long after this exam to attend another public exam, it would give an optimum measure of their previous achievement. However, other experiences of mastery need to be accounted as well. Further physiological sources of self-efficacy were not included in the scope of the present study. As suggested earlier, Kerala presents a unique social and educational setting, within India as well as in comparison with other economically developing countries. Further studies in non-western cultures, especially where social than individual values are preferred, on the factors that contribute to efficacy beliefs will strengthen the findings from this study. To conclude, this study corroborates observation (Usher and Pajares 2008) that the rich and complex interplay among the sources of self-efficacy and between the sources and other environmental contingencies create situations in which any given source is neither most influential nor especially predictive of self-efficacy in a particular context or with a particular group.

References Arpan, L. M., Arthur, A., & Zivnuska, S. (2003). A cognitive approach to understanding university image. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 8(2), 97–113. Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and high school completion. American Sociological Review, 56, 309–320. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of self-control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206–1222. Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larive, S. (1991). Influence of self-efficacy on self-regulation and performance among junior and senior high-school age students. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 14, 153–164. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Byer, J. L. (2002). Measuring interrelationships between graduate students’ learning perceptions and academic self-efficacy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED467601). Chin, D., & Kameoka, V. A. (2002). Psychosocial and contextual predictors of educational and occupational self-efficacy among

A validation with secondary school students of Kerala Hispanic inner-city adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24(4), 448–464. Diseth, A. (2011). Self-efficacy, goal orientations and learning strategies as mediators between preceding and subsequent academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(2011), 191–195. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.003. Dutton, J., & Dukerich, J. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Review, 34, 517–554. Eccles, J., Adler, T., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differences in achievement: A test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 26–43. Gafoor, A. K. (2001). Influence of certain parental variables on academic achievement of primary school pupils. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Calicut: University of Calicut. Gafoor, A. K., & Umer Farooque, T. K. (2006). Comparison of high and low efficient schools in terms of school, pupil and home related variables. Journal of Indian Education, 33(2), 89–105. Gainor, K. A., & Lent, R. W. (1998). Social cognitive expectations and racial identity attitudes in predicting the math choice intentions of Black college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 403–413. Graham, S. (1994). Motivation in African Americans. Review of Educational Research, 64, 55–118. Hampton, N. Z. (1998). Sources of self-efficacy scale: An assessment tool of rehabilitation counselors. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 41, 260–277. Hampton, N. Z., & Mason, E. (2003). Learning disabilities, gender, sources of efficacy, self-efficacy beliefs, and academic achievement in high school students. Journal of School Psychology, 41(2), 101–112. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ664141). Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2002). The dynamics of organizational identity. Human Relations, 55(8), 989–1018. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310–331. Jinks, J., & Morgan, V. (1999). Children’s perceived academic selfefficacy: An inventory scale. Clearing House, 72(4), 224–230. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ581375). Kazoleas, D., Kim, Y., & Moffit, M. A. (2001). Institutional image: A case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(4), 205–216. Kelly, K. R. (1993). The relation of gender and academic achievement to career self-efficacy and interests. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(2), 59–64. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ465376). Kerala State Planning Board (2010). District-wise enrolment of students in higher secondary schools (in economic review 2010). Retrieved from http://spb.kerala.gov.in/images/ec2010/chapter11/ 18.pdf. Khezri Azar, H., Lavasani, M. G., Malahmadi, E., & Amani, J. (2010). The role of self- efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting learning approaches and mathematics achievement. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 942–947. Klassen, R. M. (2004a). Optimism and realism: A review of selfefficacy from a cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 39(3), 205–230. Klassen, R. M. (2004b). A cross-cultural investigation of the efficacybeliefs of South-asian immigrant and Anglo-Canadian nonimmigrant early adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 731–742. Ku, N. (2002). A cross-cultural study on students’ belief in selfefficacy for self-regulated learning and academic achievement. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED464118.

