Self-efficacy, self-esteem and performance among students taking research methods

1
Self-efficacy, self-esteem and performance among
students taking research methods

• Dr Andy Lane

2
Research supported by

• Tracey Devonport,
• Ruth Hewston,
• Ross Hall,
• Helen Lane,
• John Lane,
• Karen Milton,
• Laura Williams

3
(No Transcript)
4
Background

• Students find statistics difficult (Lane et al.,
  2002)
• Statistics is a subject that is critical to
  dissertation performance (Milton et al., 2003)
• Students to tend cope with statistics using
  avoidance coping strategies (Devonport et al.,
  2003)
• Avoidance of the problem is associated with a
  number of negative psychological states such as
  anxiety and depression
• Low confidence corresponds with poor performance
  (Lane Lane, 2001, Milton et al., 2003)

5
The Study Two theoretical constructsSelf-efficac
y and self-esteem

• Self-esteem is stable and universal (trait)
• Self-esteem is defined as the awareness of good
  possessed by the self, and the level of global
  self regard that one has for the self as a
  person (Campbell, 1984)
• Self-efficacy is transient and specific (state)
• Self-efficacy is defined as the Self-assessment
  of ability to master a task or achieve mastery
  over a specific situation or set of
  circumstances (Bandura, 1977)

6
Nature of self-efficacy

• Personal efficacy expectations are proposed to
  influence
• initiating behavior
• how much effort will be applied to attain a
  successful outcome in the face of difficulties
  and setbacks (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997).
• Self-efficacy has been found to academic predict
  performance (Bandura, 1997 Multon et al., 1991
  Lane Lane, 2001 Lane et al., 2002, in press
  Milton et al., 2003).

7
PROPOSED SOURCES OF HIGH SELF-EFFICACY

• Performance accomplishments
• Vicarious experiences
• Verbal persuasion
• Emotional arousal (control of negative emotions)
• General support found in boxing environment (Lane
  Terry, 1997)

(Bandura, 1977)
8
Nature of self-efficacy

• Performances perceived successful are proposed to
  raise self-efficacy
• Performances perceived unsuccessful are proposed
  to lower self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
• The cognitive appraisal of information from the
  four sources is proposed to influence
  self-efficacy and not the objective information
  per se (Bandura, 1977 Lane, 2002)

9
Self-efficacy and performance

• The measure of self-efficacy and what performance
  comprises (Lane et al., 2002)
• How close self-efficacy is assessed before
  performance (Lane Lane, 2001)
• Personal meaning attached to the performance

10
Self-esteem

• Defined as the awareness of good possessed by
  the self, and the level of global self regard
  that one has for the self as a person (Campbell,
  1984)

11
. Differences in self-concept by self-esteem

• High Self-esteem (HSE)
• Describe themselves positively and are clear.
  They feel that they have more compartments
  /strengths

• Low Self-esteem (LSE)
• Describe themselves negatively and are less
  clear. They feel that they have less compartments
  /strengths

Positive belief in self concept is vital to
develop and maintain self esteem
12
Achievement situations

• Approach to situation
• High self-esteem
• Confident about succeeding in task.
• Not overly concerned with failing.
• Look at setting as an opportunity to do well.
• Low self-esteem
• Considerable uncertainty,
• Doubt their positive attributes,
• Expect negative attributes.
• Concerned about failing, may even prepare for
  failure.

13
After Success

• High self-esteem
• Attribute success to ability.
• Believe/feel good about positive feedback.
• Believe positive feedback.
• Feel in control of outcomes.
• Motivated to spend time practising after success.
• Low self-esteem
• Affective responses positive, but cognitive
  responses negative and confused.
• Surprised because success is inconsistent with
  self concept.
• Discrepancy between what they thought would
  happen and what occurred produces negative
  affect.
• Motivated to search for explanation, attribute
  success to external causes.
• Feel pressure after success

14
After Failure

• High self-esteem
• Surprised because doesnt fit into their self
  perception.
• Work harder to get success next time.
• Low self-esteem
• Not surprised, because consistent with their past
  experiences.
• Decrease motivation because they feel they will
  fail again.
• Withdraw from tasks.

15
Self enhancement and Self Protection-Consistency

• What do High self-esteem and Low self-esteem do
  to cope in achievement situations?
• High Self-esteem
• Access strengths (multifaceted self) suppress
  weaknesses (Dodgson Wood, 1998)
• Low self-esteem
• Increase effort for negative reasons (self
  protect) over generalisation after failure
  (Carver Ganellan, 1989)

16
WHY do low self-esteem individuals behave like
this?

• Lack of self-concept
• Cannot dismiss weaknesses
• Unsure of strengths
• Look to others for reinforcement
• Accept negative feedback as much as possible (and
  believe it!)

17
Purpose of the study

• The aim of the research is to investigate the
  influence of self-esteem on the processing of
  efficacy related information
• The objective was to assess self-esteem,
  performance accomplishments, and self-efficacy
  and investigate relationships among these
  variables.

18
Methodology

• The research was explored using two methods.
• A quantitative investigation was conducted to
  test hypotheses stemming from theoretical
  predictions.
• A qualitative investigation was conducted to
  explore students perceptions of the dissertation
  experience and the interplay between efficacy
  expectations, self-esteem and performance.

19
Participants

• All students registered on a Level 2 Sports
  Studies Research Methods module were asked to
  volunteer to participate in a research project.
• Ninety-seven participants volunteered to take
  part (Age M 22.23, SD 4.35 years).
• The research methods module is a prerequisite
  module for the Dissertation.

