GE 1 UNDERSTANDING THE SELF

CHAPTER I
MANAGING AND CARING FOR THE SELF

Lesson 1: Learning To Be a Better Learner

We are Homo sapiens or the “wise man.” We think in a more complex level than our ancestors and
most, if not all, of the other beings. But being called wise, not only do we think, but we are also capable to think
about thinking, like how we think of things and why we think in a certain way about things. It is like your brain
thinks about itself, then thinks about how it thinks about itself.

In the context of learning, studies show that when you are able to think about how you think, how you
process information, and how you utilize techniques while you are studying, you have a higher chance of
improving your learning process than those who do not reflect on their methods.

This idea falls under the concept of metacognition. Metacognition is commonly defined as “thinking
about thinking” (Livingston, 1997; Papaleontiou-Louca, 2003). It is the awareness of the scope and limitations
of your current knowledge and skills (Meichenbaum, 1985 in American Institutes for Research, 2010). Due to
this awareness, metacognition enables the person to adapt their existing knowledge and skills to approach a
learning task, seeking for the optimum result of the learning experience (American Institutes for Research,
2010).

Metacognition is also not limited to the thinking process of the individual. It also includes keeping one’s
emotions and motivations while learning in check (Papaleontiou-Louca, 2003). Some people learn better when
they like the subject, some when they are challenged by the topic, and others if they have a reward system each
time they finish a task. The emotional state and the motivation of a person then should also be in the preferred
ideal state in order to further facilitate his or her learning.

As seen from the abovementioned definitions, metacognition basically has two aspects; (1) self-
appraisal and (2) self-management of cognition (Paris and Winnograd, 1990 in Papaleontiou-Louca, 2003).
Self-appraisal is your personal reflection on your knowledge and capabilities while self-management is the
mental process you employ using what you have in planning and adapting to successfully learn or accomplish a
certain task (Paris and Winnograd, 1990 in Papaleontiou-Louca, 2003). Similar concepts, usually called
elements of metacognition, are metacognitive knowledge or what you know about how you think, and
metacognition regulation or how you adjust your thinking processes to help you learn better (American
Institutes for Research, 2010).

Under metacognitive knowledge, there are several variables that affect how you know or assess yourself
as a thinker. First is the personal variable, which is your evaluation of your strengths and weaknesses in
learning. Second is the task variable, which is what you know or what you think about the nature of the task, as
well as the strategies the task requires. Lastly, strategy variable refers to what strategies or skills you already
have in dealing with certain tasks (American Institutes for Research, 2010).

However, it must be noted that in order to make self-appraisal and self-management work, you must
have an accurate self-assessment- you must be honest about what you know and capable of in order to find
ways to utilize your strengths and improve on your weaknesses (Schoenfield, 1987 in Papaleontiou-Louca,
2003).

According to Waterloo Student Success Office (n.d.), the following are other skills that can help you in
exercising metacognition:
 1. Knowing your limits. As mentioned earlier, one cannot really make any significance advancement in
using metacognitive skills without having an honest and accurate evaluation of what you know and what
you do not know,
2. Modifying you approach. It begins with the recognition that your strategy is not appropriate with the
task and/or that you do not comprehend the learning experience successfully.
3. Skimming. This is basically browsing over a material and keeping an eye on keywords, phrases, or
sentences. It is also about knowing where to search for such key terms.
4. Rehearsing. This is not just about repeatedly talking, writing, and/or doing what you have learned, but
also trying to make a personal interpretation or summary of the learning experience.
5. Self-test. As the name implies, this is trying to test your comprehension of your learning experience or
the skills you have acquired during learning.

Other strategies that you need to develop include asking questions about your methods, self-reflection,
finding a mentor or support group if necessary, thinking out loud, and welcoming errors as learning
experiences.
For clarification, “welcoming errors” does not mean seeking them or consciously making them as much as
possible. It means that when you commit a mistake, you do not dismiss it as insignificant or you do not try to
avoid responsibility of the results. You must process them to learn every lesson that you can take about
yourself, about the topic, and other people or things. By having a more positive attitude towards mistakes, you
will aslo have the courage to venture into new and unknown learning experiences that may one day interest you.

