Cognition and Instruction/Social Cognitive Theory

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
< Cognition and Instruction
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Albert Bandura Psychologist

Albert Bandura's social cognitive theory views learning as occurring within a social context and regards humans as self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting and self-regulating.[1] Social cognitive theory categorizes the factors in human development as environmental, behavioral, and cognitive. It portrays development as emerging from the dynamic interplay of these three types of factors. Building on Bandura's earlier focus on observation and modeling as a source of learning, social cognitive theory describes how the belief in one's competence to succeed at a task, known as self-efficacy, strongly affects learning outcome.[2]

Reciprocal Determinism[edit]

Screen Shot 2015-11-27 at 1.29.47 PM.png

Bandura considers his model of reciprocal determinism as a way to explain how an individual’s behavior both influences and is influenced by both personal characteristics and the social world. Bandura’s reciprocal determinism model also explains that learning is the result of interacting variables. His model involves three components, personal, behavioral, and environmental factors that interact and influence each other. These three components are considered to function as interdependent rather than autonomous determinants, thus maintaining the fact that the they are conditional of each other. Personal factors include beliefs and attitudes of the individual. To apply this to a learning environment, one would say that the personal beliefs and attitudes of the learner would affect their own learning. If they were previously rewarded for a certain behavior in a certain situation, for instance, they are more likely to repeat that scenario. The behavioral component of learning can consist of responses one makes in a given situation such as one's response to a low test score with either frustration or an increased effort. Finally, environmental factors such as roles played by parents, teachers and peers can have an effect on an individual’s behavior and self-beliefs, which consequently impact their learning. Given the importance of this three components of Bandura’s model, we focus on the personal factors such beliefs about the self, and how it can affect behaviors and the interpretation of environmental cues. The model of reciprocal determinism will thus be considered in each section of this chapter.

Self-efficacy[edit]

self efficacy factors

Since self-concept and self-efficacy, though distinct constructs, are related in their conception and in their effects on student achievement, consideration is given first to the literature on self-concept as a basis for observations on self-efficacy. Self-concept is generally viewed as an assessment of self-worth deriving from comparisons with the past performance of self and the performance of others.[3][4] Self-efficacy tends to be conceptualized as a context-specific assessment of one’s competence to perform a specific task. Self-efficacy theory suggests that feelings of self-efficacy have their origins in experiences of success or failure that arise through attempts to master actual tasks. In brief, Self-efficacy is how the individual perceives ones own abilities and the level of confidence for achieving goals from the perceived abilities. There are three domains of self-efficacy that differentiates in: task difficulty, generality of one's self-efficacy (self-efficacy in one domain is not consistent with self-efficacy in another domain), strength of one's efficacy judgments. Within those three domains, there are four factors that Bandura stated to effect self-efficacy. These factors are enactive mastery, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological and effective state. Enactive mastery is related to the knowledge that an individual has obtained from pervious experience. For example, if an individual has achieved mastery in math they are more likely to have a high self-efficacy. Achieving mastery contributes to the individual’s perception of ones ability in completing a task. Vicarious experience is watching others and learning from what was watched[5]. For example, if an individual watches a classmate or teacher demonstrate an equation on the board they may feel their ability to the problem on their own has increased. There will be more discussion related to this in the section entitled enactive and vicarious learning. Another factor is verbal persuasion which is having an individual convince another that they are capable of completing a task. Having another person or classmate tell another that they have the ability to do well on a task or encourage them, might boost their confidence and their perception of their ability on a task. The final factor, physiological state, can effect the individual’s self-efficacy. For example, if an individual is tired due to a lack of sleep, their perception of their ability to complete a math task might be low. Even though they normally have high self-efficacy in math. These four factors as well as others affect the individual’s self-efficacy.[6][7] As self-efficacy is closely related to the concept of reciprocal determinism in ways that the personal, environmental, social aspects influence self-efficacy and vice versa, this part of the chapter will look closely at the different aspects and implications of self-efficacy and factors that will correlate with each other.

Agency[edit]

Agency refers to simply the capacity of a person to act in any given environment. When it comes to learning, agency and performance are closely related, since agency involves the individual's willingness to engage in academic tasks. Agency is characterized by number of core features that operate within human consciousness and influences the nature and quality of one's life and learning. Social cognitive theory distinguishes among three modes of agency: direct personal agency, proxy agency that relies on others to act on one's behest to secure desired outcomes, and collective agency which is exercised through socially coordinated and interdependent effort.[8] As defined by Bandura, efficacy beliefs form the foundation of human agency as people need to believe that they can produce results by their own actions, individuals who have agency are intrinsically motivated to perform and may need very little or no external incentives; Bandura (2007)[9] refers to this subjective operative capabilities. For example, a person with high self‐efficacy would be confident in his/her ability to perform a given task successfully. In order to fulfill and maintain the condfidence, the person would exert greater effort in completing a difficult goal‐related tasks if he/she feels confident that the task would be successfully completed. Individuals with high self-efficacy, need to believe that challenges can be met and overcome. Self-efficacy beliefs usually affect cognitive functioning through the joint influence of motivational and information-processing operations. For example, this dual influence is illustrated in studies of different sources of variation in memory performance. The stronger people's beliefs in their memory capacities, the more effort they devote to cognitive processing of memory tasks, which, in turn, enhances their memory performances. However, efficacy in dealing with one's environment is not a fixed act or simply a matter of knowing what to do. People are neither autonomous agents nor simply mechanical conveyers of the environmental influences. Rather, they make causal contribution to their own motivation and action, which involves a generative capability in which cognitive, social, and behavioral skills must be organized into integrated action. Perceived self-efficacy helps to account for such diverse phenomena such as changes in coping behavior produced by different modes of influence. The stronger their perceived self-efficacy, the higher the goals people set for themselves and the firmer their commitment. These include the temporal extension of agency through intentions and thought, self-regulation, and self-reflection about one's capabilities, quality of abilities, and the meaning and purpose of one's life pursuits. In causal tests, the higher the level of induced self-efficacy, the higher the performance accomplishments and the lower the emotional arousal.[10] Among the mechanisms of personal agency, none is more central or pervasive than people's beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over events that affect their lives. Self-efficacy beliefs function as an important set of proximal determinants of human motivation, affect, and action. So far, the discussion has centered on efficacy activated processes that enable people to create beneficial environments and to exercise control over them. Judgments of personal efficacy also affect selection of environments. People tend to avoid activities and situations they believe exceed their coping capabilities, but they readily undertake challenging activities and select social environments they judge themselves capable of handling. They operate on action through motivational, cognitive, and affective intervening processes. Some of these processes, such as affective arousal and thinking patterns, are of considerable interest in their own right and not just as intervening influencers of action.[11] Those who argue that people do not exercise any control over their motivation and action usually emphasize that external events influence judgments and actions, but neglect the portion of causation showing that the environmental events are partially shaped by people's actions. In the model of reciprocal causation, people partly determine the nature of their environment and are influenced by it. Self-regulatory functions are personally constructed from varied experiences and not simply environmentally implanted. Among the mechanisms of human agency, beliefs of personal efficacy is also very pervasive and other factors serve more as guides and motivators, as they are rooted in the core belief that one has the power to produce what one desires. Do beliefs of personal efficacy contribute to human functioning? If it was otherwise people would have little incentive or motivation to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties. This core belief affect whether individuals think in self-enhancing or self-debilitating ways, how well they motivate themselves and persevere in the face of difficulties, the quality of their emotional well-being and their vulnerability to stress and depression, and the choices they make at important decisional points. The critique for this theory comes from this aspect since self-efficacy beliefs operate in concert with goal systems of self-regulation in contrast to the focus of control theory on discrepancy reduction. As evaluated by 9 meta-analyses for the effect sizes of self-efficacy beliefs and by the vast body of research on goal setting, contradicts findings that belief in one’s capabilities and personal goals is self-debilitating. [12]

Outcome Expectation[edit]

