How to manage students self esteem, where self efficacy is under or overinflated and bring it to a more realistic level, whilst improving their self beliefs.
“Self efficacy and the incontrovertible meaning of life developed in oneself are entwined in an individual's concept of self love - belief and faith in who they are,” Anon.
“An individual’s sense of being able to manage a task effectively and successfully in a particular domain.” (Krause, 2003 p.75) is a definition of self-efficacy. This is opposed to self concept which refers to a collection of beliefs, information, attitudes and ideas we have about ourselves. Self efficacy is in effect about belief in potential ability and self concept about belief in our present ability. According to Pajares, self worth and self confidence develop largely due to adult influence in early childhood. Parents and teachers who provide challenging tasks and meaningful activities that can be mastered, and who competently guide these activities with encouragement ensure beneficial cognitive development and self concept. Effects of socio-economic status is superseded by this behaviour (Pajares p.11). Academic self regulatory practices are developed and maintained primarily in school, and the use of these are connected to doing well in school which enhances positive self beliefs. These good habits of organisation, etc when they become automated release the higher powers of the mind to engage in more substantive academic tasks. So too beliefs of personal competence and self worth become habits of thinking that then serve the student throughout their life (Pajares p.12).
Schunk demonstrated that children learn from models and how one models can then effect self beliefs. For instance children who made mistakes while demonstrating in front of other students and make statements reflecting low self confidence and achievement cause low achieving students to experience greater achievement and self-efficacy. Hence always using the smartest student in the class to demonstrate modelling of a task is perhaps not a good idea if one wants to build up the self-efficacy of the lesser ability students (Pajares, p.12).
Self concept and self efficacy beliefs are affected by the Big-fish-little-pond-effect in which students compare their academic ability with others in their reference group in forming their self concept. Students in Hong Kong moving to a more academic school were found to often suffer loss of self concept (Krause et al. 2003). Furthermore lower achieving students subjected to standardised competitive grading practices have reduced self efficacy. Moriarty in 1995 found individual instruction according to each students needs, decreases student desire to compare themselves with their classmates and instead they develop according to their own standards, and this raises self beliefs (Pajares, p.12). However I wonder if high achieving students may not benefit from this method due to loss of the motivation of competitive success.
During my teaching rounds I noticed that the smarter students were unwilling to put their hands up and answer questions even when they clearly knew an answer and knew it more comprehensively than other lower achieving students who always had their hand up. It seemed that certain low achieving students had a very high self efficacy not substantiated by academic performance or ability. That regardless of failure to answer correctly or even criticism from the teacher their self efficacy remained unrealistically high. Correspondingly the self efficacy of some of the brighter students remained seemingly lower and it appeared that they were far more reluctant to make mistakes in answering and when they did so their self confidence diminished considerably, until they had managed to prove their self worth again.
This high self efficacy of these confident lower achievers seemed unaffected by whether a class was highly competitive or cooperative and individualised. And also the high achievers with low self efficacy again appeared to be unaffected by the competitiveness in the class.
However research seems to show that unrealistically low self efficacy perceptions, not lack of capability cause low academic achievement and avoidance of career goals. Students will give up quicker in difficult tasks and underestimate their ability so are less likely to engage in tasks they are capable of. Schunk found providing proximal rather than distal goals, effort attributional feedback, progress goals and feedback, similar attribute learning models have been found to reverse negative self efficacy perceptions (Bandura p. 220, Pajares, p.12). Nancy Atwell’s research in 1987 into writing workshops has shown that increasing self efficacy with writing skills greatly increases performance outcomes of students, in fact teachers are encouraged to assess self beliefs as well as writing ability in order to evaluate the success of the workshop (Pajares , p.12).
An explanation for the high achievers in my teaching rounds showing low self confidence in speaking out, yet performing very well academically could be explained by their having high self efficacy in their written academic abilities rather than verbal skills. This would be consistent with the fact that self efficacy is domain specific. And viceversa, the low academic achievers who consistently speak out regardless of negative feedback, may nevertheless actually have very high verbal skills and hence their self efficacy remains high in this specific domain. This is true for some, however there are also low achievers that I observed who continually spoke out confidently and fairly inarticulately, thus displaying low verbal skills as well, yet still maintained high self efficacy in speaking out. So the picture appears rather more complex than current theories suggest.
