Self-efficacy: A innate ability to achieve the plan set

1.   Introduction

1.1. BACKGROUND:

Self-efficacy is the self capability of an individual to achieve a goal; self-efficacy is a generally innate ability of individuals which nourish the individual mindset to achieve the plan set. Self-efficacy refers to 'beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments (Bandura & Adams, 1977). It is the power of a person to face the challenge and cop up with the problem he/she faces, the inner ability and the strength of the will power with the skilled individual has, determine the competency and how long effort of coping behaviour will be sustained in the face of obstacles, Self-efficacy is a person's judgment about being able to perform a particular activity.  It is a student's "I can" or "I cannot" belief. In the publication of Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory in 1986, Albert Bandura proposed a theory of human functioning that emphasizes the role of self-beliefs. From the social cognitive perspective, individuals are viewed as self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting, and self-regulating rather than as reactive organisms shaped by environmental forces or driven by concealed inner impulses. Human thought and human action are viewed as the product of a dynamic interplay of personal, behavioural, and environmental influences(Pajares, 2006). Nowadays, Educational institutions focus on outcome-based education, which puts much effort into supporting their students' acquisition of the necessary knowledge, skills, attitudes, and competencies. Though intelligent behaviour is understood mainly in developing relevant knowledge, skills, and attitudes, researchers in educational settings are increasingly drawing attention to students' thoughts and beliefs in the learning process(Pajares, 2006; D. H. Schunk, 2003b). Self-efficacy, a key element of social cognitive theory, appears to be an important variable because it affects students' motivation and learning(Van Dinther, et al., 2011).

1.2. IMPORTANCE OF SELF-EFFICACY

Self-efficacy can greatly impact how individuals feel, think, behave, and motivate themselves. Individuals who have a heightened sense of self-efficacy:

• See challenging problems as tasks to be mastered, rather than threats to be avoided.
• Develop greater intrinsic interest and focus on their activities.
• Set challenging goals and demonstrate a stronger sense of commitment to them.
• Quickly recover their self-efficacy following setbacks and disappointments (Bandura, 1994).

People who have a low sense of self-efficacy:

• Avoid difficult tasks and view them like personal threats.
• Have a weak commitment to their goals and believe that difficult tasks and situations are beyond their capabilities.
• Dwell on personal failings and negative outcomes, rather than how to succeed.
• Quickly lose faith in their abilities and easily develop depression and stress

 

1.3. DESCRIPTIVE CONCEPT OF SELF-EFFICACY

High self-efficacy in one area may not coincide with high self-efficacy in another area.  Just as high confidence in snow skiing may not be matched with high confidence in baseball, high self-efficacy in mathematics does not necessarily accompany high Self-efficacy in spelling. Self-efficacy is specific to the task being attempted. However, having high self-efficacy does not necessarily mean that students believe they will be successful. While self-efficacy indicates how strongly students believe they have the skills to do well, they may believe other factors will keep them from succeeding.

A growing body of research reveals that there is a positive, significant relationship between students' self-efficacy beliefs and their academic performance. The goal of this study is to evaluate the self-efficacy of the student who is pursuing graduation. People with low self-efficacy toward a task are more likely to avoid it, while those with high self-efficacy are not only more likely to attempt the task, but they also will work harder and persist longer in the face of difficulties. Students with low self-efficacy do not expect to do well, and they often do not achieve at a level that is commensurate with their abilities. They do not believe they have the skills to do well so they don't try.

Self-efficacy influences:

·         What activities do students select

·          How much effort they put forth

·         How persistent they are in the face of difficulties

·          The difficulty of the goals they set

The connection between self-efficacy and achievement gets stronger as students advance through school. By the time students are in college, their self-efficacy beliefs are more strongly related to their achievement than any measure of their ability. If we wish to develop high educational achievement among the students, it is essential to begin building stronger self-efficacy as early as possible.

1.4. The four sources of self-efficacy:

·         Past Performance

Past performance is the single greatest contributor to students' confidence. If students have been successful at a particular skill in the past, they will probably believe that they will be successful at the skill in the future. The old adage, "Nothing breeds success like success" certainly is true when it comes to developing self-efficacy.

