Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner || Gender and Perceived Self-Efficacy in Self-Regulated Learning

Gender and Perceived Self-Efficacy in Self-Regulated LearningAuthor(s): Frank PajaresSource: Theory into Practice, Vol. 41, No. 2, Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner (Spring, 2002),pp. 116-125Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477463 .

Accessed: 26/03/2014 14:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory intoPractice.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 94.226.82.217 on Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:37:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477463?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Frank Pajares

Gender and Perceived Self-Efficacy in Self-Regulated Learning

s ZIMMERMAN (THIS ISSUE) makes clear, the

quality of the self-regulatory skills students employ depends in part on several underlying beliefs students hold about themselves. Key among these beliefs are students' judgments of their capability to accomplish a task or succeed in an activity, or self-efficacy beliefs. Bandura (1977, 1986) first drew attention to the connection between self- efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory practices when he developed a social cognitive theory of human functioning. According to this theory, individuals are self-organizing, proactive, and self-regulating rather than reactive and shaped by external events. They also create and develop self-efficacy beliefs that become instrumental to the goals they pursue and to the control they are able to exercise over their environments.

The process of creating and using self-efficacy beliefs is intuitive. Individuals engage in a behavior, interpret the results of their actions, use these interpretations to create and develop beliefs about their capability to engage in subsequent behaviors in similar tasks and activities, and behave in con- cert with the beliefs created. In school, for example, the beliefs students develop about their academic capabilities help determine what they do with the knowledge and skills they have learned. Consequently, their academic performances are, in

Frank Pajares is Winship Distinguished Research Pro- fessor of educational psychology at Emory University.

part, the result of what they come to believe they have accomplished and can accomplish. This helps explain why students' academic performances may differ markedly when they have similar abilities.

Since Bandura's (1977) introduction of the concept of self-efficacy, educational researchers have investigated the role these self-perceptions play in the academic lives of students at all levels. Two decades of research findings have now con- firmed that students' academic self-efficacy beliefs influence their academic attainments and mediate the effect of skills or other self-beliefs on these attainments (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1997).

Students' self-efficacy beliefs influence their academic performances in several ways. They influence the choices students make and the courses of action they pursue. In free-choice situations, students tend to engage in tasks about which they feel confident and avoid those in which they do not. Self-efficacy beliefs also help determine how much effort students will expend on an activity, how long they will persevere when confronting obstacles, and how resilient they will be in the face of adverse situations. The higher the sense of efficacy, the greater the effort, persistence, and re- silience. Self-efficacy beliefs also influence the amount of stress and anxiety students experience as they engage a task. Confident students engage tasks with serenity; those who lack confidence can experience great apprehension. As a consequence,

THEORY INTO PRACTICE, Volume 41, Number 2, Spring 2002

Copyright ? 2002 College of Education, The Ohio State University



Pajares Gender and Perceived Self-Efficacy

self-efficacy beliefs powerfully influence the level of accomplishment students ultimately realize.

Of special relevance to readers of this issue, Bandura (1986, 1997) also contended that self- efficacy beliefs influence the self-regulated learning strategies that students use in school. Consequent- ly, the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and academic self-regulation has become a promi- nent area of research.

Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Self-Regulated Learning

Academic self-efficacy beliefs are influential during all phases of self-regulation-forethought, performance, and self-reflection (see Schunk & Ertmer, 2000, for a review). Students who believe they are capable of performing academic tasks use more cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and, regardless of previous achievement or ability, work harder, persist longer, and persevere in the face of adversity. In one study, children of low, middle, and high mathematics ability but who had, within each ability level, either high or low mathematics self- efficacy were tested on a set of mathematics problems. After receiving the same mathematics instruction, the students were given new problems to solve and an opportunity to rework those they had missed. Level of mathematics ability was related to performance but, regardless of ability level, children with high self-efficacy completed more problems correctly and reworked more of the ones they missed (Collins, 1982).

Students with high self-efficacy also engage in more effective self-regulatory strategies. Confi- dent students monitor their academic work time effectively, persist when confronted with academic challenges, incorrectly reject correct hypotheses prematurely, and solve conceptual problems. And as students' self-efficacy increases, so does the accuracy of the self-evaluations they make about the outcomes of their self-monitoring (Bouffard- Bouchard, Parent, & Larivee, 1991). In studies of college students who pursue science and engineer- ing courses, high self-efficacy has been demonstrated to influence the academic persistence necessary to maintain high academic achievement (Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984). Self-efficacy in mathematics has also been found positively related

to the strategy of reviewing notes and negatively related to relying on adults for assistance (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990).