615 Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Gover, M. R., & Nijjer, S. K. (1996). Cognitive assessment of the sources of mathematics selfefficacy: A thought-listing analysis. Journal of Career Assessment, 4(1), 33–46. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of academic performance and perceived career options. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 33(3), 265–269. Linn, M. C., & Hyde, J. S. (1989). Gender, mathematics and science. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 17–27. Lopez, F. G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Sources of mathematics selfefficacy in high school students. Career Development Quarterly, 41, 3–12. Matsui, T., Matsui, K., & Ohnishi, R. (1990). Mechanisms underlying math self-efficacy learning of college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 223–238. Meece, J. L. (1997). Child and adolescent development for educators. New York: McGraw-Hill. Milne, A. M., Meyers, D. E., Rosenthal, A. S., & Ginsburg, A. (1986). Single parents, orking mothers, and the educational achievement of elementary school children. Sociology of Education, 59, 125–139. Multon, K. D. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 30–38. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.EJ426706). Nasiriyan, A., Khezriazar, H., Dalvand, M. R., & Noruzy, A. (2011). A model of self-efficacy, task value, achievement goals, effort and mathematics achievement. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(2), 612–618. Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in students retention decisions. The International Journal of Education Management, 15(6/7), 303–311. Niebuhr, K. (1995).The effect of motivation on the relationship of school climate, family environment, and student characteristics to academic achievement (Report No. EA 027467). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED393202). Owen, S. V., & Froman, R. D. (1992). Academic self-efficacy in atrisk elementary students. Journal of Research in Education, 2(1), 3–7. Paden, N., & Stell, R. (2006). Branding options for distance learning programs: Managing the effect on university image. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 3(8), 45–54. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578. Pajares, F. (2005). Self-Efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implications for teachers and parents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education, vol. 5: Self-efficacy and adolescence (pp. 339–367). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Pajares, F. (2009). Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation: The role of self-efficacy beliefs. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 149–160). New York: Taylor & Francis. Pajares, F., Johnson, M. J., & Usher, E. L. (2007). Sources of writing self-efficacy beliefs of elementary, middle, and high school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 42, 104–120. Palacio, A. B., Meneses, G. D., & Perez, P. J. P. (2002). The configuration of the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 486–505. Phillips, D. A., & Zimmerman, M. (1990). The developmental course of perceived competence and incompetence among competent

123

616 children. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian Jr (Eds.), Competence considered. New Haven: CT Yale University Press. Redmond, B. F. (2010). Self-efficacy theory: Do I think that I can succeed in my work? Work attitudes and motivation. The Pennsylvania State University; World Campus. Retrieved from https://cms.psu.edu/. Renihan, F. I., & Renihan, P. J. (1988). Institutional image: The concept and implications for administrative action. NASSP Bulletin, 73(515), 81–90. Sakiz, G. (2007). Does teacher affective support matter? An investigationof the relationship among perceived teacher affective support, sense of belonging, academic emotions, academic self-efficacy beliefs, and academic effort in middle school mathematics classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Sakiz, G. (2011). Mastery and performance approach goal orientations in relation to academic selfefficacy beliefs and academic help seeking behaviors of college students in Turkey. Educational Research, 2(1), 771–778. Santiago, A. M., & Einarson, M. K. (1998). Background characteristics as predictors of academic self-confidence and academic self-efficacy among graduate science and engineering students. Research in higher education, 39(2), 163–198. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ565325). Schunk, D. H. (1983). Progress self-monitoring: Effects on children’s self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 51, 89–93. Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57, 149–174. Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, education, and instruction. In J. E. Maddox (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application. New York: Plenum Press. Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2005). Self-efficacy beliefs in adolescents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs in adolescents (pp. 71–96). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.

123

K. Abdul Gafoor, P. Muhammed Ashraf Seo, D., & Taherbhai, H. (2009). Motivational beliefs and cognitive processes in mathematics achievement, analyzed in the context of cultural differences: A Korean elementary school example. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10, 193–203. Sui-Chu Ho, E., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126–141. Taylor, A. R. (1991). Social competence and the early school transition: Risk and protective factors for African- American children. Educational and Urban Society, 24, 15–26. Unesco. (2010). Reaching the marginalized (p. 101). Paris: Oxford University Press. Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2006a). Inviting confidence in school: Invitations as a critical source of the academic self-efficacy beliefs of entering middle school students. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 12, 7–16. Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2006b). Sources of academic and selfregulatory efficacy beliefs of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 125–141. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ737567). Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751–796. doi:10.3102/00346543 08321456. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., MacIver, D., Reuman, D., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions at early adolescence: Changes in children’s domain-specific self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 27, 552–565. Yamauchi, L. A., & Greene, W. L. (1997). Culture, gender, and the development of perceived academic self-efficacy among Hawaiian adolescents, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED409509. Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Selfmotivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663–676.

Contextual Influences on Sources of Academic Self-efficacy

Recommend Documents