20
Development of a self-efficacy scale

• Lecturers looked at module guide and
  self-efficacy questionnaires developed by Lane et
  al. (2002) and Milton et al. (2002).
• The aim was to develop, or modify and existing
  self-efficacy measure

21
Recent measures of self-efficacy

• Lane et al. (2002)
• 1) Lecture behaviour 2) Using information
  technology 3) Motivated behaviour 4) Time
  management 5) Statistical theory and a 6)
  General competencies
• Milton et al. (2002)
• 1) Maintaining motivation, 2) planning, 3)
  obtaining support, 4) understanding theory, 5)
  organising time, and 6) effectively writing the
  dissertation.

22
Self-esteem

• Self Esteem
• Rosenbergs Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965)
  was used to assess self-esteem.
• Respondents completed the scale by indicating
  their agreement with each of the 10 items (e.g.
  On the whole I am satisfied with myself, I
  certainly feel useless at times) on a 4-point
  scale (4 strongly agree, 1 strongly
  disagree).
• In the present study, the alpha coefficient was
  .72, hence indicating an internally reliable
  scale

23
Performance

• Performance
• Performance will be assessed using the marking
  criteria for the module.
• Performance comprised a statistics assignment in
  which students had to do a different test, a
  correlation or chi-square analysis.
• University uses a F0 to A16 scale

24
Procedure

• Participants completed a background information
  questionnaire that assessed previous experience
  of academic performance (Lane Lane, 2001)
• At the same time participants also completed the
  Rosenberg self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965) scale.

25
Procedure

• Participants completed the self-efficacy measure
  three times during the module
• 1) at the beginning of the module,
• 2) one week before the first assignment was due
• 3) one week after the mark for the first
  assignment has been given back to students.
• Note that there were difficulties in gathering
  data.

26
Data analysis

• Data were analysed by dividing participants into
  a high and low self-esteem group based on a
  median split.
• Performance data will also be grouped into a good
  performance and poor performance using a median
  split.

27
Statistical analysis

• Repeated measures factorial (time x self-esteem x
  performance) ANOVA was used to test the extent to
  which changes in self-efficacy over time were
  associated with an interaction between
  self-esteem and self-efficacy.

28
Hypotheses

• We hypothesised that
• 1) successful performance would lead to increased
  self-efficacy, and that self-efficacy would
  predict performance.
• 2) self-esteem will influence the impact of
  performance accomplishments on self-efficacy.

29
Hypotheses

• Poor performance will be associated with
  significantly greater reductions in self-efficacy
  among students who are low in self-esteem.
• Individuals high in self-esteem tend to attribute
  failure externally to protect self-efficacy.
  Individuals low in self-esteem tend to embrace
  failure, and this serves to reduce self-efficacy.
  

30
Results
31
Results
32
Results

• Repeated measures factorial ANOVA results
  indicated a significant interaction effect for
  changes in self-efficacy over time by self-esteem
  and performance groups (Pillai's Trace 2, 92
  .09, F 4.27, p .017, Eta2 .09).
• There was a significant main effect for
• self-esteem group (F 13.44, p .000, Eta2
  .13)
• performance group (F 15.66, p .000, Eta2
  .14).

33
Results

• Results show that the impact of performance on
  self-efficacy was influenced to some degree by
  self-esteem scores.
• The difference in self-efficacy scores following
  performance are much greater in the low
  self-esteem group than in the high self-esteem
  group.

34
Results

• In the high self-esteem group, participants
  reported similar self-efficacy scores regardless
  of performance.
• By contrast, in the low self-esteem group,
  self-efficacy declined significantly following
  poor performance and increased significantly
  following success.

35
Discussion

• Self-esteem influences changes in self-efficacy
  following defeat
• Low self-esteem is characterised by poor coping
  skills
• High self-esteem is associated with effort to
  maintain a positive self-image
• Knowledge of self-esteem and coping strategies
  can help practitioners devise interventions to
  bring improved performance

36
Application

• Identify self-esteem in Level 1.
• Teach students coping skills, especially relevant
  to low self-esteem students
• Assess self-efficacy to achieve key competencies
  early in modules
• Assess the effects of feedback on self-efficacy

37
Publication related to this project

• Lane, Lane, Hall. (2002). Self-efficacy and
  academic performance among sports studies
  students taking research methods. Paper presented
  at the World Congress of Applied Psychology,
  Singapore, June 2002.
• Milton, Devonport, Lane, Williams.
  SELF-EFFICACY TOWARD SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE AMONG
  SPORT STUDENTS. Paper presented at Student
  British Association of Sport and Exercise
  Sciences Conference, British Olympic Medical
  Centre, March 2002.
• Devonport, Lane, Milton and Williams.
  Self-efficacy as a predictor of strategies used
  to cope with Dissertation stress. Paper presented
  at the Annual Conference of the British
  Psychological Society, Bournemouth, March 2003.
• Milton, Devonport, Lane, Williams.
  Self-efficacy and Dissertation Performance among
  Sport Students. Paper presented at Student
  British Association of Sport and Exercise
  Sciences Conference, Coventry April 2003

38
Publications

• Lane, A. M., Hall, R., Lane, J. (2002).
  Development of a measure of self-efficacy
  specific to statistic courses in sport. Journal
  of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism
  Education. http//www.hlst.ltsn.ac.uk/johlste/vol1
  no2/contents.html
• Lane, J., Lane, A. M., Cockerton, T. (2003).
  Prediction of academic performance from
  self-efficacy and performance accomplishments
  among masters degree students. Journal of
  Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism
  Education. http//www.hlst.ltsn.ac.uk/johlste/vol2
  no1/contents.html
• Lane, J., Lane, A. M. (2001). Self-efficacy and
  academic performance. Social Behavior and
  Personality, 29, 687-694.
• Lane, J., Lane, A. M. (2002). Predictive
  validity of variables used to select students
  onto post-graduate courses. Perceptual and Motor
  Skills, 90, 1239-1247.