Selfbeliefs.png

Studies of the relationship between self-beliefs and performance tend to draw on this or related theories and usually endorse the notion of reciprocal determinism at a theoretical level which can also set the basis for self-efficacy level. However, attempts to model this mutual influence of self-beliefs and performance are few and are focused on the relationship between self-concept and performance. Comparisons are made between those who overestimate how well they will perform (over-estimators), those who underestimate their level of performance (under-estimators) and those who have an accurate perception of their performance level (accurate estimators) to determine how the three groups differ.[13] If differences exist then recommendations can be made to improve the accuracy of self-estimates, and thereby improve the efficacy of such measures. A key consideration is what differentiates those that are able to accurately self-assess from those that produce erroneous self-assessments. Feedback is also a very important factor in building outcome expectation and self-efficacy. Athanasou (2005) identified three key sources of feedback used by people in deriving self-estimates: social messages, personal factors and situational factors. Social messages were sources of information derived from interaction with others. Three types of social messages influenced self-evaluation: comparisons we make of ourselves with others, feedback we receive from others, and the social and cultural stereotypes.[14] Results from the above study indicated four main areas of feedback sources, and a positive relationship between ability and accuracy of self-estimates. Learning goal orientation and use of feedback were positively related; however their effects on accuracy of self-assessment were contrary to those hypothesized. Analyses indicated a positive relationship between ability and accuracy of self-assessments. However, over-estimators recorded higher levels of confidence, learning goal orientation and usefulness of feedback than the other groups.Most studies report the relationship between estimates of ability and actual ability to be only moderate.[15] Thus the reciprocal determinism of self-efficacy and performance seems to be without direct empirical support, probably because the longitudinal, repeated-measures data often considered necessary for this purpose are not available. It is possible, though, to model reciprocal effects with cross-sectional data. In the analyses reported in an article, the authors achieved this using a structural model in which the mutual influence of self-efficacy and performance in mathematics is represented as a feedback loop. This model was estimated in each of 33 nations on the basis of data on the mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics achievement of 15-year-olds.  First, the reciprocal determinism of mathematics self-efficacy and achievement was supported in 26 of the 30 nations, providing empirical support for this proposition as an explanation for the observed relationship between mathematics self-efficacy and achievement.  The model was a good fit to the data in 30 nations and was supportive of reciprocal determinism in 24 of these, suggesting a fundamental psychological process that transcends national and cultural boundaries. Such evidence can suggest the link between culture which is an example of environmental factors correlated to self-efficacy and performance. [16] Taken together, these findings provide persuasive support for Bandura's contention that self-beliefs and performance iteratively modify each other until the individual comes to a realistic appraisal of his or her self-worth or competence relative to the (mathematics) tasks at hand.

Goal Orientation[edit]

According to Locke and Latham (2002), ‘A goal is the object or aim of an action, for example, to attain a specific standard of proficiency, usually within a specified time limit'.[17] Elliot (1997) sees goals as cognitive representations that guide individual behaviour by focusing on specific outcomes. These definitions have a common thread that they suggest goal‐setting is based on purposeful conscious human behavior.[18] Thus, a goal is that which an individual hopes to reach or attain through purposeful behavior. Goal orientation refers to the mental framework that influences how people approach situations of achievement in terms of interpreting the situation and motivation to achieve. Past research suggests that goal orientation may be treated as either an individual trait or a situational characteristic. Button, Mathieu and Zajac (1996) claimed that goal orientation has both the dispositional and situational components.[19] College students who hold a strong learning goal orientation are more likely to pursue challenging activities and to exert greater effort when presented with a difficult class, topic, or activity. this mastery pattern is adaptive in an academic setting and leads to a higher level of achievement.[20] There are two types of goal orientation: performance orientation, where the aim of completing a task is to gain favorable judgments of one’s performance; and learning orientation, where the aim is to gain knowledge. Theoretically these orientations produce different behaviors. Individuals with a performance orientation are more likely to avoid challenges and pressure because that might increase the likelihood of failure and consequently be judged negatively by others. For people with performance orientation, their aim is on the performance and external reinforcement components such as positive feedback and judgment on their work or grades in school and taking risks that will result in negative feedback or bad grades lower their motivation to challenge tasks. In contrast individuals with a learning orientation seek out challenges and maintain their motivation even under difficult conditions, for them, failure is also a form of useful feedback. For learners with learning orientation, the process itself is also reward for learning and the result of succeeding or not does not effect them very much because they are more focused on gaining the knowledge which ironically often results in good external feedback and results as well.[21] Button et al., (1996) concluded from their investigations that learning and performance goal orientations were not mutually exclusive, each goal orientation represent a different end of a continuum. Self-efficacious students are better goal setters, because of their willingness to set “close” rather than “distant” goals and the ability to set one's own goals; also it has been shown that these students have an enhance self-efficacy. This also implies that student‐initiated goals and related achievement can be important to the subsequent establishment of challenging goals being applied to complex situations. In other words, perceptions of higher levels of control and goal commitment (self‐efficacy beliefs and a willingness to engage in important goal tasks) influence an individual’s willingness to set difficult goals[11].

Task Engagement[edit]

Self-efficacy is linked with the initial task engagement, persistence of task engagement, and successful performance. In self-efficacy, first setting the goal from the level of self-perceived performance expectation leads to how the student will approach and engage in a task. There seems to be two aspects to task engagement: the first is the willingness or the level of motivation to engage in a given tasks and the second aspect would be the actual attitude and behavior of engaging in the certain tasks. One’s ability and willingness to establish challenging yet achievable goals is necessary to evaluate options, make decisions, plan and achieve meaningful accomplishments. A willingness to take on important goal‐related tasks and have positive self‐efficacy beliefs were associated with those who reported a readiness to set difficult goals.  This suggests that an individual, who experiences a general sense of autonomy, may likely extend this perspective to specific situations. Inversely, an individual who experiences a low general sense of autonomy may perceive less autonomy in specific situations.  A sense of having autonomy, for example, through the opportunity to choose, is related to confidence in one’s ability to complete a task successfully.[22] Individuals, who perceive a margin of control in their lives, might take on difficult goal‐related tasks, since they likely feel confident in affecting outcomes. An individual’s sense of having some control in life as supported by choice is positively related to a sense of self‐efficacy and a willingness to engage in important goal tasks. By its very nature, goal‐setting invokes task effort that may include planning in order to increase the probability of success. Goal‐setting is thus a key component in self‐regulation (Locke & Latham, 2002) and can facilitate learning.  Results suggest that before males engage in challenging goal attainment they must perceive themselves as self‐efficacious, whereas females are inspired by tasks that are important to them. If the tasks are important, so are the goals, regardless of their difficult nature.  One’s ability and willingness to establish challenging yet achievable goals is necessary to evaluate options, make decisions, plan and achieve meaningful accomplishments. For example, in two studies, one with undergraduate university students and the other with high school students, Sideridis (2001) found the important task of maintaining a high GPA contributed to normative beliefs in the goal, importance of effort, intention to achieve the goal and positive study behaviors such as organizing and planning, which resulted in satisfaction over the long term.[23] These studies suggest the saliency of goal‐setting and self‐efficacy in academic achievement. They also imply that student‐initiated goals and related achievement can be important to the subsequent establishment of challenging goals being applied to complex situations. The literature indicates that an individual’s sense of having some control in life as supported by choice is positively related to a sense of self‐efficacy and a willingness to engage in important goal tasks.

Persistence[edit]

Persistence is defined as the act of perseverance in spite of obstacles and frustrations. Although the persistence of an individual can be respective to a variety of factors, it is found that the level of self-efficacy in an individual amounts to the extent of persistence in an individual. As self-efficacy refers to the degree of confidence of one’s ability to succeed at a task, the strength of one’s perceived efficacy accompanied by motivation highly corresponds to the extent to which they persist in a given task. In an observational study made by Hackett and Betz (1981), it was hypothesized that efficacy expectations are associated to the degree of persistence that lead to success in an educational setting. Their study ultimately found that both level and strength of self-efficacy for educational requirements were generally related to persistence and successful academic outcome in students [24]. Motivation is another determining factor that contributes to an individual’s persistence. A logistic regression analyses and general linear modelling approach was applied to predicting persistence and academic success in students. In both cases of academic motivation on persistence and academic success, it was proven that amotivation was the single significant motivational predictor in the final models [25]. These results are associated with the level of self-efficacy of the participants as the level of their motivation also seems to branch from the level of their self-efficacy.

