CHAPTER 3 LESSON 2: DO NOT JUST DREAM, MAKE IT HAPPEN

LESSON OBJECTIVES:
At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:
1. Explain how learning occurs;
2. Enumerate various metacognition and studying techniques; and
3. Identify the metacognitive techniques that you find most appropriate for yourself.

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 a 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.

Page | 1
 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 ophidiophobia (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 a 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

Page | 2
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 the 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 debilitation (Weibell,
2011).

Since "most human motivation is cognitively generated,” self-belief in efficacy is an important

factor in human motivation. Beliefs of self-efficacy work in coordination with component skills and
incentives 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 the 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

Page | 3
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

Page | 4
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 the 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, the action caused by a purpose. It accepts the axiomatic status of
consciousness and volition. It also assumes that introspective 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 internal and external aspects. 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:

Page | 5
 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 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 at least 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 mechanisms can be trained and/or adopted in the absence of
training for the purpose of self-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.

Page | 6