Pintrich and De Groot (1990) found that academic self-efficacy was related both to cognitive strategy use and to self-regulation through the use of metacognitive strategies. Academic self-efficacy also correlated with semester and final year grades, in-class seatwork and homework, exams and quiz- zes, and essays and reports. The researchers con- cluded that self-efficacy played a "facilitative" role in the process of cognitive engagement, that raising self-efficacy might lead to increased use of cognitive strategies and, thereby, higher performance, and that "students need to have both the 'will' and the 'skill' to be successful in classrooms" (p. 38).

Studies tracing the relationship between academic self-efficacy and the self-regulatory strategy of goal setting have demonstrated that self-efficacy and skill development are stronger in students who set proximal goals than in students who set distal goals, in part because proximal attainments provide students with evidence of growing expertise (Bandura & Schunk, 1981). In addition, students who have been verbally encouraged to set their own goals experience increases in confidence, competence, and commitment to attain those goals (Schunk, 1985). Self-efficacy is also increased when students are provided with frequent and immediate feedback while working on academic tasks (Schunk, 1983) and, when students are taught to attribute this feedback to their own effort, they work harder, experience stronger motivation, and report greater efficacy for further learning (Schunk, 1987).

Because self-efficacy beliefs are powerful predictors of motivational and academic practices, Zimmerman and his colleagues have investigated students' confidence that they possess the self-regulated learning strategies required to succeed in school. They discovered that this "self-efficacy for self-regulated learning" contributes both to students' motivational beliefs and to the academic success they experience (Zimmerman, 1989, 1994; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990).

Students' self-efficacy beliefs influence their academic motivation through their use of self-regulatory processes such as goal setting, self-monitoring,

117



THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Spring 2002

Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner

self-evaluation, and strategy use (Zimmerman, 2000). The more competent that students view themselves, the more challenging goals they select. Zimmer- man, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons (1992) demonstrated that students' self-efficacy for self-regulated learning influenced the confidence they had in their academic capabilities and, through that influence, affected the final grades they obtained. Academic self-efficacy influenced achievement directly as well as indirectly by raising students' grade goals. In another study, college students' writing self-

efficacy predicted the personal standards they used to judge the quality of the writing they considered self-satisfying as well as their goal setting and writ-

ing skill (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). Researchers have also found that students'

self-efficacy for self-regulated learning is related to motivation and achievement in academic areas such as language arts, mathematics, and science. Students' confidence in their self-regulated learn-

ing strategies is related to their academic self-concept, self-efficacy, value of school and of particular school subjects, achievement goals, and academic performances. It is also negatively related with academic and subject-specific anxiety (Pajares, 1996, in press; Pajares, Britner, & Valiante, 2000; Pajares & Graham, 1999; Pajares Miller, & Johnson, 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1997, 1999, 2001).

Gender, Self-Efficacy, and Self-Regulated Learning

Gender differences in students' academic self- efficacy and in their self-efficacy to employ self- regulatory strategies are often reported. For example, boys and girls report equal confidence in their mathematics ability during the elementary years, but, by middle school, boys begin to rate themselves more efficacious than do girls (Wig- field, Eccles, & Pintrich, 1996). Conversely, in areas related to language arts, male and female students exhibit similar confidence despite the fact that the achievement of female students is typically greater (see Pajares, in press).

When gender differences in the use of self- regulated learning strategies or in confidence to use these strategies have been reported, they typically favor female students. Zimmerman and Martinez- Pons (1990) interviewed students in grades 5, 8, and

11 to discover whether gender differences could be detected in their use of 14 self-regulated learning strategies. Girls displayed more goal-setting and

planning strategies, and they kept records and self- monitored more frequently than did boys. Girls also surpassed boys in their ability to structure their environment for optimal learning. Pokay and Blu- menfeld (1990) investigated the use of self-regulated learning strategies by high-school students in

geometry and found that, as the semester began, girls reported using more metacognitive, general cognitive, and specific geometry strategies than did

boys. Girls also reported stronger effort manage- ment. At the end of the semester, girls continued to report stronger general cognitive strategy use.