Using these strategies, you can atleast identify four types of metacognitive learners (Perkins, 1992 in
Cambridge International Examinations, 2015). First, the “tacit” learners are unaware of their metacognitive
processes although they know the extent of their knowledge. Second, the “aware” learners know some of their
metacognitive strategies but they do not plan on how to use these techniques. Third, “strategic” learners, as the
name implies, strategize and plan their course of action toward a learning experience. Lastly, the “reflective”
learners reflect on their thinking while they are using the strategies and adapt metacognitive skills depending on
their situation.

As you may have noticed already, the goal of metacognition is for the student to be a self-regulated
learner. Education should not be limited by the capabilities of the teacher, the content of school textbooks, the
four corners of the classroom, and the duration of the academic year or courses. You should have the capability
to study things on your own as well as accurately evaluate your progress.

This is one of the benefits of using metacognitive techniques and strategies. Another benefit is the
compensation and development of cognitive limitations of the learner because the student is now aware of
his/her capabilities. Various researches also showed significant improvement in academic performance in any
subject and across age range. The student is also enabled to transfer knowledge from one context into another
(Cambridge International Examinations, 2015).

Other tips that you can use in studying are the following (Queensland University of Technology Library, n.d.):
1. Make an outline of the things you want to learn, the things you are reading or doing, and/or the things
you remember.
2. Break down the task in smaller and more manageable details.
3. Integrate variation in your schedule and learning experience. Change reading material every hour and do
not put similar topics together (e.g., try studying English then Mathematics instead of English then
Filipino together). Also include physical activities in you planning.
4. Try to incubate your ideas. First, write your draft without doing much editing. Let the ideas flow. Then
leave your draft at least overnight or around 24 hours- some even do not look at it for a week- and do
something else. After a given period, go back to your draft or prototype and you might find a fresh
perspective about it. Sometimes, during incubation, you suddenly have ideas coming to you. Write them
 down in a notebook first and do not integrate them into the draft yet. Review what you have written
when the incubation period is done.
5. Revise, summarize, and take down notes, then reread them to help you minimize cramming in the last
minute, especially when you have a weakness in memorizing facts ad data. Some people are motivated
when the deadline is very close- tomorrow, for instance- and they just review the day before some
evaluation or exercise. If you are that kind of person, you may still motivate yourself and have that
feeling or urgency at the last minute but by using the aforementioned techniques, your “cramming” need
not be a desperate attempt to learn but only as a way to energize your brain as you make a final review
of the things you have already been studying for a week or so before.
6. Engage what you have learned. Do something about it. On a reading material for example, highlight
keywords and phrases, write your opinions about the matter on a separate notebook, or create a diagram
or concept map. Some people also learn best by copying the key paragraphs word for word. You may
want to look for other definitions and compare or contrast materials. Use your new knowledge during
discussions- just do something about it.

Lesson 2: Do Not Just Dream, Make It Happen

Albert E. Bandura’s Self-efficacy

Biography
The concept of self-efficacy was introduced by Albert Bandura in an article entitled “Self-efficacy:
Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change” published in Psychological Review in 1977. The article also
became an instant classic in psychology (Kendra, 2017).

Albert E. Bandura was born in Mundare, Alberta on December 4, 1925. He was the youngest of six
children. He grew up with parents who put great emphasis on the value of family, life, and education.

Bandura took a summer job in Alaska after high school graduation. He then took an introductory
psychology course at the University of British Columbia as a working student. In three years’ time, he
graduated with The Bolocan Award in Psychology in 1949.

He earned his master’s degree from the University of Iowa in 1951 and his PhD in Clinical Psychology
in 1952. He had a postdoctoral position at the Wichita Guidance Center before accepting a position as a faculty
member at Stanford University in 1953, where he still works at present.