·         Vicarious experiences

When a student sees another student accomplish a task, the vicarious experience of observing a model can also have a strong influence on self-efficacy. By observing others like themselves perform tasks; individuals make judgments about their own capabilities. If a student sees a friend publish a poem, he might believe he can also have one published. A third-grader observing other third graders learn multiplication tables is likely to believe that he can also learn them. The more students relate to the model being observed, the more likely the model's performance will have an impact on them. Unlike the self-efficacy beliefs derived from past experience, self-efficacy information gleaned through observation is less stable. Once strong self-efficacy is developed from one's own personal successes, an occasional failure may not have negative effects; however, self-efficacy based on observing others succeed will diminish rapidly if observers subsequently have unsuccessful experiences of their own.

·         Verbal persuasion

Influential people in our lives such as parents, teachers, managers or coaches can strengthen our beliefs that we have what it takes to succeed. Being persuaded that we possess the capabilities to master certain activities means that we are more likely to put in the effort and sustain it when problems arise

·         Physiological cues

The final sources upon which self-efficacy beliefs are based are physiological cues. Sweaty hands or a dry mouth are often interpreted as signs of nervousness. Students may feel that such signs indicate they are not capable of succeeding at a particular task. Conversely, students may be aware of feeling relaxed before confronting a new situation and develop a higher sense of efficacy toward the task they face. Physiological cues are the weakest influence of the four presented here.

 

1.5. THEORY IN RELATION TO SELF-EFFICACY:

1.5.1.      Social cognitive theory :

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) started as the Social Learning Theory (SLT) in the 1960s by Albert Bandura. It developed into the SCT in 1986 and posits that learning occurs in a social context with a dynamic and reciprocal interaction of the person, environment, and behaviour. The unique feature of SCT is the emphasis on social influence and its emphasis on external and internal social reinforcement.   SCT considers the unique way in which individuals acquire and maintain behaviour, while also considering the social environment in which individuals perform the behaviour. The theory takes into account a person's past experiences, which factor into whether behavioural action will occur. These past experiences influences reinforcements, expectations, and expectancies, all of which shape whether a person will engage in specific behaviour and the reasons why a person engages in that behaviour.  The goal of SCT is to explain how people regulate their behaviour through control and reinforcement to achieve goal-directed behaviour that can be maintained over time. The first five constructs were developed as part of the SLT; the construct of self-efficacy was added when the theory evolved into SCT:

·         Reciprocal Determinism - This is the central concept of SCT. This refers to the dynamic and reciprocal interaction of a person (individual with a set of learned experiences), environment (external social context), and behaviour (responses to stimuli to achieve goals).

·         Behavioral Capability - This refers to a person's actual ability to perform a behaviour through essential knowledge and skills. In order to successfully perform a behaviour, a person must know what to do and how to do it. People learn from the consequences of their behaviour, which also affects the environment in which they live.

·         Observational Learning - This asserts that people can witness and observe a behaviour conducted by others, and then reproduce those actions. This is often exhibited through "modelling" of behaviours.   If individuals see a successful demonstration of behaviour, they can also complete the behaviour successfully.

·         Reinforcements - This refers to the internal or external responses to a person's behaviour that affect the likelihood of continuing or discontinuing the behaviour. Reinforcements can be self-initiated or in the environment, and reinforcements can be positive or negative. This is the construct of SCT that most closely ties to the reciprocal relationship between behaviour and environment.

·         Expectations - This refers to the anticipated consequences of a person's behaviour. Outcome expectations can be health-related or not health-related. People anticipate the consequences of their actions before engaging in the behaviour, and these anticipated consequences can influence the successful completion of the behaviour. Expectations derive largely from previous experience.   While expectancies also derive from previous experience, expectancies focus on the value that is placed on the outcome and are subjective to the individual.