Case Study: In another study done by Taylor and Betz (1983), self-efficacy was measured in relation to the tasks required in career decision making. This study was aimed to investigate the theory of self-efficacy beliefs tied with academic success and persistence in students who were considering careers in the science and engineering field. It was discovered that college students’ efficacy expectations were dependent on the degree of their career indecision; students who were indecisive about their career path were less confident in their ability to complete the tasks required to make career decisions, and those who had decided on their career path experienced the reverse. The expectations of self-efficacy in completing their education for their specific technical/scientific careers were acquired at the beginning, at the end, and two months following a ten week academic course in career planning. The strengths of individual self-efficacy was then assessed by having students give an estimate of their level of confidence in ability to complete these requirements and duties for career performance. Other correlations that were used to measure the relationship between self-efficacy and academic success included the individual’s Math PSAT scores and high school rank and it was found that self-efficacy for technical/scientific educational requirements appeared to be related to objective measures of mathematical aptitude and high school academic achievement. According to Bandura, performance accomplishments are hypothesized to be an influential factor in self-efficacy; based on this notion, the subjects’ knowledge of their previous academic performance and aptitude test scores may have had a part in determining their efficacy expectations [26]. On the other hand, the relationship between measured and perceived ability did not correlate, which in turn suggests that the appeal of studying both efficacy expectation and objective ability as they can contribute to the understanding of career-relevant outcomes. Further work can be done in determining a causal connection between self-efficacy and particular academic behaviors with factors such as objective ability and incentive for performance can be considered in this context.

As much of previous studies on self-efficacy were based on the examination of targets problems, such as phobias, and performance criteria, like behavioral avoidance tests, this particular investigation looked at self-efficacy in various different levels and sets of academic behaviors. The expectations were not confined to an educational setting, but branched out into the consideration of occupational fields titles. The fact that significant relations were found with such variable and nonspecific factors suggests that “self-efficacy may be a relatively robust and flexible model that may help to explain complex as well as relatively discrete behaviors” [27]. Overall, this study resulted in the confirmation of the strength of efficacy expectations in relation to persistence and success in major choice.


Strategy use[edit]

Strategy use is a significant factor in determining the level of self-efficacy in individuals and vice versa. The use of strategy enables students to regulate their behavior and be in control of their learning environment, thus putting a significance on self-regulation in establishing a connection to successful uses of strategy with positive outcomes. Furthermore, the different strategies used by an individual is strongly dependent on their perception of academic efficacy as well as some factors of reciprocal feedback through teachers. According to Zimmerman, students use strategies to regulate three foundational aspects for learning: their personal functioning, academic behavioral performance, and their learning environments [28]. Personal regulation are strategies such as organization, rehearsal, memorizing, goal setting and planning; strategies that are geared towards enhancing behavioral functioning are things such as self-evaluation and self-consequating; and finally, strategies that include students to seek information, keep records and seeking assistance can improve students’ immediate learning environment. For those students who are successful in self-regulation seem to have a general understanding of the environment on themselves and hold the ability to improve that environment through the use of strategy. To better understand students’ use of these self-regulated learning strategies and the factors that affect motivation for strategy use, we can take a look at Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons’ study conducted in 1986. This study was aimed at measuring students’ self-regulated learning strategies through the Self-Regulated Learning Interview Schedule (SLRIS). The results found that the measures of strategy use were highly correlated with students’ academic achievement [29]; additionally, perceptions of self-efficacy also acted as a determinant of strategy use.

Case Study: The SLRIS that Zimmerman and Martinez-Pon used in their study measured strategy use by asking students to report the methods they used in various learning contexts. Two multiple regression analyses were conducted in order to determine students’ perception of academic efficacy in relation to self-regulated learning strategies. These learning strategies were then used to predict both verbal and mathematical efficacy, where verbal self-efficacy was related to the individual’s use of strategies such as organization, reviewing notes and seeking peer assistance and mathematical self-efficacy had similar results, with the exception of seeking adult assistance which was negatively correlated. Final results on the strategy use of students indicate that “the achievement of these students in school indicates that a triadic model of self-regulation may have merit for training students to become more effective learners” [30].

In providing individuals with the necessary tools for efficient strategy use, Zimmerman proposes an academic self-regulation model called the SRL model. The theory behind this model outlines how teachers can aid students in becoming more engaged in their learning and lead to improvement in academic performance. The SRL model makes use of an feedback cycle consisting of three phases: planning, practice, and evaluation. In the planning phase, students will have a chance to carefully assess their academic environment and pick a strategy that can most efficiently address their learning goals. During the practice phase, students can implement their chosen strategy and make ongoing adjustments to the plan as they go, also giving them the opportunity to self-monitor their progress. Finally, in the evaluation phase, students can evaluate the effective of each strategy that was used to help obtain their learning goals. This model can be useful in to providing individuals with the necessary techniques to regulate their academic behaviors and control their learning environment.

Effort[edit]

Self-regulation strategies alongside self-efficacy successively help maintain the level of effort put forth by an individual. Volition is represented in effort regulation which describes one’s willingness towards a given task. Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) reported that individuals who demonstrate the successful use of self-regulation strategies and hold a high degree of self-efficacy were likely to succeed academically; this demonstrates that self-efficacy helps maintain volition and those who are successful in doing so consequently appear to promote the use of self-regulation strategies [31]. Zimmerman’s Model of of Self-Regulatory Process explains that learners regulate and maintain their concentration, attention and motivation so that they can learn efficiently and achieve their determined goal [32]. Based on this, there exists a three stage model of self-regulation that includes three cyclical phases involved in the self-relation process: a forethought phase, a volitional or performance control phase, and a self-reflection phase. When a student is engaged in a task, their learning behavior is supported by volitional/performance control. They then regulate themselves by strategies such as maintaining concentration, attention and motivation. The last stage to this model is the reflection on learning outcomes. This reflection helps individuals in maintaining the motivation needed to maintain and improve on their performance for future academic success.

Throughout the three stages mentioned, the phase of volition and performance control is a significant factor in looking at effort. When individuals set an initial learning goal in the stage of forethought they are then needed to regulate themselves and use strategies that can allow them to reach their goal. One of the learning strategies used includes effort regulation which is then represented through volition. Furthermore, as motivation is associated with effort and volition, it can then be seen as an essential construct of self-efficacy which ultimately fosters effort regulation. Zimmerman suggests that it is crucial for educators to understand the importance of learners developing self-efficacy because this can positively affect effort regulation strategy use; in order to promote self-efficacy teachers can help learners experience personal mastery experiences such as observing peers, repeated successful experiences and positive feedback that will allow them to improve their effort regulation strategies as manifested by volition [33]. In addition to these ideas, Onoda’s results of examining the relationship between self-efficacy and effort regulation strategy use determined that self-efficacy indeed significantly influenced effort regulation strategy use [34]. Through a series of questions based on the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire created by Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie (1993), it was discovered that self-efficacy developed through previous learning experiences was a determining factor in employing effort regulation as well as their ability to control their learning behavior for successful learning.

