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

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-efficacy 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-efficacyis 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. 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 . Differences in self-concept by self-esteem 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 doesn’t 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 • Rosenberg’s 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/vol1no2/contents.html • Lane, J., Lane, A. M., & Cockerton, T. (2003). Prediction of academic performance from self-efficacy and performance accomplishments among master’s degree students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education. http://www.hlst.ltsn.ac.uk/johlste/vol2no1/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.