However artificially boosting self efficacy has to be tempered with actually raising competence as well according to social cognitive theorists like Erik Erikson. This may partly explain why low academically achieving outspoken students maintain high self efficacy in speaking despite their low academic achievement. It may be that they have had unrealistically boosted self confidence or belief in themselves as speakers or even entertainers that has been rewarded and built up in other areas, such as peer groups or family. Bandura (1997) observed that self beliefs have many sources and although referring to low self esteem it could equally apply to inflated self esteem. He suggested encouraging students to be self forgiving when they fall short of unrealistically high standards to boost low self efficacy. Art Combs said the individual has an insatiable need for enhancement of the self concept which motivates behaviour. Furthermore children will make great efforts to enhance their perception of self (Pajares, p.13). Perhaps to temper over inflated self efficacy of some students, as I saw on my teaching rounds, teachers should encourage students to be self critical when they fall short of high standards of questioning in class. Further research is required in this area.
Pajares et al (p.13) in fact question attempts simply to increase students’ self esteem and instead suggests teaching practices need to change that combine psychological and academic needs of the student encouraging a loving ‘ethical self’ that maintains excellence in all aspects throughout the students’ life. Thus belief in capabilities should be strong but balanced with actual ability. Bizub (1999) goes further saying, “Offering praise to everyone regardless of the quality of individual achievement (or, in spite of it) may negatively affect students and professors alike.” However Hattes (1992, p.239) is equally critical of attempting to enhance self beliefs by achievement alone. He says there must be covariation between achievement and self concept, because teachers are poor at enhancing self concept and research has shown trying to do it through achievement alone is ineffective. He gives the example of a student doing well then moving to a better school and self concept diminishing despite improved academic curriculum, because in comparison to her new peers she is merely an average student, her status as a good student has diminished in relative terms (Hattie, p.248). Frandsen (1961 p.482) in a fairly old book actually gives some very good advice on this balancing of social, self and academic achievement in the class, based on group problem solving and democratic process of leadership by the teacher.
Where student’s with low self esteem cause discipline problems, Frandsen (pp.488-493) suggests self discipline by giving reasoned guidance in more constructive social behaviour. So too perhaps those that have an over inflated self efficacy and are thus overly talkative could gain a more realistic sense of self by being encouraged to exercise self discipline through the teacher’s guidance in having the student suggest ways in which they could be more thoughtful or reflect more before asking or answering questions. Turning this self discipline into an automated habit should allow the student to be freed up for greater academic development and in this respect enhanced self efficacy in academic ability, which has probably been low in that domain.
I feel this debate is best summed up by the following quote, “We don't believe that it is possible to have too much true self-esteem, for having high self-esteem is equivalent to having good health. However, it is certainly possible for individuals to have an over-inflated sense of either worth or competence. Our objective is to develop individuals with high self-esteem that is well grounded in reality and balanced between an equal sense of worth and competence -- individuals who exhibit those qualities agreed upon by educators, parents, business and government leaders as essential to effective functioning in these changing times” (Reasoner, 2004). Therefore UOCA supports education that boosts childrens self esteem and so self efficacy. Methods of yoga and meditation combined with loving compassion in the educators are all tools that have an end result of increasing harmony in the students and this positive environment of encouragement through respect for all and peaceful cooperation looking individually at each student's abilities as opposed to the current system of treating all students the same by mass assessment with negative competitive criticism, is what the new education system of UOCA is all about changing. See www.experischool.blogspot.com for more on such a yoga based school.
Bibliography
Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman
Bizub, Anne L. PhD, (1999) Self-esteem in schools. Monroeville, Pa. Letter to Monitor Online http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb99/letters.html
Frandsen, A. (1961) Educational Psychology . New York: McGraw
Hattie, J. (1992) Self Concept. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.: New Jersey
Karadeniz, N. & Cantali, R. (2004) Psychmatters Online. http://www.psychmatters.com.au/services/self_esteem.html
Krause, K., Bochner, S & Duchesne, S. (2003) Educational Psychology for learning and teaching. Southbank: Nelson
Pajares, F and Schunk, D. (2002) “Self efficacy, self concept and academic achievement” in J. Aronson and D. Cordova (ed). Psychology of education: personal and interpersonal forces. New York: Academic Press
Reasoner, Robert (2004). What is the True Meaning of Self-Esteem. National Association for Self-Esteem. http://www.self-esteem-nase.org/whatisselfesteem.shtml
“Self efficacy and the incontrovertible meaning of life developed in oneself are entwined in an individual's concept of self love - belief and faith in who they are,” Anon.