Some researchers have also reported that girls express greater self-efficacy for self-regulation during elementary school (Pajares et al., 1999) and middle school (Pajares et al., 2000; Pajares & Val- iante, 2001). Girls express greater confidence in their capability to use strategies such as finishing homework assignments on time, studying when there are other things to do, remembering information presented in class and textbooks, and partici- pating in class discussions.

It is possible, of course, that boys and girls show differences in self-efficacy and self-regulation as a result of factors unrelated to these variables. For example, many gender differences in academic self-beliefs disappear when previous achievement is controlled (Pajares, 1996). In other words, when researchers analyze the self-beliefs of students at the same level of academic competence, fewer differences in self-belief emerge.

A second factor that may be responsible for gender differences in self-efficacy and in confidence to use self-regulated learning strategies is the tendency of boys and girls to respond to self- report instruments with a different "mind set." Re- searchers have observed that boys tend to be more "self-congratulatory" in their responses whereas girls tend to be more modest (Wigfield et al., 1996). In other words, boys are more likely to express confidence in skills they may not possess and to express overconfidence in skills they do possess. Noddings (1996) suggested that boys and girls may well use a different "metric" when providing confidence judgments, adding that these sorts of ratings

118




may represent more of a promise to girls than they do to boys. If this is the case, actual differences in confidence are masked or accentuated by such response biases.

A third factor potentially at play in creating differences between boys and girls has to do with the manner in which gender differences in self-

efficacy and self-regulation beliefs are typically assessed. Traditionally, students are asked to provide judgments of their confidence that they possess certain academic skills or, in the case of self-efficacy for self-regulation, that they can en-

gage specific self-regulatory strategies. Differenc- es in the average level of confidence reported are interpreted as gender differences in self-efficacy. Pajares and his colleagues (Pajares et al., 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1999) asked elementary and middle school students to provide self-efficacy judgments in the traditional manner but also to compare their academic ability versus that of other boys and girls. Although girls outperformed boys in language arts, girls and boys reported equal writing self-efficacy and self-efficacy for self-regulation. When students were asked whether they were better writers than their peers, however, girls expressed that they were better writers than were the

boys in their class and even in their school. That is, regardless of the ratings that boys and girls provided on the self-efficacy measures, it was clear that girls considered themselves better writers than the boys.

A fourth factor that may be responsible for gender differences in self-efficacy and in confidence in self-regulation deals with the nature of the self-belief that may be undergirding those differences. Numerous researchers have argued that some gender differences in social, personality, and academic variables may actually be a function of gender orientation-the stereotypic beliefs about gender that students hold-rather than of gender (see Eisenberg, Martin, & Fabes, 1996). For example, gender differences in variables such as moral voice tend to disappear when gender stereotypical beliefs are accounted for (Harter, Waters, & White- sell, 1997). Eccles's (1987a) model of educational and occupational choice postulates that cultural milieu factors such as students' gender role stereo- types are partly responsible for differences in

course and career selection and in confidence beliefs and perceived value of tasks and activities.

To determine the degree to which gender differences in motivation and achievement may be a function of gender stereotypic beliefs rather than of gender, Pajares and Valiante (2001) asked students to report how strongly they identified with characteristics stereotypically associated with males or females in American society. A feminine orientation was associated with writing self-efficacy and rendered nonsignificant gender differences favor- ing girls in self-efficacy for self-regulation. These results foreshadow the possibility that some gender differences in academic motivation and in self- regulated learning may be accounted for in part by differences in the beliefs that students hold about their gender rather than by their gender per se.

Gender differences can arise as a function of home, cultural, educational, and mass media influences. Parents often underestimate their daughters' academic competence and hold lower expectations for them (Phillips & Zimmerman, 1990). Parents also often portray mathematics and science as male domains (Meece & Courtney, 1992). As girls enter middle and high school, the perception of mathematics as a masculine domain may further weaken their interest in it.

Education can influence gender differences in a number of ways. In the area of mathematics, for example, differences can arise simply as a result of the context in which mathematical tasks and activities are placed. Girls typically judge their self-efficacy lower than do boys for occupations requiring quantitative skills, but differences disappear when self-efficacy judgments for the quantitative activities are made on stereotypically feminine tasks (Junge & Dretzke, 1995). Well-intentioned teachers may also hold different expectations for boys and girls. In some cases, elementary school teachers-most of whom are women-and well-meaning parents may convey to girls that mathematics may be difficult for them. School counselors also may discourage girls from pursuing scientific or technical occupations (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987).