·         Self-efficacy - This refers to the level of a person's confidence in his or her ability to successfully perform a behaviour. Self-efficacy is unique to SCT although other theories have added this construct at later dates, such as the Theory of Planned Behavior. Self-efficacy is influenced by a person's specific capabilities and other individual factors, as well as by environmental factors (barriers and facilitators).

1.5.2.      SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY (BANDURA):

Social Learning Theory, theorized by Albert Bandura, posits that people learn from one another, via observation, imitation, and modelling. The theory has often been called a bridge between behaviourist and cognitive learning theories because it encompasses attention, memory, and motivation.

1.5.3.       RECIPROCAL DETERMINISM THEORY:

Reciprocal determinism is the theory set forth by psychologist Albert Bandura which states that people behave both influences and is influenced by personal factors and the social environment. Bandura accepts the possibility that an individual's behaviour may be conditioned through the use of consequences.

1.6.         RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-EFFICACY AND PERFORMANCE:

Self-efficacy theory states that the combination between the four factors of developing self-efficacy and the three assessment processes used to interpret self-efficacy will determine the level of self-efficacy which directly affects the performance outcomes. The three assessment processes for self-efficacy are the analysis of task requirements, attributional analysis of experience, and assessment of personal and situational resources/constraints(Gist & Mitchel, 1992)

·         Analysis of Task Requirements - An individual's determination of what it takes to perform a task (Gist & Mitchel, 1992).

·          Attributional Analysis of Experience - An individual's judgment about why a performance level occurred (Gist & Mitchel, 1992). 

·          Assessment of Personal and Situational Resources/Constraints - An individual's consideration of personal and situational factors. Personal factors could include such things as skill level and available effort. Situational factors could include factors such as competing demands (Gist & Mitchel, 1992).

 

1.7.         SELF-EFFICACY AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS:

Academic success depends fully on the three assessment processes of self-efficacy. 

Analysis of Task Requirements: This is the amount of determination that a student has to do whatever it takes to perform/complete a task. 

·         Student belief to accomplish the task

·         How much time and effort is dedicated to the coursework

·         The quality of notes that are taken

Attributional Analysis of Experience: This is the personal perception and understanding that a student has in regards to why they accomplished a specific performance level.

·         Was there enough time put into completing the task at hand - Did the time spent or lack thereof affect the outcome?

·         Was there enough energy put into completing the task at hand - Did the student do minimal work or go above and behind to get the end result?

·         Was there enough communication between student and professor if there were questions and/or concerns regarding the materials - Did asking or not asking affect the outcome?

Assessment of Personal and Situational Resources/Constraints: This is the student's consideration of personal and situational factors that may affect their education

·         Quality and quantity or work could be affected by surroundings, environment, and emotions - Where is studying occurring? Is the student surrounded by calm or chaotic individuals and/or environment?

·         Does the student feel comfortable and confident in completing all the tasks at hand?

·         Is the student taking courses at a level in which they can succeed? Are they taking courses that are too easy or too difficult for their skill level and abilities?

.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Scientific thought, sociological, philosophical, psychological, and logical views are involved in the concept of self-efficacy. The concept, historical background, reflection to the society, role in cognitive science, and all relevant literature about the role and importance of self-efficacy in the development of the student's self-esteem to succeed in their life of struggle and suggested strategies for the solution to persist with the critical condition, the skill to cope with the hardest situation of the life of any individual of any profession with emphasize to students of different background and stream have been reviewed in this study.