Enactive and Vicarious learning[edit]

Enactive and vicarious learning represent two different ways of acquiring knowledge [35]. Enactive learning occurs when one learn something by doing it; and vicarious learning refers to the learning that occurs when one observes others perform a task. Enactive learning, because it involves active engagement on a task, may appear to be most important because students can learn the steps to perform a task successfully; however it can also lead to a trial and error cycle if the student do not possess the knowledge required to perform the task. On the other hand, vicarious learning might seem more time effective because one does not actively perform the task and therefore there is no risk for errors, but at the same time it requires students to use more cognitive abilities such as focusing attention on the model that is being observed, and retaining the information intended to be learned. [36] In spite of these differences, much of the learning happens enactively and vicariously; in mathematics for example, students first need to learn the theoretical knowledge of how to solve a problem before they attend to do it. In fact when both types of knowledge are used, the chances for errors is significantly reduced.[37]

When discussing vicarious learning it is important to distinguish between learning and performance. Although learning might occur by observing a model, performance on a task might depend in several other factors such as motivation, interest, confidence, and several other factors. Self-efficacy might also play an important role in performance of a task that was previously learned by observation. As previously mentioned, self–efficacy is a judgement of one’s ability to perform a task in a specific domain. [38] A student who has high levels of self-efficacy, is more likely to perform a task that was learned vicariously. One important question to ask is whether observational learning can improve the self-efficacy of students. Braaksma. M. H and his colleagues claim that indeed the relation between observational learning and self-efficacy can be influenced by the perceive similarities between a student and the model; this means that students who can identify with a model are more likely to learn from observation and increase their self-efficacy. [39]

Because self-efficacy is domain-specific, Braaksma. M. H and his colleagues (2002) [40] examined whether if students could learn more efficiently when observing a model that has more share similarities to them compared to models that are more different. The study involved a written task where participants observed peer models write argumentative texts. The authors separated the participants into three conditions: participants who observed a competent model, those who observed a non-competitive model, and a control group where participants just did the written task without observing any model. Results from this study show that students who were weak at writing benefit more from observing the writing of non-competent models, and strong students benefit more from observing competent models. The results from this study show that perceived model identification is important. The author offer several reasons for this results, perhaps the results can be explained better by individual's need for social comparison and identification. [41] It might be the case that participants who were stronger writers identify more with competent writers since both have more things in common, such as writing style and error recognition. [42]


Another interesting finding from this study is that participants who were considered strong writers benefit from both observation and performance of the written task. According to the authors, strong writers possessed previous information about writing and are probably able to divide their attention between learning and performing. In contrast weak writers, since they might not possess enough information about the task, were unable to do this. Hoover, J. D., Giambatista, R. C., & Belkin, L. Y. (2012) [43] offer some further support for this finding. In their study participants were divided into two conditions: observation-performance, and performance only. The task in this study was a more complicated one compared to the study previously described; it involved negotiation between a buyer and a seller. Participants in the observation-performance condition were able to solve the negotiation problem more effectively than the performance alone condition. Together these findings point out that Vicarious or observation learning can increase performance and consequently raise the self-efficacy of students.

The results from both of these studies described above may have important implications for learning. On the one hand, Braaksma, M. H., et al study (2002) [44]. show the importance of share similarities between models and students. In classrooms, teachers might enhance the learning of their students by asking a student to perform a task infront of his other peers. In math learning for example, a teacher may ask someone who seem to understand the procedures of solving a specific problem to come to the blackboard and solve the problem so everyone could see. By observing peers solving a math problem, students might feel more identified with the model since both share similar characteristics such as level of intelligence, student roles, and even physical characteristics. On the other hand, Hoover, J. D., et al (2012) [45] study show that learning can be enhanced when observation and performance are combined. in classrooms, teachers might ask volunteers to try to solve a similar problem after observing the performance of other students. Observation, can also be important in the classroom because students might also get motivated to try to solve a task after observing one of their peers performance.

Modelling[edit]

The results from the studies described above suggest that modeling plays an essential role in learning; in a classroom for instance, students can learn from the performance of teachers and peers on a math problems; However not all models are the same; In Braaksma. M. .H; et al (2002) [46] study, Strong writers benefit more from observing competent models and weaker writer from observing non-competent models. These results suggest that observational learning might depend somehow on specific characteristics of the model. These results also suggest that similarities between learners and models can be essential for learning. For instance in schools, students might learn more effectively from the performance of peers on a math problem. As it was mentioned in the previous section,there are several explanations for the fact that students are more likely to learn from other students compared to less similar models such as teachers or older peers; one reason is identification; students recognize and identify with the characteristics they share with a peer model. Another reason is social comparison where students compare themselves to peer models; and a final reason might be related toSelf-evaluation, that is when students use others as a standard to evaluate themselves. [47] Similarly modelling also serve different functions; according to Bandura (as cited by Schunk, H, D; 2012) [48] there are three main functions of modeling: to facilitate responses, disinhibit student's responses, and provide observational learning. In a classroom students might feel more motivated to participate in a discussion when they see other peers doing the same, and might feel more confident to do so.

Another function of modelling is that it provides the necessary strategies that enhance learning such as active engagement and participation [49]. Improving Classroom Learning by simultaneously Observing Human Tutoring Videos while Problem Solving might be more effective than either watching a video or solving a problem alone [50]; furthermore it is important to encourage students to ask questions, discuss, and use examples to self-explain the material, in oth words it is important o actively involve students in their learning. Craig et al (2009) [51] emphasize the importance of active observation in learning. Active observation refers to observing that facilitates engagement with the material so as to facilitate deeper processing (Chi et al; 2008 as cited in Craig et al; 2009) [52]. In a study intended to explore the impact of collaboration on learning, Participants were divided into two conditions; the collaborative observing tutoring where students watch a video of a tutor teaching a student how to solve a problem, and a worked example where students watch a video of a tutor giving and performing the instructions of how to solve a problem. Participants were given a physics problem to solve right after they watch the videos and again 26 days after they watch the video. The results show no difference in score in the immediate post-test, but students in the collaborative observing tutoring score higher when the task was applied 26 days later. These results suggest that modelling provides essential strategies for effective learning such scaffolding and explanations in order to promote long-term retention of knowledge. [53]

Results of this studies can be easily applied to classrooms. As mentioned in the previous section, teachers can not only enhanced immediate learning by assigning a student to demonstrate how a problem is solved in front of the classroom, but also encourage retention of knowledge. Given that perceived similarities depend on specific characteristics of a model, students might be more complying to look at other students as an extension of their own capabilities. When a student is more skillful at solving a particular problem than another, perceived similarities may play an important role since, a less skill individual might feel more motivated to perform at the same level as the hihly-skill peer. In contrast when a model is perceived to be less similar, such as teaches or older peers,the student's motivation to achieve at the same level might suffer Braaksma, M. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2002)[54].



Teacher efficacy[edit]

In classrooms, teachers and students are equally affected by beliefs about their own abilities to perform a task. In the case of teachers, the beliefs are about their own capability to teach [55] Teacher efficacy can be influenced by several factors such as classroom experiences, relation with colleagues, and even school settings. [56] Knoblauch, D., & Chase, M. A. (2015) show that teachers have lower sense of efficacy in urban areas, tAhis was perhaps because of the challenges that urban teaching represent. Teacher efficacy has a great impact on student’s learning. [57] Teacher efficacy is associated with effective classroom management, efficient teaching methods, and greater student’s achievements. [58] Teachers with high self-efficacy can influence student’s performance in several ways; they can encourage mastery experiences, provide verbal persuasion, and give informational feedback (Holzberger, D., et al 2015) [59] In summary, at schools, teachers with high self-efficacy can be fabulous models for students since they can not only raise their academic success but also enhance their learning by providing effective instructions.

In one longitudinal study conducted by Holzberger, D., et al (2015) [60] intended to explore the relation between teacher efficacy and the quality of instructions, students and teachers complete some test intended to measure teacher efficacy (social interaction with kids, and coping with job stress) and quality of instructions (cognitive activation, and mastery experiences). The tests were applied at the end of grade 9 and then again at the end of grade ten in order to measure changes in teacher efficacy or quality of instructions. Results show that scores in teacher efficacy measures change over the course of a year, it either improve or decrease depending on external variables such as student’s achievement and curriculum changes. Regarding quality of instructions, scores did not change between time 1 and time 2 suggesting that teacher efficacy and instructional quality are independent of each other and might be explained by other variables such as motivation to keep their jobs. It is important to notice that these results do not imply that teacher efficacy is irrelevant to learning. Even though this study might not show a relation between teacher efficacy and instructional quality, teacher efficacy is associated with other strategies that can enhance learning such as verbal persuasion and provision of feedback Schunk, H, D; 2012) [61].