The media continue to purvey subtle (and not so subtle) messages that entrench stereotypical gender conceptions. These messages range from rein- forcing traditional gender roles to gender-dominated

119





domains, sometimes portraying men as leaders and

authority figures and women as subordinate (Bandura, 1997). From a cultural perspective, peer cliques can powerfully influence students' academic interests. Girls who want to be popular with peers may shun subjects and activities perceived as masculine so that their popularity will not suffer.

Implications for Practice The evidence I have so far presented sup-

ports two conclusions. First, as Bandura (1986) theorized, students' confidence in their academic capabilities-their self-efficacy beliefs-strongly influence their academic motivation, the self-regulated learning strategies they use in school, and the academic success they ultimately attain. Sec- ond, gender differences are often found in students' academic self-efficacy and in their self-efficacy to employ self-regulatory strategies, although these differences may be the function of factors such as previous achievement, exposure to course content, response biases, measurement practices, or gender orientation beliefs. What, then, are the implications these findings hold for teachers and other school prac- titioners? Let me deal first with implications arising from findings regarding the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulated learning and then consider implications arising out of findings regarding gender differences in these two variables.

Self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulated learning School is the primary setting in which cogni-

tive capabilities are cultivated and evaluated. It is also the primary setting in which academic self- regulatory skills are developed and maintained, and the use of these skills is intimately connected both with success in school and with the positive self- beliefs that accompany that success. The importance of these self-regulatory skills is that students can use them across tasks, activities, and situations. Effec- tive self-regulatory practices can result in stronger self-efficacy and achievement in various academic areas. Consequently, they are at the very heart of improving self-beliefs and school success.

As children strive to exercise control over their surroundings, their first transactions are mediat- ed by adults who can either empower them with self- assurance or diminish their fledgling self-beliefs.

Young children are not proficient at making accu- rate self-appraisals, and so they must rely on the judgments of others to create their own judgments of confidence and of self-value. In 1902, Cooley used the metaphor of the "looking-glass self' to illustrate the idea that children's sense of self is primarily formed as a result of their perceptions of how others see them. That is, the appraisals of others act as mirror reflections that provide the information we use to define our own sense of self. Others define us, and then we use their defi- nitions to define ourselves. In a sense, he argued that we tend to become what we think other people think we are.

Naturally, two implications arise. The first is that teachers do well to take seriously their share of responsibility in nurturing the self-beliefs of their pupils, for it is clear that these self-beliefs can have beneficial or destructive influences. Teachers who view as their sole instructional responsibility the dispensing of knowledge and information do well to rethink their teaching mission and reflect on the nature of their roles as educators of youth. Conversely, teachers who provide students with challenging tasks and meaningful activities that can be mastered, and who chaperone these efforts with support and encouragement, help ensure that their students will develop the robust sense of self-efficacy required to rely on their own initiative and engage the world on their own.

The Roman poet Virgil wrote that "they are able who think they are able." French novelist Al- exander Dumas wrote that, when people doubt themselves, they make their own failure certain by being the first to be convinced of it. There is now ample research evidence to suggest that Virgil and Dumas were absolutely correct. Good preparation accompanied by confidence maximizes success. Students who approach their academic work with confidence and sound self-regulatory practices work harder, are more likely to surmount obstacles, prove more resilient after setbacks, and engage tasks with greater serenity and lower anxiety.

Self-beliefs and self-regulatory strategies ultimately become habits of thought and action that are developed like any habit of conduct. There is evidence to support William James's (1896/1958) con- tention that the self-regulatory processes individuals

120




use to make most of their decisions become automatic and are exercised primarily unconsciously. Many psychologists contend that individuals per- form the bulk of their actions on autopilot, as it were, making use of "automatic self-regulation" (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). What this means, of course, is that people are, in later life, slaves to the self-regulatory practices they mastered in earlier years. These habitual ways of behaving exert a powerful influence on the choices people make and on the success or failure they experience.

What can teachers do? Regarding self-beliefs, researchers have long

known that the earlier a belief is incorporated into a belief system, the more difficult it is to alter (James, 1896/1958). Newly acquired beliefs are most vulnerable to change. In fact, people tend to hold on to beliefs based on incorrect or incomplete knowledge, even after correct explanations are presented to them. This is also true of self-regulatory strategies. Those that are developed early persevere and self-perpetuate. For these reasons, educators face the critical challenge of making their students' positive self-beliefs and self-regulatory strategies automatic and habitual as early as possible, and teachers are influential in helping students develop the self-belief and self-regulatory habits that will serve them throughout their lives.

