Recent Changes

Pajares, F., & Zeldin, A. L. (1999). Inviting self-efficacy revisited: The role of invitations in the lives of women with mathematics-related careers. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 6, 48–68.
Gainor, K. A., & Lent, R. W. (1998). Social cognitive expectations and racial identity attitudes in predicting the math choice intentions of Black college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 403–413.
This introduction for self-efficacy was a good summary of the main points that are important to understand the concept. I thought about how to implement the suggested actions and most of it is of course connected to a mastery experience. For a lot of courses, this experience, especially with feedback is mainly the exam or coursework – so only after the whole course, the feedback, whether the student has mastered the topic or not comes too late and only infrequent and might not actually lead to an appropriate feeling of self-efficacy. More but smaller evaluations during the term would be great for students to build up such a self-belief.

Developing peer tutor relationships within heterogeneous ability groups
Contrary to popular belief, it is not low-ability students who are most likely to suffer from learning in heterogeneous ability groups, in fact, research has shown that it is the average-ability students who may suffer most from such an approach (Saleh et al., 2005 and Webb, 1991), which is of particular concern when we consider that average-ability students typically account for 50% of the class (Webb, 1991). There are three broad levels of ability amongst students - high, average and low. When all three levels of ability are present in a group, this tends to promote interaction between the high and low-ability students, with high-ability students adopting a teacher role and providing explanations to their low-ability peers. This interaction strengthens the knowledge base for low-ability students, but in the process excludes those average-ability students, whilst high-ability students tend to acquire knowledge at the same rate regardless of group ability (Lou et al., 1996 and Saleh et al., 2005). This does not mean that heterogeneous grouping should be abandoned, rather, there are ways in which this peer tutoring can be incorporated into group discussion through teacher facilitation.
Saleh, Lazonder and de Jong (2007) suggest the best way to ensure that average-ability students benefit from heterogeneous group discussions is to raise their awareness of how to give and receive help and explanations, thus prompting a peer-tutor relationship whether they are with high or low ability peers. Various techniques have been outlined to support this process, including the importance of asking precise and thought-provoking questions (King, 1998), and providing explanations in a timely manner which elaborate and respond to the needs of the student (Webb, Troper, and Falls, 1995).
Saleh, Lazonder and de Jong’s study (2011) of 164 school children in Kuwait employed structured methods to support a peer-tutor relationship in the form of ground rules for helping behaviour. Children were given cue cards which either prompted them to recognise when they needed help or advised them how to provide help, by giving them examples of questions to use in order to satisfy their own or others’ learning needs, such as “What does… mean?” or “Always try to help a student who asks for help”, respectively. Pupils were given relevant cue cards depending on their ability, with average-ability students encouraged to ask questions. The results revealed that, when compared with an unstructured control group, these average-ability pupils made significantly more contributions when in structured lessons, voicing more statements, arguments and questions, and perhaps more importantly, they also demonstrated higher tests scores following the lessons. This study highlights the benefits of encouraging a peer-tutor relationship within the learning environment, ensuring that the majority of the class are progressing in their learning regardless of the ability-mix within their discussion groups.
References
King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (1), 57–74.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulson, C., Chambers, B. & ’d Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.
Saleh, M. Lazonder, A. W. De Jong, T. (2005). Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement and motivation. Instructional Science, 33, 105–119.
Saleh, M., Lazonder, A. W. & de Jong, T. (2007). Structuring collaboration in mixed-ability groups to promote verbal interaction, learning, and motivation of average-ability students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 314-331.
Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366–389.
Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D. & Falls, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.