Another interesting feature that characterized teachers with high levels of self efficacy is related to agency. As previously mentioned, agency is the willingness of a person to act in any given environment. Because at schools, often, there are situations that teachers can control such as classroom management, and situations that teachers cannot control like curriculum demands, teacher efficacy involve the ability to act on those features that can be control. At the begginning of this section, it was established that teacher efficacy is related to effective classroom management, and efficient study methods, these are features that are under the control of teachers. Teachers with high levels of efficacy focus on the things they can control while being aware of the situations that are out of their control (the figure shown below state some other situations that teachers can an cannot control).


According to Bandura (as cited in Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. 1990) [62] the motivation of teachers to manage the classroom and use efficient teaching strategies depend on two factors: outcome expectation and efficacy factors. Efficacy factors refer to individual beliefs that one is capable to perform effectively on a task; in contrast, Outcome expectation refers to individual's judgement about the likelyhood that a positive or negative outcome might happen. Teacher efficacy is a combination of these two factors, for instance a teacher who believe that she can greatly impact the learning of her students (personal efficacy), is more likely to believe that her effort s will result in a positive outcome (outcome expectation).


In a study, Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990) intended to explore the relation between personal efficacy, outcome expectation, and classroom management. Participants in the study did a bunch of questionnaires intended to measure personal efficacy, teachers' outcome expectation, and strategies for classroom management. The results show a complex relation between these variables; overall, the results show that teachers who have higher personal efficacy tend to have positive views about outcomes and therefore use more humanistic strategies such as coperative interactions and direct experiences. In contrast, teachers with a lower sense of personal efficacy tend to hold negative predictions about outcomes, and use more rigid and highly control environments in order to manage the classroom. Similarly, teachers with high personal efficacy have more positive views about teaching than teachers with lower efficacy, and therefore spend more effort to encourage intrinsic motivation on their students whereas teachers with lower efficacy tend to use rigid control strategies to elicit specific behaviors on their students [63] The results from this study clearly show that teacher efficacy is a complex construct that involve a combination of personal efficacy and the general beliefs about teaching. these results can serve to explain the findings from Holzberger, D., et al (2015) [64] study. The fact instructional quality can remains the same overtime regardless of teachers'level of efficacy can result from a change in individuals beliefs about teaching but not in the beliefs about personal efficacy. teachers may still belief that they are capable of teaching because of the extrinsic rewards and therefore adopt more controlling strategies; but on the other hand, their intrinsic motivation to teach might be affected.

Collective Efficacy[edit]

So far we have discussed self-efficacy, enactive and vicarious learning, teacher-efficacy and how they are related to the reciprocal determinism. This part of the chapter is going to explore the concept of group efficacy. First there is a distinction that needs to be made between collective efficacy and group efficacy. Collective efficacy is each individual group member's perception of how well the group will do on the task[65]. Thus each group member could have a different collective efficacy based on their perception of the groups ability. Whereas group efficacy is the whole group's perception of how well the group will do on the task[66]. This would include each group member holding the same efficacy This difference is small but is important when interpreting data results. The following discussion will look at collective efficacy, performance goals, group performance, group cohesion, social lofting and school efficacy.

Bandura argued that collective efficacy is related to self-efficacy. He suggested that the four factors that influence self-efficacy also influence collective efficacy. These factors are enactive mastery, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological and effective state. He also emphasized social comparison, social influences, mix of knowledge, and past group performance which influence more specifically collective efficacy. Making references to reciprocal determinism these factors each fall under either personal, behavioural or environmental [67]. Enactive mastery and mix of knowledge are personal factors. They are both related to knowledge that the individual already has which contributes to their feeling of being competent to complete a group task. Vicarious and social comparison are related to modelling which was discussed earlier. These behavioural factors influence collective efficacy. Verbal persuasion, physiological and affect states, and social influences are all related to environmental factors. Socially, these affect how the individual perceives his/her capability to complete a group task. Each of these factors contribute to collective efficacy. Each of these factors interact with one another and together affect collective and group efficacy.

Group Performance/ Performance Goals[edit]

Collective efficacy, group performance and performance goals are important aspects to examine. Collectively, research has shown that collective efficacy is related to group performance [68] A higher sense of collective efficacy produces better performance on the task. Those students who perform well on group tasks often have higher collective efficacy than those who do not [69]. For example, if a group is given the task to create a board game, and they have a high collective efficacy they are more likely to perform well. If the performance was done well it would be reflected in the grade or assessment that took place after the project. A way to improve collective efficacy and performance is through setting goals. In addition to group performance, the goals that a group sets are important, too. Research shows that when there are specific goals; overall performance and efficacy is higher than when there are no goals or they are non specific [70]. For example, a teacher might divide the students up into teams and get them to build the highest tower. Here the teacher has set a specific goal which is to build the highest tower. Since students are given a specific goal they should perform well overall than if they were given the instruction to “do your best” when building a tower. As well as making the goals specific it is also important to make them challenging. However, making them too difficult and too easy was negatively correlated with group performance [71] Thus, teachers need to take into consideration of the level of the students and their capabilities when setting group goals. For example, giving kindergarteners the task of designing a science experiment is too difficult for them, but giving the same task to fourth graders would be more appropriate. Once group goals are set, the group needs to make a commitment to these goals. Research shows that if a group has high efficacy they are more likely to commit to their goals [72]. This makes sense considering that if the students perceive that the task needs to be attended to, has specific goals, and feels that they are capable of completing the project, they are more likely to be committed to the project. Higher commitment is also shown to correlate with persisting when difficulties arise in the project[73]. Further discussion on persistence was discussed earlier in the chapter. Students need specific, challenging goals, and to make a commitment to these goals in order to achieve high collective efficacy and high group performance.

Another aspect is whether a task requires high interdependence or low interdependence. If a task has high interdependence, the group members are more likely to rely on one another and develop a higher group efficacy [74]An example of this would be a group project that consists of performing a skit. The members have to rely one on another to perform the skit and all members have to be present when performing the skit. Whereas, a group that has low interdependence are more likely to not rely on group members and will have a lower group efficacy. An example of a group project would be the creation of this Wiki book. Although each of us are in a group and each group is creating a chapter we must likely divide the chapters up. This allows for each member to do their own part and not have to rely on other group members. In addition, at the end of the project we are getting marked individually. This project overall promote lower group efficacy.  

Group Cohesion[edit]