Summary of Self-efficacy Theory

Weibell (2011) summarized Albert Bandura’s self-efficacy theory:
“Self-efficacy theory is based on the assumption that psychological procedures serve as a means of
creating and strengthening expectations of personal efficacy.”

Self-efficacy theory distinguishes between expectations of efficacy and response-outcome expectancies.

According to Weibell (2011), outcome expectancy is “a person’s estimate that a given behavior will lead to
certain outcomes.” An efficacy expectation is “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior
required to produce the outcomes.” Although a person may expect a certain activity to lead to a particular
outcome, they may lack the motivation to perform the action, doubting their ability to do so. Outcome and
efficacy expectations are differentiated because individuals can believe that a particular course of action will
produce certain outcomes. However, if they entertain serious doubts about whether they can perform the
necessary activities with such information, it does not influence their behavior.

Self-efficacy typically comes into play when there is an actual or perceived threat to one’s personal
safety, or one’s ability to deal with potentially aversive events. Increasing a person’s self-efficacy increases
their ability to deal with a potentially averse situation. For example, experimental studies on the treatment of
adults with ophidophobia (fear of snakes) have demonstrated that raising levels of self-efficacy is an effective
technique to help them cope with threatening situations. Perceived self-efficacy mediates anxiety arousal.

Weibell (2011) stated that Dr. Bandura 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.” He
identified acts of people with “high assurance in their capabilities,” such as:
1. approach difficult tasks as challenges to be mastered;
2. set challenging goals and maintain strong commitment to them;
3. heighten or sustain efforts in the face of failures or setbacks;
4. attribute failure to insufficient effort or deficient knowledge and skills which are acquirable; and
5. approach threatening situations with assurance that they can exercise control over them.

In contrast, people “who doubt their capabilities’:

1. shy away from tasks they view as personal threats;
2. have low aspirations and weak commitment to goals they choose to pursue;
3. dwell on personal deficiencies, obstacles they will encounter, and all kinds of adverse outcomes, rather
than concentrating on how to perform successfully;
4. slacken their efforts and give up quickly in the face of difficulties;
5. are slow to recover their sense of efficacy following failure or setbacks; and
6. fall easy victim to stress and depression.

Dr, Bandura described four main sources of influence by which a person’s self-efficacy is developed and
maintained. These are:
1. performance accomplishments or mastery experiences;
2. vicarious experiences;
3. verbal or social persuasion; and
4. physiological (somatic and emotional) states.

Dr. Bandura identified that “mastery experiences” or “personal performance accomplishments’ are the
most effective ways to create a strong sense of efficacy. “Successes build a robust belief in one’s personal
efficacy. Failures undermined it, especially if failures occur before a sense of efficacy is firmly established.”
Vicarious experiences through observance of social models also influence one’s perception of self-efficacy. The
most important factor that determines the strength of influence of an observed success or failure on one’s own
self-efficacy is the degree of similarity between the observer and the model.

Seeing people similar to oneself succeed by sustained effort raises observers’ beliefs that they, too,
possess the capabilities to succeed, given the comparable activities. By the same token, observing others who
fail despite high efforts lowers observer’s judgments of their own efficacy and undermines their efforts. The
impact of modelling on perceived self-efficacy is strongly influenced by perceived similarity to the models. The
greater the assumed similarity, the more persuasive is the models’ successes and failures. If people see the
models as very different from themselves, their perceived self-efficacy is not much influenced by the model’s
behavior and the results it produces.