In helping students develop these habits of mind, teachers are wise to minimize the amount of relative ability information that is publicly available to students. There are many and varied ways in which children are not helped by comparing their efforts and accomplishments with the efforts and accomplishments of their peers. Life has its own sets of rules about these things, of course, and it is difficult to fight against the current. But students should be helped to develop internal standards for evaluating their own efforts. The teacher's challenge is to ensure that their students' internal standards are rigorous without being debilitating, realistic without being self-limiting, fluid without being wishy-washy, consistent without being stat- ic. It is indeed a challenge, but that is why teachers earn such exorbitant salaries!

When teachers create classroom structures that are individualized and tailor instruction to students'

academic capabilities, social comparisons are minimized and students are more likely to gauge their academic progress according to their own standards rather than compare it to the progress of their classmates. To some degree, students will inevitably eval- uate themselves in relation to their classmates regardless of what a school or teacher does to minimize or counter these comparisons. However, in co- operative and individualized learning settings, students can more easily select the peers with whom to compare themselves. Individualized structures that lower the competitive orientation of a classroom and school are more likely than traditional, competitive structures to increase students' self-efficacy beliefs.

A second implication is that teachers should make students' self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory strategies a focus of professional practice, for they are important components of motivation and of academic achievement. Teachers have the responsibility to increase their students' competence and confidence as students progress through school. Educational programs that seek to empower students must not only cultivate the knowledge to succeed but must endeavor to maximize the po- tential for success by nurturing the belief that one can indeed succeed and the self-regulatory strategies required to help bring about that success.

Working toward long-term (distal) goals is a necessary ingredient of school life, but it can be tough on a student's motivation. Short-term, proximal, goals are more easily digestible for students, and they have the added benefit of raising self- efficacy. Not only do proximal goals make a task appear more manageable, but the more frequent feedback that is provided can convey a sense of mastery. Bandura and Schunk (1981) conducted an experiment in which elementary school students were given seven sets of mathematics problems to solve. One group received feedback after each set was completed, a second group received feedback when all seven sets were completed, and one group received no feedback. Students in the group that received feedback after each set experienced the greatest increase in self-efficacy and in achievement. In addition, students who have been verbally encouraged to set their own goals experience increases in confidence, competence, and commitment to attain those goals.

121





For all the reasons outlined above, teachers should assess students' self-efficacy beliefs and confidence in their self-regulatory strategies as students progress through school. They are not always self- evident. Assessing students' self-beliefs can provide schools with important insights about their

pupils' academic motivation, behavior, and future choices. Researchers have demonstrated that self-

efficacy beliefs strongly influence the choice of majors and career decisions of college students. In some cases, unrealistically low self-efficacy perceptions, not lack of capability or skill, can be responsible for avoidance of academic courses and subsequent careers (Hackett, 1995). In such cases, in addition to skill improvement, teachers will need to identify these inaccurate judgments and design and implement appropriate interventions to challenge and alter them.

If there is one finding that is incontrovertible in education and psychology, it is that people learn from the actions of models (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Moreover, different modeling practices can differ- ently affect students' self-beliefs. Consequently, it is critical that teachers engage in effective modeling practices. For example, teachers who are "coping models," that is, who good-naturedly admit their errors when they make them or when their students point them out ("Oops, I was a little careless there. Thanks for pointing that out.") help their students understand that missteps are inevitable, that they can be overcome, and that even authority figures can make them. Conversely, teachers who are strictly "mastery models," that is, who have their authority and ego tied up into their infallibil- ity, respond to errors in a manner that shows they are incapable of making them ("I was just checking to see if you were paying attention."). Such teachers imbue in their students the idea that making errors is unacceptable and just plain dumb.

Because one's peers also become models, teachers should exercise care in academic grouping practices. It is important to select peers for classroom models judiciously so as to ensure that students view themselves as comparable in learning ability to the models. For example, when peer models make errors, engage in coping behaviors in front of students, and verbalize emotive statements re- flecting low confidence and achievement, low-

achieving students perceive the models as more similar to themselves and experience greater achievement and self-efficacy. Finally, teachers should create groups with care so as to help ensure that students have reasonable opportunities to succeed in group activities.