Brown P, Lauder H, Ashton D & Tholen G(2008). Education, globalisation and the knowledge economy, a commentary for the ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP). TLRP.
Yourn BR and Alison K (2003) Adapting to a new culture of education: not just an issue for students. Learning for an unknown future: proceedings of the 2003 Annual International Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia(HERDSA). 6-9th July: 623.
Ensuring all pupils benefit from learning in heterogeneous ability groups
Contrary to popular belief, it is not low-ability students who are most likely to suffer from learning in heterogeneous ability groups, in fact, research has shown that it is the average-ability students who may suffer most from such an approach (Saleh et al., 2005 and Webb, 1991), which is of particular concern when we consider that average-ability students typically account for 50% of the class (Webb, 1991). There are three broad levels of ability amongst students - high, average and low. When all three levels of ability are present in a group, this tends to promote interaction between the high and low-ability students, with high-ability students adopting a teacher role and providing explanations to their low-ability peers. This interaction strengthens the knowledge base for low-ability students, but in the process excludes those average-ability students, whilst high-ability students tend to acquire knowledge at the same rate regardless of group ability (Lou et al., 1996 and Saleh et al., 2005). This does not mean that heterogeneous grouping should be abandoned, rather, there are ways in which this peer tutoring can be incorporated into group discussion through teacher facilitation.
Saleh, Lazonder and de Jong (2007) suggest the best way to ensure that average-ability students benefit from heterogeneous group discussions is to raise their awareness of how to give and receive help and explanations, thus prompting a peer-tutor relationship whether they are with high or low ability peers. Various techniques have been outlined to support this process, including the importance of asking precise and thought-provoking questions (King, 1998), and providing explanations in a timely manner which elaborate and respond to the needs of the student (Webb, Troper, and Falls, 1995).
Saleh, Lazonder and de Jong’s study (2011) of 164 school children in Kuwait employed structured methods to support a peer-tutor relationship in the form of ground rules for helping behaviour. Children were given cue cards which either prompted them to recognise when they needed help or advised them how to provide help, by giving them examples of questions to use in order to satisfy their own or others’ learning needs, such as “What does… mean?” or “Always try to help a student who asks for help”, respectively. Pupils were given relevant cue cards depending on their ability, with average-ability students encouraged to ask questions. The results revealed that, when compared with an unstructured control group, these average-ability pupils made significantly more contributions when in structured lessons, voicing more statements, arguments and questions, and perhaps more importantly, they also demonstrated higher tests scores following the lessons. This study highlights the benefits of encouraging a peer-tutor relationship within the learning environment, ensuring that the majority of the class are progressing in their learning regardless of the ability-mix within their discussion groups.
References
King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (1), 57–74.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulson, C., Chambers, B. & ’d Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.
Saleh, M. Lazonder, A. W. De Jong, T. (2005). Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement and motivation. Instructional Science, 33, 105–119.
Saleh, M., Lazonder, A. W. & de Jong, T. (2007). Structuring collaboration in mixed-ability groups to promote verbal interaction, learning, and motivation of average-ability students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 314-331.
Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366–389.
Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D. & Falls, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.

Bandura states [1] that there are four main sources of self-efficacy, which can act together or separately.
The most powerful one is mastery experience. To put it in a more simple wording, this is "I've done it myself before, so I can do it know" attitude. Mastery experience is so powerful because it is always with student. However, it is important to recognise mastery experience as such, i.e. the task is comparable to the onenot all of us will swim across English Channel just because we've done some paddle pool games in our infancy.
vicarious experience. ToTo put it
The last two sources are social persuasions and psychological state. In terms of social cognition they are most prominent examples of environmental influence on behaviour and vice versa. Social persuasions are the encouragements and statements of others about persons self-efficacy, e.g. teachers', parents, or colleagues opinion. The social persuasions may dramatically decrease self-efficacy, especially in particular economical, gendered[8] or ethnic background [9]. The psychological state is a completely opposite influence, it is a personal sense which determine self-efficacy beliefs. E.g. a person may think they will fail an exam, because when they were nervous last time they failed the exam, thus although probably confusing cause with consequence, their self-efficacy become affected.
5.What teachers can do to improve students' self-efficacy?