Verbal or social persuasion also affects one’s perception of self-efficacy. It is “a way of strengthening
people’s beliefs that they have what it takes to succeed.” Verbal or social persuasion can provide a temporary
boost in perceived ability. When it is effective in mobilizing a person to action, and their actions lead to success,
the enhanced self-efficacy may become more permanent. “People who are persuaded verbally, that they possess
the capabilities to master given activities, are likely to mobilize greater effort and sustain it than if they harbor
self-doubts and dwell on personal deficiencies when problems arise.” This increases their chances of success.
Unfortunately, “it is more difficult to instill high beliefs of personal efficacy by social persuasion alone than to
undermine it since unrealistic boosts in efficacy are quickly disconfirmed by disappointing results of one’s
efforts” (Weibell, 2011).
 People also rely on their somatic or emotional states when judging their capabilities. Stress and tension
are interpreted as “signs of vulnerability to poor performance.” Fatigue, aches and pains, and mood also affect
perception of ability. Dr. Bandura notes, however, that it is not the intensity of the emotional or physical
reaction that is important, but rather, how it is perceived and interpreted. People with a high sense of self-
efficacy may perceive affective arousal as “an energizing facilitator or performance, whereas those who are
beset by self-doubts regard their arousal as debilitator’ (Weibell, 2011).

Since “most human motivation is cognitively generated,” self-belief of efficacy is an important factor in
human motivation. Beliefs of self-efficacy work in coordination with component skill and incentive to act. In as
much as a person has both the component skills needed to succeed and the incentive to engage, self-efficacy
plays an important role in determining what activities a person will choose to engage in, how much effort they
will expend, and how long that effort will be sustained when things get tough (Weibell, 2011).

Expectation alone will not produce desired performance if the component capabilities are lacking.
Moreover, there are many things that people can do with certainty of success but they do not perform because
they have no incentives to do so (Weibell, 2011).

Carol S. Dweck’s Fixed and Growth Mindset Theory

Biography
Carol S. Dweck is the author of Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. She was born on October 17,
1946. She graduated from Bernard College in 1967 and earned her PhD from Yale University in 1972. She
taught at Columbia University, Harvard University and University of Illinois before joining Stanford Univeristy
in 2004 (Upclosed, 2017).

She is one of the leading researchers in the field of motivation and is a Lewis and Virginia Eaton
Professor of Psychology at Stanford University. Her research focused on why people succeed and how to foster
success. She has been elected as one of the outstanding scholars in Social Sciences at the American Academy of
Arts nd Sciences. Her works has been featured in different publications like The New Yorker, Time, The New
York Times, The Washington Post, and The Boston (Mindset 2006-2010)

Fixed and Growth Mindset

Dr. Dweck’s contributions to social psychology relates to implicit theories of intelligence with her book,
Mindset: The New Psychology of Success published in 2006. Dr. Dweck described people with two types of
mindset. People who believe that success is based on their innate abilities have a “fixed” theory of intelligence,
and goes after fixed mindset. On the other hand, people who believe that success is based on hardwork,
learning, training, and perseverance have growth theory of intelligence, which goes under growth mindset.
According to Dr. Dweck, individuals may not necessarily be aware of their own mindset, but their mindset can
still be discerned based on their behavior. It is especially evident in their reaction to failure. Fixed-mindset
individuals dread failure because it is a negative statement on their basic abilities, while growth-mindset
individuals do not mind or fear failure as much because they realize their performance can be improved and
learning comes from failure. These two mindsets play an important role in all aspects of a person’s life. Dr.
Dweck argues that the growth mindset will allow a person to live a stressful and more successful life (Upclosed,
2017).

In an interview with Dr. Dweck in 2012, she described the fixed and growth mindset as:
“In a fixed mindset, students believe their basic abilities, their intelligence, their talents are just fixed
traits. They have a certain amount and that’s that, and their goal becomes to look smart all the time and never
look dumb. In the growth mindset, students understand that their talents and abilities can be developed through
effort, good teaching and persistence. They don’t necessarily think everyone’s the same or anyone can be
Einstein, but they believe everyone can get smarter if they work for it.” (Upclosed, 2017).
 Individuals with growth mindset are more likely to continue working hard despite setbacks while
individuals with fixed mindset can be affected by subtle environmental cues. It is possible to encourage students
to persist despite failure by encouraging them to think about learning in a certain way (Upclosed, 2017).
Edwin A. Locke’s Goal Setting Theory

Biography
Edwin A. Locke is internationally known for his research on goal setting. He was born on January 5,
1938. He is Dean’s Professor (Emeritus) of Leadership and Motivation at the Robert H. Smith School of
Business at the University of Maryland, College Park. He received his BA from Harvard in 1960 and his PhD in
Industrial Psychology from Cornell University in 1964 (Locke, 2017).