Another way to increase collective efficacy is making sure the group has cohesion.Group’s cohesion,is defined as an attraction to group members and each group member wants to work with the others[75]. It can also be defined as group members who are interested in the same subject or have a collective mind. Higher group cohesiveness is an important predictor of group performance [76]. Thus the more cohesive the group, the better they will perform, and the higher the collective efficacy they will have. In order to achieve group cohesion a teacher should allow students to pick their groups. This would address the aspect of each group member wanting to work together. However, it should be emphasized the group’s goals and the expectation of the group this will promote commitment and collective efficacy. In addition, one of the downfalls of group work is that the students get off task. A study that observed high school adolescents found that they were able to complete group work while staying on task, whereas elementary school children were more likely to become off task. This could be due to the seating arrangements. In elementary school they are more likely to sit in groups, and have a lot of opportunity to interact with each other in informal situations thus making it easier for them to go off topic. Whereas high school students are more likely to sit in rows or individually so when they were put into groups they were only in groups to complete a task. This association with being in a group and completing a task makes it more likely they will stay on task.[77] Further, research has shown that it takes up to seven weeks to fully develop group cohesiveness. These seven weeks allow the group time to work together, and develop their collective efficacy [78]. If the group sees that they are able to perform well on previous tasks, this will increase their collective efficacy. Thus it is important for teachers to let the child work with the same group for longer periods of time. However, there is research that contradicts this assumption. Research conducted by Goncalo, Polman, and Maslach shows that having a high sense of collective efficacy right at the beginning of a project can be detrimental to the group’s overall performance. Having a high sense of efficacy can reduce the beneficial forms of conflict that is essential to group work[79]. Even though previous research has suggested that it takes seven weeks for a group to develop collective efficacy some groups may develop it early[80]. In addition, one group may develop high group efficacy from working with each other previously. It is uncertain if a group who has worked together previously and has a high group efficacy, will miss out on the beneficial forms of conflict. Beneficial forms of conflict include disagreeing on how to carry out the project, and reconstructing the information through discussion, evaluation, and consensus. For example, take this Wikibook project, if I had worked with my group members previously and we received a favourable performance outcome and had developed a high collective efficacy we might have gone about the project in a different way. At the beginning of the project we might not have changed our outline because in the past we had done well. As well, when we were in the final stages of editing we might not have put in as much time and effort because in the previous task we had done well. Our group discussed ways to improve our project, which included using more examples, adding pictures, and how to make the project flow better. Once again we might not have talked about it at such length if we had already established high collective efficacy. In conclusion, it may not be as beneficial as once thought for students to work together on multiple projects; there needs to be more research to further support this assumption[81]. Another important note to be made is that self-efficacy is normally discussed as being domain specific, as was mentioned earlier in this chapter. This can also be used in relation to collective efficacy[82]. Children should be placed in different groups for different subjects. To further illustrate this point, a baseball team might have high collective efficacy while playing baseball but they may not have a high sense of collective efficacy in completing a science experiment. Thus, they should be put in another group when performing different tasks of task to allow each member the opportunity to achieve collective efficacy. Some groups can be picked based on who the children want to be with and other groups could be picked based on interest. A group’s cohesion, is related to the environmental aspect of the reciprocal determinism. The other group members are the environmental aspect that influences group cohesion and collective efficacy. Another aspect of the environmental reciprocal determinism, is the size of the group.

The size of groups affects group performance and group efficacy. A research study showed that groups of three had higher group efficacy than those in groups of seven [83]. In addition, group members in smaller groups are more likely to stay on topic and complete the task[84].The article suggested that the lack of group efficacy was due to the difficulty communicating within larger groups and multiple personal interest took over group goals. However, it was mentioned that the key to group size depends on the type of task at hand. Even though the article suggested that groups of three are good for multi motive tasks other tasks might produce higher group efficacy in larger groups[85]. This would explain why sports teams work together well even though they consist of a larger group of people. Thus, if you are getting students in the class to build a tower this is best done in small groups to reduce the lack of communication. However, activities such as trivia would be better suited to larger groups. This is because each child in a group will have different knowledge which will lead to better performance and higher group efficacy. Cohesion and group size are important aspects of a groups performance outcomes and efficacy.

Social Loafing[edit]

Social Loafing.jpg

The discussion so far has been about how to improve collective efficacy through specific and difficult goals, making groups interdependent, group cohesion, and adequate number of group members. One pitfall of group work is 'social loafing 'which is an environmental factor. This occurs when a group member or members do not pull their weight in a group project [86]. Ideally teachers would like to think that when they put students in groups that each one will contribute equally to the project. However, this is not the case as many students have experienced. There is always the one person in the group who never pulls their weight which has negative consequences for the other group members. Research has shown that when there is a group member that is not pulling their weight other group members put less effort into the project. This leads to a lower group performance and collective efficacy [87]. A way teachers can avoid this is to make specific and challenging goals, promote each group’s interdependence, group cohesion and use adequate number of students in each group. In addition to making sure that there is an evaluation at the end of the project that includes what contribution each person made to the project. This evaluation is best done with the other group members not present in order to make each member feel more comfortable about saying what each member truly contributed to the project. This type of evaluation will lead to the social loafer getting the grade he or she should receive for their contribution. This should also help with the other members still putting in adequate effort despite having a member who is a social loafer.

School efficacy[edit]

We have addressed three different efficacy’s in this chapter. Although they each have their own defining characteristics they are also similar. School efficacy is the belief of the school that the students can perform well, and this includes the students and the teachers. Research has found that if a school collectively feels incapable of improving the learning of the students both the students and the teachers efficacy decreased. In context, students who have high self-efficacy because they have done academically well before is related positively to school efficacy. Some factors that contributed specifically to school efficacy are the SES status of the students and the stability of the students. Students who come from low SES status and do not show up to class often affects the school efficacy negatively [88]. In order to promote a higher school efficacy both the students and the teachers efficacy need to improve. There are suggestions as to how to improve efficacy in previous sections.

Collective efficacy stems from self-efficacy and has similar factors that affect it. Those factors include enactive mastery, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, physiological and effective state, performance goals and persistence. However, collective efficacy is associated with being in a group and thus has some different factors that affect an individuals collective efficacy. These include group cohesion, interdependence of the group task, group size and the phenomena of social lofting.

Implications for Instruction[edit]

Self-Efficacy - Teaching Presence

Self-efficacy stands as a significant factor in fostering self-regulation in students and have proven to enhance the quality of their learning. This leads to its implications within a classroom that demands the consideration of other factors, such as teachers. One of the most significant drivers of a learning environment are the teachers themselves. It has been shown that an individual’s own perception of self-efficacy was the final determinant of their success and in addition to having successfully acquired the motivation and effort to use self-regulated learning strategies, a teacher may incorporate constructivist learning environments to encourage or enhance these behaviors. As shown in the venn diagram below, personal factors, academic behavioral performance and learning environments interrelate with one another, showing how one factor affects another. Adopting a student-centred approach to learning and teaching can lead to an increase in student involvement; exerting a positive influence on students’ affective and cognitive domains, as well as their perception of the learning environment [89]

Implications for teaching from the above discussed theories of especially task engagement and goal orientation suggest that team‐based learning is very successful when students take ownership of a complex problem, and engage the problem in a collaborative and systematic manner. Team‐based learning environments provide students with opportunities to solve complex problems resulting in their developing greater self‐confidence in their abilities. Understanding the relationship of goal‐setting in the learning process can facilitate a positive team effort experience for students through a learning and iterative process. Students, who successfully learned through collaboration, might be intrinsically motivated and self‐efficacious when placed in other team‐based learning settings. However, students who are inexperienced in this environment or who do not have sufficient knowledge of the subject might require additional guidance in order to have a satisfying experience. If this guidance is not provided, the experience could be not very satisfying, and thus have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation, self‐efficacy beliefs and team‐based learning in general. So, it might be more effective to expose upper class undergraduate students to collaborative learning projects, where it is assumed that they possess the minimum required subject knowledge so that they can successfully apply what they know to the experience: participate in collaborative activities involving critical thinking, and formulate creative and innovative solutions by setting goals.

Teacher efficacy can offer learning strategies that could be beneficial for students; Even though Craig’s et al (2009) [90] study found no relation between teacher efficacy and instructional quality, Teachers with high sense of efficacy can contribute to learning by providing other means to enhance learning such as providing constructive feedback. Teachers can be an important model for students, especially when they incorporate the individual needs of students.Teachers can encourage students to use both enactive and vicarious learning in order to enhance the learning process. Apparently, the most effective way of learning involves learning occurs when students can observe teachers performance, and have some opportunity to apply the learned skills on a similar task. For example, in a math problem, students might benefit from observing a teacher or peer solve a problem, as well as by solving the problem themselves; this allows students to apply the knowledge they learn by vicariously.

In order to promote collective efficacy in group settings teachers should make sure their performance goals are clear, specific and challenging. Making sure the students know exactly what is expected of them for specific tasks allows the students to develop collective efficacy.

Allowing for group cohesion with the right number of members in the group allows for better performance and overall higher collective efficacy. Group cohesion can be achieved by allowing students to pick their groups and let them work in their groups throughout the school year. In addition, making sure the groups are appropriate for the task at hand is essential. Smaller groups should be used for more intimate projects, larger groups should be used when vast knowledge is needed to complete the task, or in group sports the necessary number of players needed in order to play the sport.