Self–efficacy is part of self-beliefs, although it is a rather precise notion. It is a measure of a person’s own perception of their ability to successfully complete a specific task or to reach a certain goal. Being based on self–assessment of a specific ability, self–efficacy appears to be a more useful measure, than general self–beliefs (e.g. self–concept, self-esteem or self-confidence), which can be largely determined by cultural background, ethnicity or current psychological state (for example anxiety) of a person.
2. Why self-efficacy is a useful concept for teaching and learning?
psychological state.
3. What do we know about self-efficacy?
We know that self-efficacy can be measured through interviews with students [6,7]
4. How the students can gain self-efficacy?
Bandura states [1] that there are four main sources of self-efficacy, which can act together or separately.
mastery experience. ToTo put it our infancy.
The
The next source vicarious experience. To put it in a more simple wording, that means "I've seen someone's doing it and succeeding, so I can do it myself and succeed". This source is particularly difficult to measure, especially in educational context. Normally vicarious experience comes with together with mastery experience in educational context, i.e. you are likely to see someone's doing a task, while you are trying to do to yourself.
The last two sources are social persuasions and psychological state. In terms of social cognition they are most prominent examples of environmental influence on behaviour and vice versa. Social persuasions are the encouragements and statements of others about persons self-efficacy, e.g. teachers', parents, or colleagues opinion. The social persuasions may dramatically decrease self-efficacy, especially in particular economical, gendered[8] or ethnic background [9]. The psychological state is a completely opposite influence, it is a personal sense which determine self-efficacy beliefs. E.g. a person may think they will fail an exam, because when they were nervous last time they failed the exam, thus although probably confusing cause with consequence, their self-efficacy become affected.
5.What teachers can do to improve students' self-efficacy?
foster the formation of mastery experiences
reflect on feedback they give their students: it should be timely, adequate to student's skills and specific
foster good environment in class
help students realise that their achievement are related to their effort, not luck or miracles.
make students aware of the concept of self-efficacy
References
Albert Bandura. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman, 1997.
Ellen L. Usher and Frank Pajares. Sources of self–efficacy in mathematics: A validation study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1): 89–101, 2009
Trevor Williams and Kitty Williams. Self-efficacy and performance in mathematics: Reciprocal determinism in 33 nations. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 102(2):453–466
Pajares, F., & Zeldin, A. L. (1999). Inviting self-efficacy revisited: The role of invitations in the lives of women with mathematics-related careers. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 6, 48–68.
Gainor, K. A., & Lent, R. W. (1998). Social cognitive expectations and racial identity attitudes in predicting the math choice intentions of Black college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 403–413.

Self–efficacy is part of self-beliefs, although it is a rather precise notion. It is a measure of a person’s own perception of their ability to successfully complete a specific task or to reach a certain goal. Being based on self–assessment of a specific ability, self–efficacy appears to be a more useful measure, than general self–beliefs (e.g. self–concept, self-esteem or self-confidence), which can be largely determined by cultural background, ethnicity or current psychological state (for example anxiety) of a person.
2. Why self-efficacy is a useful concept for teaching and learning?
study their connections.connections.[3] By measuring self-efficacy, we can deduce how student feel about their past learning experiences, as well as guess their future career choices[5]. We also can find ways to use set-efficacy to her students to increase their performance. But probably the most important benefit is that self-efficacy is the reflection of view of teaching and learning from student's perspective, which include not only what teachers planned to offer by their sessions, but also the class environment, students previous experience and psychological state.
3. What do we know about self-efficacy?
We know that self-efficacy can be measured through interviews with students [6,7]
We know that self-efficacy influence career choices. [5]
We know that self-efficacy is different from expected outcomes, i.e. it is a more "I can" attitude than "I will get first class marks" perception [1]
We know that self-efficacy is a perception, rather than actual state of student's abilities to succeed in a particular task.
We know that sometimes students might have good performance, but attribute it to luck, rather than personal effort, therefore not having self-efficacy.
We know that having well-developed self-efficacy in a particular domain usually helps to perform better in that domain, at least try harder and be less disappointed by small obstacles and failures in the way to success.
4. How the students can gain self-efficacy?
Bandura states [1] that there are four main sources of self-efficacy, which can act together or separately.
The most powerful one is mastery experience. To put it in a more simple wording, this is "I've done it myself before, so I can do it know" attitude. Mastery experience is so powerful because it is always with student. However, it is important to recognise mastery experience as such, i.e. the task is comparable to the onenot all of us will swim across English Channel just because we've done some paddle pool games in our infancy.
The next source is vicarious experience.
5.What teachers can do to improve students' self-efficacy?
References
Albert Bandura. The self system in reciprocal determinism.American psychologist, 33(4):344–358, 1977
R. W. Lent and G. Hackett. Career self–efficacy: Empirical status and future directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30:347–382, 1987.
JAI Press, 1997.1997
R. W. Lent and G. Hackett. Career self–efficacy: Empirical status and future directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30:347–382, 1987
Ellen L. Usher and Frank Pajares. Sources of self–efficacy in mathematics: A validation study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1): 89–101, 2009
Trevor Williams and Kitty Williams. Self-efficacy and performance in mathematics: Reciprocal determinism in 33 nations. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 102(2):453–466