2.1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

Self-efficacy theory was first described by Albert Bandura in 1977 in an article in the journal Psychological Review titled "Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change". Bandura defined self-efficacy beliefs (or expectancies) as the beliefs regarding one's ability to perform the tasks that one views as necessary for attaining valued goals. He proposed that self-efficacy beliefs are among the most important determinants of human behavior and offered self-efficacy theory as a unifying theory for all types of behavior change, including the effects of psychological interventions and psychotherapy. He contrasted self-efficacy expectancies, concerning one's abilities to perform behaviors, with outcome expectancies, which are concerned with the expected results of the behaviors that one performs. Bandura proposed that self-efficacy beliefs are the most important and powerful of the two in influencing people's decisions to attempt or not attempt certain behaviors and to persist in the face of obstacles. Bandura proposed that self-efficacy beliefs developed from four main sources: (1) performance attainments and failures—what we try to do and how well we succeed or not; (2) vicarious performances—what we see other people do; (3) verbal persuasion—what people tell us about what we are able or not able to do; and (4) imaginal performances—what we imagine ourselves doing and how well or poorly we imagine ourselves doing it. Since the publication of the 1977 article, self-efficacy theory has guided thousands of studies in psychological and related fields such as social work, public health, education, medicine, nursing, communications, organizational behavior, and management. These studies have examined the role of self-efficacy beliefs in just about every imaginable behavior of interest or relevance to human beings(Maddux, Kleiman, & Gosslein, 2018). Additionally, over the last 40 years, the tenets of self-efficacy have been extended far beyond the bounds of educational psychology, reaching fields as diverse as health, medicine, social and political change, psychopathology, athletics, business, and international affairs. (Fitzgerald, 2019; Schunk, 2003a; Schunk, 1990)

2.2. SOCIAL COGNITIVE AND SELF-EFFICACY:

Social cognitive theory is a portrait of self-efficacy.

Shah (1993) investigated the relationship between academic achievement and some social-psychological variables of students. A sample of 640 boys and 360 girl students were taken. Annual examination scores for three consecutive years were aggregated as a measure of the academic achievement of the students. The findings indicated "a positive relationship between parents' education and academic achievement of their children. Girls were also found to have better academic achievement than boys".

Khare and Garewal (1996) conducted a study on academic achievement concerning the home environment of elementary school students. The results revealed "a significant difference in the academic achievement of boys and girls. Boys were found to have better academic achievement than girls".

Mishra (1997) examined the variables correlated to academic achievement of secondary school students and found that "intelligence was significantly correlated with academic achievement for both boys and girls; the correlation between intelligence and academic achievement was higher in the case of girls; socioeconomic status was not significantly related with the academic achievement of boys and girls; academic achievement of rural students was lower than the achievement of urban students; academic performance of girls was superior to the performance of boys".

                                

2.3. Tools in the evaluation of Self-efficacy.

Like other disciplines, various tools are used in educational research too. The selection of appropriate tools enables the researcher to accomplish the objectives effectively; otherwise, it will distort the entire findings of the study. Generally, the selection of tools depends upon the study's objectives and the size and nature of the sample. Gathering specific information on a variety of topics and subtopics from a large number of samples that are available in one place is possible only with the help of appropriate tools. The investigator has used the following tools:

·         Consumable booklet of SES-SANS(English version) developed by Dr.Arun Kumar Singh and Dr.Shruti Narain

·         Manual for Self Efficacy Scale  SES-SANS, Dr.Arun Kumar Singh and Dr.Shruti Narain

(National Psychological corporation Estd.1971).

 

2.4. DESCRIPTION OF TOOLS.

 

This self-efficacy scale developed by Dr.Arun Kumar Singh and Dr.Shruti Narain has been designed for use with 12 years and above the age of individuals; self-efficacy is a person's belief in his or her ability or competency to perform a task, reach a goal, or overcome the obstacle, there are four dimensions which are finally included in this scale.

1.      Self-confidence

2.      Efficacy expectation

3.      Positive attitude

4.      Outcome

 

Table: 3.2

Division of the items

 

Sr.No	Division of items	Series wise item no	Total
1	Self-confidence	1,2,3,4,5	5
2	Efficacy expectation	6,7,8,9,10	5
3	Positive attitude	11,12,13,14,15	5
4	Outcome expectation	16,17,18,19,20	5
		Total	20

 

It is a Likert-type scale having 5 response options where 5 stands for 'strongly agree,' 4 for 'agree,' 3 for 'neutral,' 2 for 'disagree', and 1 for 'strongly disagree'.  The response of the subjects on each item is scored, and a total score also is obtained.

 

 

Scoring:

The scoring of positive items of SE scale by giving a score of 5,4,3,2 or 1 for Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree and Strongly Disagree, respectively.