Teachers who model effective self-regulatory strategies help their students develop these strategies. Similarly, investigations of teacher self-efficacy reveal that teachers' own self-efficacy beliefs, the confidence they have in their capability to affect their students' learning, influence both their own practice and their students' self-beliefs and achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs also affect their instructional activities and their orientation toward the educational process. For example, teachers with a low sense of efficacy tend to hold a custodial orientation that takes a pessimistic view of students' motivation, empha- sizes rigid control of classroom behavior, and re- lies on extrinsic inducements and negative sanctions to get students to study. As a consequence, teachers with high self-efficacy create mastery experiences for their students, whereas teachers with low instructional self-efficacy undermine students' cognitive development as well as students' judgments of their own capabilities. Teacher self-efficacy also predicts student achievement and students' achievement beliefs across various areas and levels. Self- efficacy is contagious, which is to say that students can easily "catch" a teacher's own sense of confidence. Self-confident teachers help create self-confident students and, regretfully, teachers who lack confidence help create unconfident students.

Conclusions Social cognitive theory does not endow gender

with motivating properties (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). Theorists contend that environmental factors and personal factors other than gender are at work in creating motivational and self-regulatory differences in individuals. But researchers have also observed that areas such as mathematics, science, and technology are typically viewed by students as being within a male-domain (see Eisenberg et al., 1996). In these areas, a masculine orientation is associated with confidence and achievement because masculine self-perceptions are imbued with the notion that success in

122




these areas is a masculine imperative. Conversely, language arts is typically viewed by students, par- ticularly young students, as being a female-domain (Eccles, 1987). As a consequence, a feminine orientation is associated with motivational beliefs related to success in skills such as writing or poetry.

Another challenge before educators-and for the broader culture-is to alter students' views of academic subjects so they are perceived as rele- vant and valuable both to girls and to boys. That is, teachers should continue to expound and model gender self-beliefs that encompass both the feminine expressiveness and the masculine instrumen- tality that are critical to a balanced self-view.

Few educational sights are sadder than that of seeing capable students who have come to believe that they cannot learn. Students who lack confidence in skills they possess are less likely to engage in tasks in which those skills are required, and they will more quickly give up in the face of difficulty. Given the generally lower confidence of girls compared to boys in the area of mathematics and technology, it seems that young women may be especially vulnerable in these areas. Re- searchers have demonstrated that self-efficacy beliefs influence the choice of majors and career decisions of college students (Hackett, 1995). In some cases, underestimation of capability, not lack of competence or skill, is responsible for avoidance of math-related courses and careers, and this is more likely to be the case with women than with men. Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) expressed concern regarding situations in which girls display greater self-regulated learning strategies but express lower confidence in their academic capabilities than do boys. It seems clear, then, that efforts to identify and alter students' inaccurate judgments, in addition to continued skill improvement, is an educational imperative.

There is also evidence to suggest that gender differences in self-efficacy can be minimized or eliminated when students derive clear performance information about their capabilities or progress in learning. Schunk and Lilly (1984) had middle school students judge their self-efficacy for learning a novel mathematical task, after which they received instruction and opportunities to practice the task. Students received feedback by checking

answers to alternate problems. Although girls ini- tially judged their self-efficacy lower than boys did, following instruction girls and boys did not differ in achievement or self-efficacy. The feedback conveyed to students that they were learning and raised girls' self-efficacy to that of boys.

Zeldin and Pajares (2000) explored the personal stories of women who excelled at careers in areas of mathematics, science, and technology to better understand the ways in which their self-efficacy beliefs influenced their academic and career choices. They found that the messages the women received from significant others in their lives, as well as the vicarious experiences they underwent, nourished the self-efficacy beliefs of girls and women as they set out to meet the challenges required to succeed in male-dominated academic domains. Findings suggested that girls develop higher self-efficacy beliefs and engage more self-regulatory strategies in homes and classrooms in which parents and teachers stress the importance and value of academic skills, encourage girls to persist and persevere in the face of academic and social obstacles, and break down stereotypical conceptions regarding academic domains.

Parents and teachers should also convey the message that academic success is a matter of de- sire, effort, and commitment rather than of gender or established social structure. They should provide models that validate that message. All who would seek to be caring agents in the lives of young women should be especially reflective and proactive in this regard, especially since individuals often convey stereotypical and maladaptive messages to girls in unintentional but subtle ways.