Conclusion[edit]

Social cognitive theory provides a framework for the constant changing of human behavior. In order to be able to understand and predict such behaviors, it is important to consider the variables that interact amongst each other and how those interacting factors are determined. The essence of social cognitive theory based on the theory that learning is the product of observation. It also considers these foundational interacting variables that come together to explain Bandura’s concept of reciprocal determinism as the basics for the theory of social cognition. Our chapter outlines three different elements that contribute to the social cognitive theory as well as cognition and instruction. Within these elements include self-efficacy, enactive and vicarious learning, and collective efficacy. Self efficacy determines how an individual perceives their own abilities and the level of confidence they have for achieving their goals and well as their abilities. Drawing from self-efficacy, we move on to enactive and vicarious learning that represents the ways we acquire knowledge. Enactive learning refers to the way an individual learns something by doing it, and vicarious learning occurs through observation of others performing the given task. Both learning styles are used in different cases, but the use of both are proven to be the most successful. In relation to self-efficacy, learning through observation - vicarious learning - can improve self-efficacy as it gives individuals a chance to identify with a model and lead to self-regulation. Furthermore, collective efficacy explains the individual perception of success of the group. Bandura argues that collective efficacy greatly relates to self-efficacy as there are factors that influence both efficacies. These factors come back down to the influence of personal, behavioral and environmental components of the reciprocal determinism model.

It is said that environments and social systems are greater influencers of human behavior; thus, the social cognitive theory justifies that different factors do not affect individual behavior in a direct manner, but instead affect them to a degree that influence other factors such as one’s aspirations, self-efficacy beliefs, personal standards, emotional states, and other self-regulatory influences (Pajares, 2002). Our chapter determines how these different influences and factors co-exist and affect the basic components of Bandura’s reciprocal determinism theory.

Suggested Readings[edit]

Burney, V. H. (2008). Applications of social cognitive theory to gifted education. Roeper Review, 30(2), 130-139. Effect of self- and group efficacy on group performance in a mixed-motive situation. Human Performance, 13(3), 279-298. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1303_3

Phan, H. P., & Ngu, B. (2014). Factorial equivalence of social cognitive theory: Educational levels × time differences. Educational Psychology, 34(6), 697-729. doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.814190

Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, J. Sweller, J. Sweller (Eds.) , APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 101-123). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association doi:10.1037/13273-005

Glossary[edit]

`Active observation: Observation that facilitates engagement with the material

Agency: capacity of a person to act in any given environment

Collaborative observing tutoring: Ovservation of the teaching interaction between a teacher and a student

Collective efficacy: This type of efficacy refers to the individual’s perspective of how well the group can accomplish their task.

Enactive learning: Learning by doing performing a task

Group Cohesion: Is an attraction to group members as well as group members who are interested in the same subject or have a collective mind.

Group efficacy: This type of efficacy refers to the group’s perspective as a whole in how well the group can accomplish their task

Goal Orientation: refers to the mental framework that influences how people approach situations of achievement in terms of interpreting the situation and motivation to achieve

Identification: Feeling close to a person that has similar characteristics as yours

Informational feedback: Feedback that helps improve performance

Learning: Act of acquiring new knowledge

Learning Orientation: aim of completing a task is to gain knowledge

Mastery experience: performance that leads to learning

Performance: Process of completing an action

Performance Orientation: aim of completing a task is to gain favorable judgments of one’s performance

Persistence Continuing in a course of action despite difficulties

Reciprocal determinism: term coined by Bandura to describe the foundation of his theory of social cognition— psychological functioning involves a continuous reciprocal interaction among behavioral, cognitive, and environmental influences

School efficacy: This type of efficacy refers to the school as a whole in relation to how they can effectively promote learning in their school. It is closely related to student and teacher efficacy.

Self-efficacy: how the individual perceives ones own abilities and the level of confidence for achieving goals from the perceived abilities

Self evaluation: Evaluating one self according to a standard

Self-regulated Learning Strategies Uses of students' strategies that regulate individual behaviour

Social comparison: Determine self worth by comparing ourselves to others

Social Lofting: This happens when one person in the group does less work than the other members in the group

Subjective operative capability: the concept that efficacy beliefs form the foundation of human agency as people need to believe that they can produce results by their actions in order or else the incentive or the reinforcement to act is very little

Teacher efficacy : teacher's own belief about their teaching skills

Verbal persuasion: convince someone to do a task by using verbal communication skills

Vicarious learning: Learning by observing others

Worked examples: Explanation of how to solve a problem

Volition Cognitive process that allows one to decide on committing to a course of action.

Reference[edit]

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81-91. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.81