Table:3.3

Scoring system

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Positive	5	4	3	2	1
Negative	1	2	3	4	5

 

The score obtained were added together to yield a total score the details of scoring are being provided in table 3.4. It has 16 positive items and 4 negative items.

Scoring table 3.4

Positive items	Items no. 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,11,13,14,15,17,19 and 20
Negative items	Items no. 4, 10,12, and 18

 

Reliability: All reliability coefficient was significant at the 0.01 level.

Validity: SE scale is always validated against the General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale developed initially been in German by Jerusalem and Schwarzer and adapted by Sud (1981) in Hindi.

2.5. Instruction and Administration:

 

1.       It is a self-administrating Scale. It is administered to a group as well as an individual. The instructions printed on the test form should be read by the test administration as well as the testee.

2.       No time limit is fixed for completing the scale. However, an individual takes 20 to 25 minutes in completing the scale.

3.        It should be emphasized that each item has to be responded.

4.        It should be emphasized that no item is right or wrong, it's only to know the reaction of an individual in different situations.

5.       No item is to be left out.

6.        They should be assured that their answers will be kept confidential

 

 2.6. Qualitative interpretation

 The obtained scores on the self-efficacy scale can also be qualitatively interpreted as under:

Table 3.5

Qualitative interpretation of scores of a self-efficacy scale

 

Score	Interpretation
85 and above	High self-efficacy
74 to 84	Average self-efficacy
73 to less	Poor self-efficacy

 

3. Data interpretation:

 "When the data has been obtained, it is necessary to organize that for interpretation and presentation. Qualitative data may have to be summarized and quantitative data may have to be treated statistically to make their significance clear" (Oliver, 1930). In the previous chapter, a description of the problem, a review of related literature, descriptions of tools and procedures for data collection have been presented. The data collected through the use of mentioned tests and scales would have remained merely a meaningless heap of facts unless it had not been statistically processed and analyzed. Analysis of data means studying the tabulated material to determine the present facts of means. It involves breaking up the complex factors into simpler parts and putting the parts together in a new agreement for interpretation. According to Kerlinger (1964), "Analysis means categorizing, ordering, manipulating and summarizing of data to obtain an answer to research questions. The purpose of the analysis is to reduce data into intelligible and interpretable form so that the relation of research problems can be studied and test. Analysis of data can be done based on hypotheses set earlier." Pauling (1956) said, "Scientific analysis assesses that behind the accumulated data, there is something more important revealing than facts themselves. By this process, old conceptions can be tested and a new one can be discovered.

 

Interpretation is the most important step in the total research process. It calls for a critical examination of the results of one's analysis in light of all the limitations of the data gathered. According to Good, Barr and Scates (1941), "The process of interpretation is essentially one of stating what the results show? What do they mean? What is its significance? What is the answer to the original problem? That is all the limitations of the data must enter into and become a part of the interpretation of the results." According to Shukla (1996), "bare facts, objectives, and data never determine anything. They become significant only as interpreted in the light of accepted standards and assumptions. In ordinary life, we seldom deal with bare facts interpreted. This interpretation is determined by the purpose to which, we related the facts."

 

 Analysis and interpretation are the crucial and important step in the field of research because the raw scores obtained through tests and scales have no values in themselves. In a real sense analysis and interpretation give shape to the research and help the investigator to draw inferences that yield conclusions and generalization. The present chapter includes how the data were processed, on the basis of these results, one can easily infer whether the objectives of the present study have been achieved or not and if achieved to what extent they have been achieved.

4. Summary

One of the essential roles of educators is to develop in student's knowledge, skills that would make them self-reliable to function effectively in society. Thus, students self-efficacy determines academic performance, which is a significant variable that interest both teachers and educational psychologists. Education has become highly competitive and commercial in most of the countries. The outcome of education determines the quality of life, progress, and status of people living anywhere in the world. Many reasons have been advanced as the cause of high rates of failure, including lousy study habits, low IQ, faulty teaching methods, erroneous examination systems, social and economic disparities, etc., and these are maybe the factors that determine the self-efficacy of the students.