References Ashton, P.T., & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a differ-

ence: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D.H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.

123



THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Spring 2002 Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner

Bargh, J.A., & Chartrand, T.L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 4, 462-479.

Betz, N.E., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1987). The career psychology of women. Orlando: Academic Press.

Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivee, S. (1991). Influence of self-efficacy on self-regulation and performance among junior and senior high-school aged students. International Journal of Behavior- al Development, 14, 153-164.

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychology Review, 106, 676-713.

Collins, J.L. (1982, March). Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research As- sociation, New York.

Cooley, C.H. (1902). Human nature and the social or- der. New York: Scribner.

Eccles, J.S. (1987a). Gender roles and women's achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quar- terly, 11, 135-172.

Eisenberg, N., Martin, C.L., & Fabes, R.A. (1996). Gen- der development and gender effects. In D.C. Berlin- er & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 358-396). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Hackett, G. (1995). Self-efficacy in career choice and development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 232-258). New York: Cam- bridge University Press.

Harter, S., Waters, P., & Whitesell, N. (1997). Lack of voice as a manifestation of false self-behavior among adolescents: The school setting as a stage upon which the drama of authenticity is enacted. Educational Psychologist, 32, 153-173.

James, W. (1896/1958). Talks to teachers. New York: Norton.

Junge, M.E., & Dretzke, B.J. (1995). Mathematical self- efficacy gender differences in gifted/talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 22-26.

Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Larkin, K.C. (1984). Re- lation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counsel- ing Psychology, 31, 356-362.

Meece, J.L., & Courtney, D.P. (1992). Gender differences in students' perceptions: Consequences for achievement-related choices. In D.H. Schunk & J.L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 209-228). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Noddings, N. (1996, April). Current directions in self research: Self-concept, self-efficacy, and possible selves. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Asso- ciation, New York.

Pajares, F. (1996). Role of self-efficacy beliefs in the mathematical problem-solving of gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 325-344.

Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Ad- vances in motivation and achievement. (Vol. 10, pp. 1-49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Pajares, F. (in press). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the liter- ature. Reading and Writing Quarterly.

Pajares, F., Britner, S., & Valiante, G. (2000). Writing and science achievement goals of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 406-422.

Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 124-139.

Pajares, F., Miller, M.D., & Johnson, M.J. (1999). Gen- der differences in writing self-beliefs of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 50-61.

Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of writing self-efficacy beliefs on the writing performance of upper elementary students. Journal of Education- al Research, 90, 353-360.

Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing self-beliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Education- al Psychology, 24, 390-405.

Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2001). Gender differences in writing motivation and achievement of middle school students: A function of gender orientation? Contem- porary Educational Psychology, 26, 366-381.

Phillips, D.A., & Zimmerman, M. (1990). The devel- opmental course of perceived competence and in- competence among competent children. In R.J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian, Jr. (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 41-66). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Pokay, P., & Blumenfeld, P.C. (1990). Predicting achievement early and late in the semester: The role of motivation and use of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 41-50.

Schunk, D.H. (1983). Developing children's self-efficacy and skills: The roles of social comparative information and goal setting. Contemporary Edu- cational Psychology, 8, 76-86.

Schunk, D.H. (1985). Self-efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 208-223.

Schunk, D.H. (1987). Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57, 149-174.

Schunk, D.H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.

Schunk, D.H., & Ertmer, P.A. (2000). Self-efficacy and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions.

124




In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631-650). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Schunk, D.H., & Lilly, M.W. (1984). Sex differences in self-efficacy and attributions: Influence of performance feedback. Journal of Early Adolescence, 4, 203-213.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S., & Pintrich, P.R. (1996). Development between the ages of 11 and 25. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 148-185). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Zeldin, A.L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 215-246.

Zimmerman, B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, 81, 329-339.

Zimmerman, B.J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self- regulation: A conceptual framework for education.

In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self- regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational implications (pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psy- chology, 25, 82-91.

Zimmerman, B.J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attain- ment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845-862.

Zimmerman, B.J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainments: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676.

Zimmerman, B.J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Stu- dent differences in self-regulated learning: Relat- ing grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.

p 1Wp

125



Documents

Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner || Gender and Perceived Self-Efficacy in Self-Regulated Learning