“An individual’s sense of being able to manage a task effectively and successfully in a particular domain.” (Krause, 2003 p.75) is a definition of self-efficacy. This is opposed to self concept which refers to a collection of beliefs, information, attitudes and ideas we have about ourselves. Self efficacy is in effect about belief in potential ability and self concept about belief in our present ability. According to Pajares, self worth and self confidence develop largely due to adult influence in early childhood. Parents and teachers who provide challenging tasks and meaningful activities that can be mastered, and who competently guide these activities with encouragement ensure beneficial cognitive development and self concept. Effects of socio-economic status is superseded by this behaviour (Pajares p.11). Academic self regulatory practices are developed and maintained primarily in school, and the use of these are connected to doing well in school which enhances positive self beliefs. These good habits of organisation, etc when they become automated release the higher powers of the mind to engage in more substantive academic tasks. So too beliefs of personal competence and self worth become habits of thinking that then serve the student throughout their life (Pajares p.12).
Schunk demonstrated that children learn from models and how one models can then effect self beliefs. For instance children who made mistakes while demonstrating in front of other students and make statements reflecting low self confidence and achievement cause low achieving students to experience greater achievement and self-efficacy. Hence always using the smartest student in the class to demonstrate modelling of a task is perhaps not a good idea if one wants to build up the self-efficacy of the lesser ability students (Pajares, p.12).
Self concept and self efficacy beliefs are affected by the Big-fish-little-pond-effect in which students compare their academic ability with others in their reference group in forming their self concept. Students in Hong Kong moving to a more academic school were found to often suffer loss of self concept (Krause et al. 2003). Furthermore lower achieving students subjected to standardised competitive grading practices have reduced self efficacy. Moriarty in 1995 found individual instruction according to each students needs, decreases student desire to compare themselves with their classmates and instead they develop according to their own standards, and this raises self beliefs (Pajares, p.12). However I wonder if high achieving students may not benefit from this method due to loss of the motivation of competitive success.
During my teaching rounds I noticed that the smarter students were unwilling to put their hands up and answer questions even when they clearly knew an answer and knew it more comprehensively than other lower achieving students who always had their hand up. It seemed that certain low achieving students had a very high self efficacy not substantiated by academic performance or ability. That regardless of failure to answer correctly or even criticism from the teacher their self efficacy remained unrealistically high. Correspondingly the self efficacy of some of the brighter students remained seemingly lower and it appeared that they were far more reluctant to make mistakes in answering and when they did so their self confidence diminished considerably, until they had managed to prove their self worth again.
This high self efficacy of these confident lower achievers seemed unaffected by whether a class was highly competitive or cooperative and individualised. And also the high achievers with low self efficacy again appeared to be unaffected by the competitiveness in the class.
However research seems to show that unrealistically low self efficacy perceptions, not lack of capability cause low academic achievement and avoidance of career goals. Students will give up quicker in difficult tasks and underestimate their ability so are less likely to engage in tasks they are capable of. Schunk found providing proximal rather than distal goals, effort attributional feedback, progress goals and feedback, similar attribute learning models have been found to reverse negative self efficacy perceptions (Bandura p. 220, Pajares, p.12). Nancy Atwell’s research in 1987 into writing workshops has shown that increasing self efficacy with writing skills greatly increases performance outcomes of students, in fact teachers are encouraged to assess self beliefs as well as writing ability in order to evaluate the success of the workshop (Pajares , p.12).
An explanation for the high achievers in my teaching rounds showing low self confidence in speaking out, yet performing very well academically could be explained by their having high self efficacy in their written academic abilities rather than verbal skills. This would be consistent with the fact that self efficacy is domain specific. And viceversa, the low academic achievers who consistently speak out regardless of negative feedback, may nevertheless actually have very high verbal skills and hence their self efficacy remains high in this specific domain. This is true for some, however there are also low achievers that I observed who continually spoke out confidently and fairly inarticulately, thus displaying low verbal skills as well, yet still maintained high self efficacy in speaking out. So the picture appears rather more complex than current theories suggest.