1. What is self-efficacy?
{bandura1.png}
The Bandura's point is that someone’s behavior,idea was to stress the connection of a person's behaviour, cognition, and the influence from environment factors. He argued that they constantly interact with each other and impacthence the term of reciprocal in determinism, which means that each other.
Bandura’sof these factors influence the other two factors. As it can be seen on the picture.
Bandura’s theory places many settings, in fact, Bandura's seminal work on self-efficacy was more rooted in the therapy of anxiety and phobias, than in educational theory.
Later self–beliefs were of Pajares [5][4] and references within).
The influence
Self–efficacy is part of environment is difficult to measure, sinceself-beliefs, although it requires constant observation and raises ethical concerns. For this reason why this factor is often omitted from research.
and the focus shifts on mutual influence of self–efficacy and performance. Self–efficacya rather precise notion. It is a perception of his or hertheir ability to a certain goal [3].goal. Being based self–beliefs (e.g. self–conceptself–concept, self-esteem or self–regard),self-confidence), which can by cultural backgroundbackground, ethnicity or ethnicity.current psychological state (for example anxiety) of a person.
2. Why self-efficacy is a useful concept for teaching and learning?
their connections.
3. What do we know about self-efficacy?
4. How the students can gain self-efficacy?
References
Albert Bandura. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman, 1997.
psychologist, 33(4):344–358, 1978.
Albert Bandura. Organizational application of social cognitive theory.Australian Journal of Management, 13(2):275–302, 1988.1977
R. W. Lent and G. Hackett. Career self–efficacy: Empirical status and future directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30:347–382, 1987.
Frank Pajares. Current directions in self–efficacy research. In M. Maehr and P. R. Pintrich, editors, Advances in motivation and achievement 10:1–49. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1997.

Self-efficacy in 5 questions and answers.FAQ.
1. What is self-efficacy?
{bandura1.png}
The story starts from the reciprocal determinism, a term coined by Bandura in his theory of social cognition [1,2]. The Bandura's point is that someone’s behavior, cognition, and the influence from environment constantly interact and impact each other.
Bandura’s theory places personal cognitive development in the system of social influences, which basically means that a change in self–beliefs can influence professional choices, motivation and performance. This assumption was tested in many settings, and self–beliefs were proven to relate to «clinical problems including phobias, addiction, depression, social skills, assertiveness, stress, smoking behavior, pain control, health, and athletic performance» (see the survey paper of Pajares [5] and references within).
The influence of environment is difficult to measure, since it requires constant observation and raises ethical concerns. For this reason why this factor is often omitted from research.
and the focus shifts on mutual influence of self–efficacy and performance. Self–efficacy is a measure of a person’s own perception of his or her ability to successfully complete a specific task or to reach a certain goal [3]. Being based on self–assessment of a specific ability, self–efficacy appears to be a more useful measure, than general self–beliefs (e.g. self–concept or self–regard), which can be largely determined by cultural background or ethnicity.
2. Why self-efficacy is a useful concept for teaching and learning?
Performance, particularly in academic or professional context, is also specific and measurable, which provides opportunities to apply both qualitative and quantitative research methods to study their connections.
3. What do we know about self-efficacy?
4. How the students can gain self-efficacy?
5.What teachers can do to improve students' self-efficacy?
References
Albert Bandura. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman, 1997.
Albert Bandura. The self system in reciprocal determinism.American psychologist, 33(4):344–358, 1978.
Albert Bandura. Organizational application of social cognitive theory.Australian Journal of Management, 13(2):275–302, 1988.
R. W. Lent and G. Hackett. Career self–efficacy: Empirical status and future directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30:347–382, 1987.
Frank Pajares. Current directions in self–efficacy research. In M. Maehr and P. R. Pintrich, editors, Advances in motivation and achievement 10:1–49. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1997.