Goal Setting Theory

The goal setting theory was first studied by Dr. Locke in the middle of 1960s. He continued to do more
studies in relation to his theory. In 1996, he published another article entitled “Motivation Through Conscious
Goal Setting.” The article is about his 30 years of research findings on the relationship between conscious
performance goals and performance on work tasks. The basic contents of goal-setting theory are summarized in
terms of 14 categories of findings discussed in the article (Locke, 1996).

Locke (1996) first described that the approach of goal-setting theory is based on what Aristotle called
final causality; that is, action caused by a purpose. It accepts the axiomatic status of consciousness and volition.
It also assumes that instropective reports provide useful and valid data for formulating psychological concepts
and measuring psychological phenomena (e.g. purpose, goal commitment, self-efficacy). He then discussed the
attributes of goals and his 14 research findings.

Goal Attributes
Goals have both an internal and external aspect. Internally, they are ideas (desired ends); externally, they
refer to the object or condition sought (e.g., a job, a sale, a certain performance level). The idea guides action to
attain the object. Two broad attributes of goals are content (the actual object sought) and intensity (the scope,
focus, and complexity, among others of the choice process). Qualitatively, the content of a goal is whatever the
person is seeking. Quantitatively, two attributes of content, difficulty, and specificity, have been studied (Locke,
2017).

14 Research Findings
A research was made by Locke (2017) under the article “Motivation Through Conscious Goal Setting.”
The research has the following findings:
1. The more difficult the goal, the greater the achievement.
2. The more specific or explicit the goal, the more precisely performance is regulated.
3. Goals that are both specific and difficult lead to the highest performance.
4. Commitment to goals is most critical when goals are specific and difficult.
5. High commitment to goals is attained when:
a. the individual is convinced that the goal is important;
b. the individual is convinced that the goal is attainable (or that, at least, progress can be made toward
it).
6. In addition to having a direct effect on performance, self-efficacy influences:
a. the difficulty level of the goal chosen or accepted;
b. commitment to goals;
c. the response to negative feedback or failure; and
d. the choice of task strategies.
7. Goal-setting is most effective when there is feedback that shows progress in relation to the goal.
8. Goal-setting (along with self-efficacy) mediates the effect of knowledge of past performance on
subsequent performance.
9. Goals affect performance by affecting the direction of action, the degree of effort extended, and the
persistence of action over time.
10. Goals stimulate planning in general. Often, the planning quality is higher than that which occurs without
goals. When people possess task or goal-relevant plans as a result of experience or training, they activate
them automatically when confronted with a performance goals. Newly learned plans or strategies are
most likely to be utilized under the stimulus of a specific, difficult goal.
11. When people strive for goals on complex tasks, they are atleast effective in discovering suitable task
strategies if:
a. they have no prior experience or training on the task;
b. there is high pressure to perform well; and
c. there is high time pressure (to perform well immediately).
12. Goals (including goal commitment), in combination with self-efficacy, mediate or partially mediate the
effects of several personality traits and incentives on performance.
13. Goal-setting and goal-related mechanism can be trained and/or adopted in the absence of training for the
purpose of elf-regulation.
14. Goals serve as standards of self-satisfaction, with harder goals demanding higher accomplishment in
order to attain self-satisfaction than easy goals. Goals can also be used to enhance task interest, reduce
boredom, and promote goal clarity. When used to punish or intimidate people, however, goals increase
stress and anxiety.