  1. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.
  3. Marsh, H. W. (1986). Global self-esteem: Its relation to specific facets of self-concept and their importance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1224.
  4. Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in behaviour research and therapy, 1(4), 237-269.
  5. Phan, H. P., & Ngu, B. (2014). Factorial equivalence of social cognitive theory: Educational levels × time differences. Educational Psychology, 34(6), 697-729. doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.814190
  6. Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., & Whyte, G. (2000). Effect of self- and group efficacy on group performance in a mixed-motive situation. Human Performance, 13(3), 279-298. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1303_3
  7. Phan, H. P., & Ngu, B. (2014). Factorial equivalence of social cognitive theory: Educational levels × time differences. Educational Psychology, 34(6), 697-729. doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.814190
  8. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American psychologist, 44(9), 1175.
  9. Bandura, A. (2007). Much ado over a faulty conception of perceived self-efficacy grounded in faulty experimentation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(6), 641-658.
  10. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122.
  11. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122.
  12. Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., Tischner, E. C., & Putka, D. J. (2002). Two studies examining the negative effect of self-efficacy on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 506.
  13. Ng, J. R., & Earl, J. K. (2008). Accuracy in self-assessment: the role of ability, feedback, self-efficacy and goal orientation. Australian Journal of Career Development, 17(3), 39-50.
  14. Athanasou, J. A. (2005). Self-Evaluations in Adult Education and Training.Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 45(3), 290-303.
  15. Ng, J. R., & Earl, J. K. (2008). Accuracy in self-assessment: the role of ability, feedback, self-efficacy and goal orientation. Australian Journal of Career Development, 17(3), 39-50.
  16. Williams, T., & Williams, K. (2010). Self-efficacy and performance in mathematics: Reciprocal determinism in 33 nations. Journal of educational Psychology, 102(2), 453.
  17. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American psychologist, 57(9), 705.
  18. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(1), 218.
  19. Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 67(1), 26-48.
  20. Vieira Jr, E. T., & Grantham, S. (2011). University students setting goals in the context of autonomy, self‐efficacy and important goal‐related task engagement. Educational Psychology, 31(2), 141-156.
  21. Ng, J. R., & Earl, J. K. (2008). Accuracy in self-assessment: the role of ability, feedback, self-efficacy and goal orientation. Australian Journal of Career Development, 17(3), 39-50.
  22. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122.
  23. Sideridis, G. D. (2001). The causal role of goal importance for the explanation of student study behaviour: Cross-validation with multiple samples. Educational Psychology, 21(3), 277-298.
  24. Lent, R. (1984). Relation of Self-Efficacy Expectations to Academic Achievement and Persistence. University of Minnesota.
  25. Lent, R. (1984). Relation of Self-Efficacy Expectations to Academic Achievement and Persistence. University of Minnesota.
  26. Bandera, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change, 84(2), 191-215
  27. Lent, R. (1984). Relation of Self-Efficacy Expectations to Academic Achievement and Persistence. University of Minnesota.
  28. Zimmerman, B., & Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex. and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Estados Unidos: American Psychological Association.
  29. Zimmerman, B., & Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex. and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Estados Unidos: American Psychological Association.
  30. Zimmerman, B., & Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex. and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Estados Unidos: American Psychological Association.
  31. Onoda, S. (2014). Examining the relationships between self-efficacy, effort regulation strategy use, and English vocabulary skills. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 5(4), 357-371.
  32. Zimmerman, B., & Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex. and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Estados Unidos: American Psychological Association
  33. Zimmerman, B., & Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex. and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Estados Unidos: American Psychological Association
  34. Onoda, S. (2014). Examining the relationships between self-efficacy, effort regulation strategy use, and English vocabulary skills. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 5(4), 357-371
  35. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, J. Sweller, J. Sweller (Eds.) , APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 101-123). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association doi:10.1037/13273-005
  36. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, J. Sweller, J. Sweller (Eds.) , APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 101-123). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association doi:10.1037/13273-005
  37. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, J. Sweller, J. Sweller (Eds.) , APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 101-123). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association doi:10.1037/13273-005
  38. Bruning, R. H., Schraw G. J., Norby M. M., (2011) Cognitive Psychology and Instruction. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
  39. Braaksma, M. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2002). Observational learning and the effects of model-observer similarity. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405-415. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.405
  40. Braaksma, M. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2002). Observational learning and the effects of model-observer similarity. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405-415. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.405
  41. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, J. Sweller, J. Sweller (Eds.) , APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 101-123). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association doi:10.1037/13273-005
  42. Braaksma, M. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2002). Observational learning and the effects of model-observer similarity. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405-415. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.405
  43. Hoover, J. D., Giambatista, R. C., & Belkin, L. Y. (2012). Eyes on, hands on: Vicarious observational learning as an enhancement of direct experience. Academy Of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 591-608. doi:10.5465/amle.2010.0102
  44. Braaksma, M. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2002). Observational learning and the effects of model-observer similarity. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405-415. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.405
  45. Hoover, J. D., Giambatista, R. C., & Belkin, L. Y. (2012). Eyes on, hands on: Vicarious observational learning as an enhancement of direct experience. Academy Of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 591-608. doi:10.5465/amle.2010.0102
  46. Braaksma, M. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2002). Observational learning and the effects of model-observer similarity. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405-415. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.405
  47. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, J. Sweller, J. Sweller (Eds.) , APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 101-123). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association doi:10.1037/13273-005
  48. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, J. Sweller, J. Sweller (Eds.) , APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 101-123). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association doi:10.1037/13273-005
  49. Craig, S. D., Chi, M. H., & VanLehn, K. (2009). In a classroom, Learning can be enhanced by Collaboratively Observing Human Tutoring Videos While Problem Solving. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 779-789. doi:10.1037/a0016601
  50. Craig, S. D., Chi, M. H., & VanLehn, K. (2009) Journal Of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 779-789. doi:10.1037/a0016601
  51. Craig, S. D., Chi, M. H., & VanLehn, K. (2009). Improving Classroom Learning by Collaboratively Observing Human Tutoring Videos While Problem Solving. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 779-789. doi:10.1037/a0016601
  52. Craig, S. D., Chi, M. H., & VanLehn, K. (2009). Improving Classroom Learning by Collaboratively Observing Human Tutoring Videos While Problem Solving. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 779-789. doi:10.1037/a0016601
  53. Craig, S. D., Chi, M. H., & VanLehn, K. (2009). Improving Classroom Learning by Collaboratively Observing Human Tutoring Videos While Problem Solving. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 779-789. doi:10.1037/a0016601
  54. Braaksma, M. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2002). Observational learning and the effects of model-observer similarity. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405-415. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.405
  55. Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 774-786. doi:10.1037/a0032198
  56. Knoblauch, D., & Chase, M. A. (2015). Rural, suburban, and urban schools: The impact of school setting on the efficacy beliefs and attributions of student teachers. Teaching And Teacher Education 45104-114. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.001
  57. Bruning, R. H., Schraw G. J., Norby M. M., (2011) Cognitive Psychology and Instruction. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
  58. Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 774-786. doi:10.1037/a0032198
  59. Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 774-786. doi:10.1037/a0032198
  60. Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 774-786. doi:10.1037/a0032198
  61. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, J. Sweller, J. Sweller (Eds.) , APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 101-123). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association doi:10.1037/13273-005
  62. Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81-91. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.81
  63. Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81-91. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.81
  64. Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 774-786. doi:10.1037/a0032198
  65. Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998)
  66. Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998)
  67. Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., & Whyte, G. (2000). Effect of self- and group efficacy on group performance in a mixed-motive situation. Human Performance, 13(3), 279-298. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1303_3
  68. Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy in group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 74(1), 62-87. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2753
  69. Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814-828. doi:10.1037/a0015659
  70. Klein H. J., Mulvey P. W., (1995) Two Investigations of the Relationships among Group Goals, Goal Commitment, Cohesion, and Performance. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 61(1), 44-53. doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1004
  71. Klein H. J., Mulvey P. W., (1995) Two Investigations of the Relationships among Group Goals, Goal Commitment, Cohesion, and Performance. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 61(1), 44-53. doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1004
  72. Klein H. J., Mulvey P. W., (1995) Two Investigations of the Relationships among Group Goals, Goal Commitment, Cohesion, and Performance. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 61(1), 44-53. doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1004
  73. Goncalo, J. A., Polman, E., & Maslach, C. (2010). Can confidence come too soon? Collective efficacy, conflict and group performance over time. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 113(1), 13-24. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.05.001
  74. Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., & Whyte, G. (2000). Effect of self- and group efficacy on group performance in a mixed-motive situation. Human Performance, 13(3), 279-298. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1303_3
  75. Klein H. J., Mulvey P. W., (1995) Two Investigations of the Relationships among Group Goals, Goal Commitment, Cohesion, and Performance. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 61(1), 44-53. doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1004
  76. Huang, C., (2009). Knowledge sharing and group cohesiveness on performance: An empirical study of technology R&D teams in Taiwan. Technovation, 29(11), 786-797. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.04.003
  77. S., Howe, C., & Boyle, J. (2012). Exploring the characteristics of small groups within science and English secondary classrooms. Cambridge Journal Of Education, 42(4), 527-546. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2012.73334
  78. Klein H. J., Mulvey P. W., (1995) Two Investigations of the Relationships among Group Goals, Goal Commitment, Cohesion, and Performance. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 61(1), 44-53. doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1004
  79. Goncalo, J. A., Polman, E., & Maslach, C. (2010). Can confidence come too soon? Collective efficacy, conflict and group performance over time. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 113(1), 13-24. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.05.001
  80. Klein H. J., Mulvey P. W., (1995) Two Investigations of the Relationships among Group Goals, Goal Commitment, Cohesion, and Performance. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 61(1), 44-53. doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1004
  81. Goncalo, J. A., Polman, E., & Maslach, C. (2010). Can confidence come too soon? Collective efficacy, conflict and group performance over time. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 113(1), 13-24. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.05.001
  82. Bruning, R. H., Schraw G. J., Norby M. M., (2011) Cognitive Psychology and Instruction. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
  83. Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., & Whyte, G. (2000). Effect of self- and group efficacy on group performance in a mixed-motive situation. Human Performance, 13(3), 279-298. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1303_3
  84. S., Howe, C., & Boyle, J. (2012). Exploring the characteristics of small groups within science and English secondary classrooms. Cambridge Journal Of Education, 42(4), 527-546. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2012.73334
  85. Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., & Whyte, G. (2000). Effect of self- and group efficacy on group performance in a mixed-motive situation. Human Performance, 13(3), 279-298. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1303_3
  86. Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy in group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 74(1), 62-87. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2753
  87. Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy in group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 74(1), 62-87. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2753
  88. Bruning, R. H., Schraw G. J., Norby M. M., (2011) Cognitive Psychology and Instruction. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
  89. Ning, H., & Downing, K. (2012). Influence of student learning experience on academic performance: The mediator and moderator effects of self-regulation and motivation (2nd ed., Vol. 38, pp. 219-237). British Educational Research Journal.
  90. Craig, S. D., Chi, M. H., & VanLehn, K. (2009). Improving Classroom Learning by Collaboratively Observing Human Tutoring Videos While Problem Solving. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 779-789. doi:10.1037/a0016601