However artificially boosting self efficacy has to be tempered with actually raising competence as well according to social cognitive theorists like Erik Erikson. This may partly explain why low academically achieving outspoken students maintain high self efficacy in speaking despite their low academic achievement. It may be that they have had unrealistically boosted self confidence or belief in themselves as speakers or even entertainers that has been rewarded and built up in other areas, such as peer groups or family. Bandura (1997) observed that self beliefs have many sources and although referring to low self esteem it could equally apply to inflated self esteem. He suggested encouraging students to be self forgiving when they fall short of unrealistically high standards to boost low self efficacy. Art Combs said the individual has an insatiable need for enhancement of the self concept which motivates behaviour. Furthermore children will make great efforts to enhance their perception of self (Pajares, p.13). Perhaps to temper over inflated self efficacy of some students, as I saw on my teaching rounds, teachers should encourage students to be self critical when they fall short of high standards of questioning in class. Further research is required in this area.
Pajares et al (p.13) in fact question attempts simply to increase students’ self esteem and instead suggests teaching practices need to change that combine psychological and academic needs of the student encouraging a loving ‘ethical self’ that maintains excellence in all aspects throughout the students’ life. Thus belief in capabilities should be strong but balanced with actual ability. Bizub (1999) goes further saying, “Offering praise to everyone regardless of the quality of individual achievement (or, in spite of it) may negatively affect students and professors alike.” However Hattes (1992, p.239) is equally critical of attempting to enhance self beliefs by achievement alone. He says there must be covariation between achievement and self concept, because teachers are poor at enhancing self concept and research has shown trying to do it through achievement alone is ineffective. He gives the example of a student doing well then moving to a better school and self concept diminishing despite improved academic curriculum, because in comparison to her new peers she is merely an average student, her status as a good student has diminished in relative terms (Hattie, p.248). Frandsen (1961 p.482) in a fairly old book actually gives some very good advice on this balancing of social, self and academic achievement in the class, based on group problem solving and democratic process of leadership by the teacher.
Where student’s with low self esteem cause discipline problems, Frandsen (pp.488-493) suggests self discipline by giving reasoned guidance in more constructive social behaviour. So too perhaps those that have an over inflated self efficacy and are thus overly talkative could gain a more realistic sense of self by being encouraged to exercise self discipline through the teacher’s guidance in having the student suggest ways in which they could be more thoughtful or reflect more before asking or answering questions. Turning this self discipline into an automated habit should allow the student to be freed up for greater academic development and in this respect enhanced self efficacy in academic ability, which has probably been low in that domain.
I feel this debate is best summed up by the following quote, “We don't believe that it is possible to have too much true self-esteem, for having high self-esteem is equivalent to having good health. However, it is certainly possible for individuals to have an over-inflated sense of either worth or competence. Our objective is to develop individuals with high self-esteem that is well grounded in reality and balanced between an equal sense of worth and competence -- individuals who exhibit those qualities agreed upon by educators, parents, business and government leaders as essential to effective functioning in these changing times” (Reasoner, 2004). Therefore UOCA supports education that boosts childrens self esteem and so self efficacy. Methods of yoga and meditation combined with loving compassion in the educators are all tools that have an end result of increasing harmony in the students and this positive environment of encouragement through respect for all and peaceful cooperation looking individually at each student's abilities as opposed to the current system of treating all students the same by mass assessment with negative competitive criticism, is what the new education system of UOCA is all about changing. See www.experischool.blogspot.com for more on such a yoga based school.
Bibliography
Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman
Bizub, Anne L. PhD, (1999) Self-esteem in schools. Monroeville, Pa. Letter to Monitor Online http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb99/letters.html
Frandsen, A. (1961) Educational Psychology . New York: McGraw
Hattie, J. (1992) Self Concept. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.: New Jersey
Karadeniz, N. & Cantali, R. (2004) Psychmatters Online. http://www.psychmatters.com.au/services/self_esteem.html
Krause, K., Bochner, S & Duchesne, S. (2003) Educational Psychology for learning and teaching. Southbank: Nelson
Pajares, F and Schunk, D. (2002) “Self efficacy, self concept and academic achievement” in J. Aronson and D. Cordova (ed). Psychology of education: personal and interpersonal forces. New York: Academic Press
Reasoner, Robert (2004). What is the True Meaning of Self-Esteem. National Association for Self-Esteem. http://www.self-esteem-nase.org/whatisselfesteem.shtml
