How does “self-efficacy” relate to learning?

Per Zimmerman (2002), Bandura in 1977 introduced the idea of self –efficacy and defined it as perceived difference among individuals in their capability to complete a task. Zimmerman notes that Bandura attributed a significant weight to self-efficacy in enhancing motivation among individuals. Prior to this human motivation had only been linked to “outcome expectation”. Several studies have been done on self-efficacy and its effect on learning, with the general consensus that learning can be significantly affected by higher self-efficacy. This paper will review two articles on the topic. The first article by Zimmerman (2000) is a meta analytical review of the role of self efficacy on academic motivation and learning. The second literature covered by this paper is a research based paper by Martocchio (1994). Martocchio’s study looked at the effect of induced concept of ability, on training participants, as a fixed entity or an acquirable skill on an individual’s efficacy towards that task.
Zimmerman cites a study done by Shell, Murphy, and Burning which supports Bandura’s position that self-efficacy is a larger determinant of the motivation than expected outcome. This study measured perceived capability to perform reading and writing activities and found that virtually all of 32% variance was accounted for by perceived self efficacy. The study also found that in writing self-efficacy was the only predictor of achievement. Per Zimmerman this is consistent with Bandura’s assertion that self-efficacy is a greater predictor of motivation than outcome expectation. Bandura posits that this is primarily because expected outcome depends on the person’s belief on how well they are likely to perform on a given situation.
Other close construct of self-efficacy discussed by Zimmerman includes self-concept, and perceived control. The author distinguishes self-concept from self efficacy in that self-concept pertains to current self evaluation whereas self-efficacy relates to future expected performance. Perceived control, relates to expectation about whether outcomes are controlled by individual’s behavior or external forces. Although closely related to self-efficacy Zimmerman finds that both these measures are not as strong of a predictor of academic outcomes as self efficacy is.
Zimmerman also studied role of self-efficacy on motivation and self regulation. The author’s study shows that self- efficacy has a positive influence an individual’s choice of activities, level of effort, persistent, and level of reaction. Per Zimmerman studies show that higher the self-efficacy the higher the rate of students undertaking more challenging or difficult task. Self-efficacy is also found to be positively correlated with the amount of effort that an individual might put in on a task. Zimmerman cites Saloman who found that highly self-efficacious students tended to put in more effort, and achieved more even when a student was learning from the text deemed to be difficult. Per the author Schunk also found that higher self-efficacy influences skill acquisition through higher persistence. Bandura’s study further showed that higher self-efficacy influences an individual emotionally by decreasing their stress and anxiety, thus further enhancing their ability to manage academic demands.
Zimmerman concludes that self efficacy is a valid predictor of student’s motivation and learning. In order to examine whether this critical component of learning, self-efficacy, can be induced upon an individual I briefly look upon the research conducted by Martocchio.
Martocchio (1994) posits that individuals conceive of their ability as fixed entity or acquirable skill. Those who perceive ability as acquirable skill leads to individual seeking to enhancing competencies whereas those who view it as a fixed entity leads to individual seeking to gain favorable judgment of their competency. Per the author those who think of ability as fixed entity are likely to experience low self-efficacy. Furthermore those who have low self-efficacy dwell on their self deficiency and are more likely to be “self-diagnostic” than “task- diagnostic” which, per the author, hampers learning. Martocchio’s research centered on testing of ability inductions, computer anxiety, computer efficacy, and declarative knowledge. For the purposes of this paper I focus on the ability induction portion of Martocchio research. In the research Martocchio used two items to test for the effects of inducing ability; “"I can learn from the mistakes I make when learning how to use a microcomputer," and "Making errors reflect limits to my ability to learn microcomputers". This study composed of 76 participants, training in microcomputer. The study found that trainees who were induced to think of ability as acquirable skill before and during training experienced significant decline in anxiety (related to use of computers), and heightened computer efficacy post-training. While the trainees in the fixed entity counterparts did not experience heightened computer anxiety post training, they did experience diminished computer efficacy beliefs from pre-training levels.
While the researches discussed above were conducted either in an academic context or computer training context they both strongly suggest that self-efficacy is an important element of learning. Both studies indicate that it is the mindset of an individual that determines their ability to learn. Per Zimmerman’s study, highly self-efficacious individuals tend to take on more challenging task, tend to have higher persistence and motivation, and thus are able to acquire more skills in the process. Given this importance of self-efficacy, Martocchio’s finding that self-efficacy can in fact be enhanced by inducing the concept of ability as an acquirable skill, can be crucial in enhancing learning. Infusing any training program or an academic curriculum with the notion that everything taught is an acquirable skill is likely to heighten the participant’s self-efficacy. This in turn could lead to higher learning in the training participants.
One particular topic that could have strengthened the study results would, perhaps, have been an analysis or discussion of whether the self-efficacy differs by task. That is to say, does self-efficacious individual tend to have higher self-efficacy in every task they undertake? Similarly, results of Martocchio’s study would have insurmountable proposition if self-efficacy is not task specific. For example, if a parent could raise their child by continuously reinforcing the concept of ability as an acquirable skill, as per Martocchio’s study, then this could imply that the child would grow up highly self-efficacious overall. This could then enhance their overall learning for lifetime, without the instructor having to reinforce the idea of acquirable skill during every training session.
Another element that Martocchio’s study fails to address is the implication of inducing the concept of acquirable skill when the learning of task is in fact limited by the fixed skill of the participant. Study of the effect of inducing an individual to think of the skill as acquirable, while it is not an acquirable skill, could also have tremendous implications on the design of the training program. This is so especially if such induction could be detrimental to learning.

References
Martocchio, J. (1994). Effects of conceptions of ability on anxiety, self-efficacy, and learning in training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 819-825.

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

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. A set of beliefs, drawn from experience, about what the consequences (rewards or punishments) of certain actions are likely to be (http://quizlet.com/dictionary/outcome%2Bexpectations/)