Self-efficacy:

Bandura (1986) defined, "self-efficacy as people's beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives. It refers to a person's judgment of own capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain the designated type of performance has also been found to be a major contributor to an individual's academic achievement." It includes the following dimensions:

1.      Academic self-efficacy

2.      Social self-efficacy

3.      Emotional self-efficacy

Zimmerman (1995) defines academic self-efficacy "as personal judgments of one's capabilities to organize and execute the course of action to attain designated types of educational performance". Bandura, Babaraneli, Caprara & Pastorelli (1996) stated that "academic self-efficacy promotes academic achievement directly and indirectly by increasing academic aspirations and prosocial behaviors." Many other researchers (Chemers, Hu & Garcia, 2001; Robbins, Lauver, Le, Davis, Langley & Carlstrom, 2004; Green, Miller, Crowson, Duke & Akey, 2004; Sharm & Silbereisen, 2007) have reported "a direct positive relationship between academic self-efficacy and academic achievement." Other studies (Lin, 1990; Jackson & Smith, 2001; Brown & Robinson Kurpius, 1997; Hill, 2003) have identified "academic self-efficacy as a predictor of American India students' academic achievement and persistence in post-secondary academic activities".

Self–efficacy beliefs have shown convergent validity in influencing such key indices of academic motivation as the level of effort, choice of activities, emotional reactions and persistence. Bandura (1997) stated that "there is evidence that self-efficacious students participate more readily, work harder, persist longer, and have fewer adverse emotional reactions when they encounter difficulties than do those who doubt their capabilities".

In terms of choice of activities, self-efficacious students undertake challenging tasks more readily than do inefficacious students. Bandura and Schunk (1981) found that "students' mathematical self-efficacy beliefs were predictive of their choice of engaging in subtraction problems rather than in a different type of task: The higher the children's sense of efficacy, the greater their choice of the arithmetic activity".

Bibliography:

·         Bandura, A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of Self-Efficacy Theory of Behavioral Change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(4), 287–310. Retrieved from http://des.emory.edu/mfp/Bandura1977CTR-Adams.pdf

·         Balboni, Giulia & Pedrabissi Lungi (1998). School Adjustment and Academic Achievement: Parental expectation and Socio-cultural background, Journal of Early Child Development and Care, 143, 79-93.

·         Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall

·         Chemers, M.M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B.F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 1, 55-64

·         Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91

·         Fitzgerald, S. T. (2019). Self-Efficacy Theory. AAOHN Journal, 39(12), 552–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/216507999103901202

·         Gist, E. G., & Mitchel, R. T. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.

·         Khare, S. and Garewel, A. (1996). Relationship Among Speed of Information Processing Ability, Creativity and Academic Achievement. Psycholingua,27(1), 53-56.S

·         Maddux, E. J., Kleiman, E., & Gosslein, T. J. (2018). Self-Efficacy - Psychology - Oxford Bibliographies. https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780199828340-0088

·         Pajares, F. (2006). Self-Efficacy During Childhood and Adolescence. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, 339–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00075-6

·         Schunk, D. H. (2003a). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self- evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 159–172. https://doi.org/10.16309/j.cnki.issn.1007-1776.2003.03.004

·         Schunk, D. H. (2003b). Self-Efficacy for Reading and Writing: Influence of Modeling, Goal Setting, and Self-Evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19(2), 159–172.

·         Schunk, D. H. S. (1990). Goal Setting and Self-Efficacy During Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 25, 71–86. Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/

·         Shah, Lubna (1993). The Influence of Selected Socio-Psychological Variables on the Achievement of School Children In Azad Kashmir. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Kashmir, India.

·         Van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (2011). Factors affecting students' self-efficacy in higher education. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.10.003

·         Weaver, K. (2016). Self-Efficacy and Social Cognitive Theories. Retrieved from confluence website: https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/PSYCH484/7.+Self-Efficacy+and+Social+Cognitive+Theories

·         Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 1–10.

·         Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary