Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
CITATIONS
READS
468
1,325
2 authors, including:
Einar M. Skaalvik
Norwegian University of Sci
63 PUBLICATIONS 2,783
CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
C 2003)
Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2003 (
Academic motivation researchers sometimes struggle to decipher the distinctive characteristics of what appear to be highly analogous constructs. In this
article, we discuss important similarities between self-concept and self-efficacy
as well as some notable differences. Both constructs share many similarities
such as centrality of perceived competence in construct definition; use of mastery experience, social comparison, and reflected appraisals as major information sources; and a domain-specific and multidimensional nature. Both predict
motivation, emotion, and performance to varying degrees. However, there are
also important differences. These differences include integration vs. separation
of cognition and affect, heavily normative vs. goal-referenced evaluation of
competence, aggregated vs. context-specific judgment, hierarchical vs. loosely
hierarchical structure, past vs. future orientation, and relative temporal stability vs. malleability. We argue that self-efficacy acts as an active precursor of
self-concept development and suggest that self-concept research separate out
its multiple components and subprocesses and invest more effort toward making students less preoccupied with normative ability comparisons in school.
KEY WORDS: self-concept; self-efficacy; self-esteem; motivation.
Columbia.
2 Department
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
they possess, what roles they presume they are expected to play, what they
believe they are capable of, how they view they fare in comparison with
others, and how they judge they are viewed by others. Without doubt, these
are beliefs and perceptions about self that are heavily rooted in ones past
achievement and reinforcement history. Yet it is these subjective convictions
about oneself, once established, which play a determining role in individuals
further growth and development (Bandura, 1997; Markus and Nurius, 1986).
It is only reasonable that these self-perceptions have received a great
deal of attention in educational research (Byrne, 1984). Children with different self-beliefs demonstrate different levels of cognitive, social, and emotional engagement in school. Because school-related experience makes up
a major portion of childrens lives and shapes the early paths to important
life outcomes, educational researchers try to grasp the meaning of self in
students minds. Various models and theories of self-related cognition have
been proposed and tested within the context of school learning. Self-concept
and self-efficacy are the two self-constructs that have received a lot of attention. During the past couple of decades, numerous studies in educational
research have resorted to either self-concept or self-efficacy to explain the
function of self in school contexts. These studies produced abundant evidence on the potency of each self-belief. The field now struggles to decipher
the distinguishing characteristics and comparative usefulness of the two belief systems.
Making a clear and irrefutable distinction between beliefs of selfconcept and self-efficacy is not an easy task. However, it is nonetheless possible to illuminate some of the similarities and differences between these two
conceptions. This is the goal of this article. While more recent reviews on this
topic highlighted differences between the two (e.g., Bong and Clark, 1999),
we try to deduce also important similarities underlying the formulation of
the two self-beliefs. In doing so, our hope is that the theory and research
in this area become more integrated to give educational researchers and
practitioners better understandings of students perception of self and what
it does to their cognitive and psychological well-being in school.
DEFINITIONS OF CONSTRUCTS
Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy
Self-concept is colloquially defined as a composite view of oneself.
Rosenberg (1979) defined self-concept as . . . the totality of the individuals thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an object
(p. 7). Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) provided a similar
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
definition of self-concept that formed the theoretical foundation of contemporary self-concept research:
In very broad terms, self-concept is a persons perception of himself. . . . We do
not claim an entity within a person called self-concept. Rather, we claim that
the construct is potentially important and useful in explaining and predicting how
one acts. Ones perceptions of himself are thought to influence the ways in which
he acts, and his acts in turn influence the ways in which he perceives himself. . . .
Seven features can be identified as critical to the construct definition. Self-concept
may be described as: organized, multifaceted, hierarchical, stable, developmental,
evaluative, and differentiable. (p. 411)
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
that has particularly significant bearing on students motivation and learning among the array of information available in their complex school-related
self-conceptions (Harter, 1990). The work of Marsh and his associates, for
example, reflects both of these recent developments fairly well. Conducted
primarily in the framework of the Shavelson hierarchy, this line of work
has produced more consistent and encouraging results regarding the selfconcept effect (Marsh, 1990d, 1993). A recent meta-analysis on math selfconcept also showed that studies published after 1986 reported particularly
stronger relations between self-concept and achievement (Ma and Kishor,
1997).
Compared with the self-concept research, research in self-efficacy is
characterized by its relatively short history. Bandura (1977) offered a formal
theoretical definition of self-efficacy:
Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in ones capabilities to organize and execute
the courses of action required to produce given attainments. . . . Such beliefs influence
the course of action people choose to pursue, how much effort they put forth in
given endeavors, how long they will persevere in the face of obstacles and failures,
their resilience to adversity, whether their thought patterns are self-hindering or
self-aiding, how much stress and depression they experience in coping with taxing
environmental demands, and the level of accomplishments they realize. (p. 3)
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
pp686-edpr-455576
10
18:35
Academic
self-concept
Academic
self-efficacy
1. Working definition
2. Central element
3. Composition
Perceived competence
Cognitive and affective
appraisal of self
Normative and ipsative
Convictions for
successfully performing
given academic tasks at
designated levels
Perceived confidence
Cognitive appraisal of self
4. Nature of competence
evaluation
5. Judgment specificity
6. Dimensionality
7. Structure
8. Time orientation
9. Temporal stability
10. Predictive outcomes
Domain-specific
Multidimensional
Hierarchical
Past-oriented
Stable
Motivation, emotion, and
performance
Goal-referenced and
normative
Domain-specific and
context-specific
Multidimensional
Loosely hierarchical
Future-oriented
Malleable
Motivation, emotion,
cognitive and
self-regulatory processes,
and performance
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
11
building block in ones self-concept (Bong and Clark, 1999; Schunk, 1991).
Pajares (1996) suspected that at the domain level of specificity, academic
self-concept and self-efficacy beliefs might not be separable. Thus far, researchers have reported that students responses to the Self Description
Questionnaire, one of the popular self-concept scales, formed two separate
factors: cognitive and motivational (Skaalvik and Rankin, 1996a; Tanzer,
1996). The cognitive academic self-concept factor was empirically indistinguishable from the academic self-efficacy factor (Pietsch, 1999; Skaalvik
and Rankin, 1996a). Because few studies have addressed the equivalence
of self-concept and self-efficacy responses systematically, it is still premature
to draw any firm conclusion regarding the nature of relationship between
these two constructs. At minimum, many empirical investigations need to
be conducted.
At present, there is still some room for debate whether the perceived
competence component in self-concept is indeed identical to percepts of
self-efficacy. For example, different information sources have been known
to affect the two self-systems to different degrees, as is shown later in this
article. The two self-beliefs, in turn, have sometimes yielded different psychological and behavioral outcomes. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to
assume, on the basis of limited available evidence, that there is at least considerable overlap in the makeup of academic self-concept and academic
self-efficacy and that perception of academic capability is the major common denominator between the two.
COMPOSITION
Although perceived capability constitutes the core in contemporary
views of academic self-concept, self-concept has long been recognized to reflect more than ones competence perceptions. Scheirer and Kraut (1979), for
example, argued that self-concept consists of at least four distinguishable aspects. These include descriptive categorization of self in terms of social roles
and personality traits, evaluation of the self-attributes according to social desirability, comparison of qualities through which individuals determine their
ranking relative to other people on a specific dimension, and emotional attitudes toward the selfcalled self-esteem. More recently, Skaalvik (1997a)
distinguished between descriptive, evaluative, and affective/motivational
aspects of self-concept. However, consistent with the observation of
Shavelson et al. (1976), he claimed that a clear empirical distinction between self-description and self-evaluation often could not be made. He wrote
. . . self-conceptions like I am tall and I learn mathematics easily include both descriptive and evaluative aspects. The descriptive or cognitive component represents
12
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
13
14
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
15
16
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
17
JUDGMENT SPECIFICITY
Students express academic self-concept and academic self-efficacy that
are both domain-specific. Domain-specificity of self-perceptions is ascertained when these perceptions are differentiated clearly across different content areas and when they relate only to relevant outcomes in the same content
area and not to those in different areas. Because academic self-perceptions
are commonly assessed at the school subject level (e.g., math self-concept),
domain-specificity is often viewed synonymous to subject-specificity. Although subject-specificity certainly attests to the domain-specificity of a construct, the term domain-specificity should not be equated to a particular
measurement level. Rather, a domain can represent from relatively limited
skill areas such as reading comprehension in English to broader content
areas such as social science.
Although both constructs are associated with certain a degree of
domain-specificity, traditional measures of self-concept and self-efficacy differ with respect to the level of measurement specificity (Pajares, 1996). Academic self-concept, even when assessed in reference to particular domains,
has been measured at more general levels. Students typically report their
overall feelings of doing well or poorly in given subject areas. Compared with
the self-concept assessment, beliefs of self-efficacy have been examined at
more specific levels, usually in the context of performing specific tasks within
a particular domain. Self-efficacy has also been measured at a more general
level beyond particularized tasks or academic subjects. The primary reason
for assessing self-efficacy at different levels of specificity, both specific and
general, has been to ensure correspondence between self-efficacy perceptions and performance criterion. For example, when the researchers goal
is to predict performance of broader scope such as course grades and overall grade point averages, perceived self-efficacy at correspondingly broader
levels are assessed (e.g., Pajares and Miller, 1995; Randhawa, Beamer, and
Lundberg, 1993; Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons, 1992).
Researchers express little disagreement as regards the purported differences between task-specific academic self-efficacy and subject-specific
academic self-concept (e.g., Marsh et al., 1991; Pajares, 1996). However,
when the two constructs are put side by side at the same level of measurement specificity, the opposing arguments collide. Academic self-efficacy researchers express pessimistic views that self-concept can ever be assessed at
18
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
19
students self-concepts in different skill areas by substituting the school subject portion of the Self Description Questionnaire items with each skill area.
For example, English speaking self-concept was assessed with items such as
Compared with other students, Im good at speaking (in English), Im
hopeless when it comes to speaking (in English), and I have always done
well in speaking (in English). Respondents were students in Hong Kong
who were enrolled in English-as-a-second-language program.
In providing definitions of these skills, the authors wrote, to these students, listening typically refers to understanding English speeches in formal
and social situations and in academic and nonacademic contexts; speaking
refers to activities such as the delivery of a talk or having a conversation with
another person in class and out of class; reading refers to the comprehension
of written prose, understanding of vocabulary, and study for academic and
nonacademic purposes; and writing refers to written work leading to essays,
reports, and all other work in the written form as required academically in
their respective disciplines at the university (p. 749). However, these are
assumptions made by the researchers on how each skill would be interpreted
by respondents. When students respond to an item, Compared with other
students, Im good at speaking in English, some of them may try to evaluate
their competence on the basis of their capability for carrying out casual English conversations, whereas others may concentrate on their ineptness for
making public speeches and class presentations in English. The assessment
levels are now skill-specific, but the aggregated judgments of competence in
each skill area are still being solicited.
It is perhaps a useful exercise to try to come up with self-efficacy items
for this particular skill area. An assumption is made that the target of prediction is students proficiency in speaking in English in their everyday life.
Three items are readily conceivable on the basis of the authors definition of
speaking in English (Lau et al., 1999): How confident are you that you can
successfully deliver a talk in English in front of your class? How confident
are you that you can carry out English conversations in class? and How
confident are you that you can successfully carry out conversations in English
outside your class? More detailed examples of academic self-concept and
self-efficacy items at task-specific and subject-specific levels of measurement
specificity are provided in Tables II and III, respectively. Again, regardless of
whether the measurement level is specific or general, self-concept items seek
out students overall reactions toward the given area, whereas self-efficacy
items specify different aspects or levels in the expected target performance.
Earlier, we suggested that domain-specificity is further demonstrated
when self-perceptions in one area relate only to relevant outcomes in the
same content area and not to those in different areas. Academic self-concept
researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that students self-concept in a
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
20
Table II. Sample Academic Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy Items at Task-Specific Measurement
Levels (e.g., Writing)
Writing self-concept
I have always done well in
writing.
Work in writing is easy for me.
Compared with others my age I
am good at writing.
I get good marks in writing.
I learn things quickly in writing.
Im hopeless when it comes to
writing.a
It is important to me to do well
in writing.
I am satisfied with how well I
do in writing.
Writing self-efficacy
How confident are you that you can . . .
correctly spell all words in a one-page story or
composition?
correctly punctuate a one-page story or composition?
correctly use parts of speech such as nouns, verbs,
adjectives, or adverbs?
write a simple sentence with good grammar?
correctly use singulars and plurals, verb tenses,
prefixes, and suffixes?
write a strong paragraph that has a good topic sentence
or main idea?
write a paragraph with details that support the topic
sentence or main idea?
organize sentences into a paragraph that clearly
expresses an idea?
write a well-organized and well-sequenced paper that
has a good introduction, body, and conclusion?
Note. Self-concept items were adapted from the Academic Self Description Questionnaire I
(Marsh, 1999a); Self-efficacy items were reprinted from Pajares, Miller, and Johnson (1999)
with permission from the first author.
a Negatively worded items.
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
21
Math self-concept
Mathematics is one of my best
subjects
I often need help in
mathematics.a
I look forward to mathematics
classes.
I have trouble understanding
anything with mathematics in
it.a
I enjoy studying for
mathematics.a
I do badly in tests of
mathematics.a
I get good marks in
mathematics.
I never want to take another
mathematics course.a
I have always done well in
mathematics.
I hate mathematics.a
Math self-efficacy
How confident are you that you can . . .
pass mathematics at the end of this term?
pass mathematics at the end of this term with a grade
better than a D?
get a grade better than a D+ in mathematics?
get a grade better than a C in mathematics?
get a grade better than a C in mathematics?
get a grade better than a C+ in mathematics?
get a grade better than a B in mathematics?
get a grade better than a B in mathematics?
get a grade better than a B+ in mathematics?
get a grade better than an A in mathematics?
get an A in mathematics?
Note. Self-concept items were reprinted from the Self Description Questionnaire II (Marsh,
1999b); Self-efficacy items were adapted from Zimmerman and Bandura (1994) with
permission from the first author.
a Negatively worded items.
22
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
self-concepts in the verbal and math areas are so weakly correlated that they
cannot be represented by a single general academic self-concept (Byrne and
Shavelson, 1986; Marsh, 1990c; Marsh et al., 1988). Consequently, the academic portion of the Shavelson hierarchy was revised to represent two
verbal and mathhigher order academic self-concept factors (Marsh and
Shavelson, 1985).
Although the multidimensionality of self-concept is rarely disputed, researchers do not always agree on the hierarchical nature of self-concept
structure (Harter, 1990). Many different orientations exist as regards the
internal structure of self-concept (Byrne, 1984, 1996). Harter (1998) questioned the validity of self-concept hierarchy stating that . . . one has to
ask whether the statistical structure extracted does, in fact, mirror the psychological structure as it is phenomenologically experienced by individuals
(p. 579). Evidence is not conclusive (Marsh and Yeung, 1998) but tends to
support potential self-concept hierarchy (Byrne and Shavelson, 1986; Byrne
and Worth Gavin, 1996; Vispoel, 1995). Several recent studies demonstrated
that skill-specific self-concepts within a domain (i.e., speaking, reading, and
writing English self-concepts) formed a higher order English self-concept
factor. Moreover, this second-order English self-concept factor was found
to be equivalent to an independently assessed global English self-concept
factor. English self-concepts that were empirically extracted from more specific self-concept factors demonstrated correlation coefficients close to 1.0
with directly assessed English self-concepts (Lau et al., 1999; Yeung et al.,
2000, Studies 3 and 5). These investigations provide much stronger support
for the hierarchical nature of academic self-concept.
Evidence suggests that academic self-efficacy perceptions may also form
a multidimensional and what can be described as a loosely hierarchical
structure. Students make reliable differentiation between their self-efficacy
judgments across different academic domains (Bong, 1997; Bong and Hocevar, in press). The degree of such differentiation varies somewhat depending
on gender, grade, and levels of prior knowledge (Bong, 1999, 2001a). Students also make a distinction, within a given subject area, between their
efficacy beliefs at different levels of measurement specificity (Bong, 2001b;
Lent, Brown, and Gore, 1997) or toward different aspects of required skills
(Shell, Colvin, and Bruning, 1995; Shell, Murphy, and Bruning, 1989). As
was the case with academic self-concept, two higher order factors, verbal
and quantitative academic self-efficacy, normally embrace more area-specific
academic self-efficacy beliefs. This finding is consistently observed regardless
of whether self-efficacy beliefs were assessed with specific problems (Bong,
1997) or with subject-level self-efficacy statements (e.g., Im certain that I
can do an excellent job on the problems and tasks assigned for [a specific
subject] class; Bong, 2001a).
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
23
pp686-edpr-455576
24
18:35
different school subjects were most highly correlated when assessed with specific problems and least highly correlated when assessed with subject-level
statements. Compared with self-efficacy studies, an overwhelming majority
of contemporary academic self-concept studies use more general-level measures (e.g., Self Description Questionnaire, Perceived Competence Scale).
This finding, therefore, suggests the possibility that the difference in the
strengths of relations between verbal and math self-concepts might have
been created, at least in part, by the different assessment specificity.
TIME ORIENTATION
It is worth noting that most academic self-concept items begin with
phrases that read I am good . . ., I am hopeless . . ., or I have done
well . . . (see Byrne, 1996). Self-efficacy items usually start with How
confident are you that you can . . .? How well can you . . .? or I am
confident that I will be able to . . . (see also Pajares, 1996). The wording
of self-concept items tends to direct the attention of respondents toward
their past accomplishments, whereas that of self-efficacy items focuses the
attention of students on their future expectancies (see Wigfield and Eccles,
2000, for related discussion).
Although self-concept and self-efficacy items make salient the past or
the future time frames, respectively, both types of judgments are primarily
a product of past experiences. Even when self-concept items refer to the
current self, for example, Mathematics is easy for me, such judgments can
only be formed on the basis of ones mathematics achievements in the past.
As pointed out by Markus and Nurius (1986), self-concepts are past-oriented
because relevant information and experiences need to be processed by selfschemas and these schemas are created from individuals past experiences in
a particular domain. Self-efficacy perceptions are inherently future-oriented
because they represent individuals confidence for successfully accomplishing the imminent tasks. Yet these expectations, too, are in large part results
of self-schemas that are created from their earlier experiences.
The same previous experiences in the domain provide vital information
for carving both ones self-concept and self-efficacy beliefs. However, individuals do not necessarily reach the same conclusion. Because self-efficacy
items make an explicit reference to outcomes in the upcoming future, there
is ample room for the same individual or for different individuals with similar achievement records to arrive at drastically different expectations for
success. Consider two students who believe that they have always done well
in mathematics and that they are good at mathematics compared with others their age. These two students may or may not express similar strength
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
25
of certitude for accomplishing such tasks as correctly solving given equation problems or getting a grade better than a B+ in mathematics at the
end of the term. Math self-concept reflects students evaluations of their
general competence in math, whereas math self-efficacy represents their
judgments of what they could do with their competence for accomplishing the specified math tasks. Depending on how students analyze and compare the given achievement situation with previous ones involving similar tasks, their confidence for successfully performing each math task can
be strengthened or weakened. On the same token, two students who feel
equally efficacious that they can successfully perform the particular math
tasks may or may not regard themselves as equally competent in math
(Pajares, 1996).
The relative emphasis on the past and the future is inevitably intertwined
with how much specific aspects of the prospective situation should be taken
into account in coming up with a final judgment. When the bases of judgments
that are being called for are mostly experiences in the past, there is no
compelling reason either for researchers to provide a detailed description of
the current situation or for respondents to pay attention to those particulars.
Schemas, by definition, are a constellation of commonalities extracted from
many isolated experiences. Individuals overall views of themselves in the
area based on the past self-schema will not change much by the specifics
of any single event (Markus, 1977). On the other hand, if students are to
report their likelihood of success on some impending tasks that are yet to
be performed, they need to consider all the available information regarding
these tasks. Otherwise, their judgments cannot be accurate because their
performance on these tasks could well be determined by the situational
affordances and constraints. This difference of the past vs. future orientation
between academic self-concept and self-efficacy logically extends itself to
their difference in temporal stability.
TEMPORAL STABILITY
Self-schemata is cognitive generalizations about the self which,
when well articulated, should demonstrate cross-situational consistency
(Markus, 1977). Consistent with this claim, one of the features that
Shavelson et al. (1976) identified as critical to the definition of self-concept
is its stability. Shavelson and Bolus (1982) subsequently reported stability
coefficients between 0.56 and 0.81 with general and subject-matter academic
self-concepts assessed over a 4-month time lag. More important, these selfconcepts appeared more stable than the corresponding achievements. Marsh
and Yeung (1998, Study 2) also reported that subject-specific as well as global
26
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
academic self-concepts that were assessed in two consecutive years demonstrated high stability coefficients, mostly above 0.70. Presumably because of
its resistance to change, self-concept does not lend itself easily to short-term
experimental manipulations. For example, Craven, Marsh, and Debus (1991)
found that, although students domain-specific academic self-concepts were
improved somewhat by adaptive attributional feedback, these changes were
only modest at best. All these attest to the relatively unchanging nature of academic self-concept. There may be developmental differences in
the stability of these perceptions such that younger students self-concepts
are more flexible, whereas older students self-concepts are more firmly established (Skaalvik and Hagtvet, 1990; Wigfield et al., 1997). As children
grow older, their self-concepts also become more highly correlated with
others evaluation of their competence (Wigfield et al., 1997).
It is interesting to note that stability of self-efficacy beliefs has rarely
been investigated. Bandura (1997) stated that, once established, perception
of self-efficacy is resilient to temporary failures. Nevertheless, he emphasized
that it is fundamentally a context-specific construct that should not be viewed
as one of the personality traits. Supporting this claim, Pajares and Graham
(1999) reported that math self-concept demonstrated slightly higher stability
than math self-efficacy when assessed with a 6-month interval. While math
self-concept scores did not change significantly during this period, math selfefficacy scores did. The authors noted that this might have been because of
the more demanding nature of the second self-efficacy assessment items and
that more research with measures of similar difficulty are needed. However,
this exemplifies well the context-specific and malleable nature of academic
self-efficacy judgments. Self-efficacy is a predictive construct that should be
assessed before the target performance (Zimmerman, 1996) because these
beliefs could change greatly upon receiving contextual information.
In discussing the stability of self-concepts, Shavelson et al. (1976) noted
that as one descends the self-concept hierarchy and assesses self-concepts in
more specific situations, the self-concepts become less stable. Self-concepts at
the apex of the hierarchy are more resistant to change, whereas self-concepts
at lower levels are expected to vary considerably with situations. Self-efficacy
is frequently measured at levels that correspond to the situation-specific levels of the Shavelson hierarchy. As such, self-efficacy, as typically assessed,
represents relatively malleable perceptions. Schunk and his colleagues reported repeated successes in experimentally augmenting students efficacy
perceptions in a relatively short period of time and in areas where they
were experiencing great difficulty (Schunk, 1982, 1983, 1984; Schunk et al.,
1987; Schunk and Cox, 1986; Schunk and Hanson, 1985, 1989; Schunk and
Swartz, 1993). These experiments are strong evidence of the dynamic nature
of self-efficacy beliefs.
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
27
PREDICTIVE OUTCOMES
Both academic self-concept and self-efficacy research underscore that
the construct is important as a desirable outcome in itself as well as a potential mediator of academic motivation and performance. While recognizing
the conceptual and methodological differences between the two constructs,
Marsh et al. (1991) wrote, both self-efficacy and self-concept responses are
posited to reflect more than just an objective assessment of existing achievement levels. . . . In this sense, self-efficacy and self-concept measureseven
after partialling out the effects of prior achievementare likely to contribute to the prediction of subsequent behaviors that are dependent on
active choice, motivation, and sustained effort (p. 336).
In accordance with this self-enhancement view, numerous studies have
documented strong relations between measures of academic self-concept or
academic self-efficacy and a variety of motivational and performance indicators. Academic self-concept has been shown to relate systematically to
teachers ratings of level of engagement and persistence in classroom activities (Skaalvik and Rankin, 1996b; Skinner, Wellborn, and Connell, 1990),
students effort ratings (Skaalvik and Rankin, 1995), help-seeking behavior
(Ames, 1983), course-selection (Marsh and Yeung, 1997b), intrinsic motivation (Gottfried, 1990; Harter, 1982; Mac Iver, Stipek, and Daniels, 1991;
Meece, Blumenfeld, and Hoyle, 1988; Skaalvik, 1997b, 1998; Skaalvik and
Rankin, 1996b), and achievement (Marsh, 1992; Marsh et al., 1988; Marsh
and Yeung, 1997a; Shavelson and Bolus, 1982; Skaalvik and Hagtvet, 1990;
Skaalvik and Vals, 1999).
Academic self-efficacy beliefs have been found to strongly relate to task
choice (Bandura and Schunk, 1981; Pajares and Miller, 1995), career selection (Betz and Hackett, 1981, 1983), persistence and performance (Bandura,
Barbaranelli, Caprara, and Pastorelli, 1996; Lent, Brown, and Larkin, 1986;
Multon et al., 1991; Pajares and Miller, 1994; Pajares et al., 1999; Pajares
and Johnson, 1996; Schunk, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984; Schunk and Cox, 1986;
Schunk and Hanson, 1985, 1989; Schunk and Swartz, 1993), grade goals
and academic aspirations (Bandura et al., 1996; Zimmerman et al., 1992;
Zimmerman and Bandura, 1994), cognitive strategy use and self-regulation
(Pintrich and De Groot, 1990; Wolters and Pintrich, 1998), perceived value
(Bong, 2001b; Meece, Wigfield, and Eccles, 1990), mastery goal orientation
(Bong, 2001a; Meece and Holt, 1993; Roeser, Midgley, and Urdan, 1996;
Skaalvik, 1997b), and intrinsic interest and self-satisfactions (Zimmerman
and Kitsantas, 1997, 1999).
Although both theories emphasize the predictive and explanatory role
of these self-judgments, academic self-concept and self-efficacy have traditionally been paired with slightly different sets of outcomes (Bong and
28
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
29
There are also important differences. Some definitions of academic selfconcept include cognitive evaluations of capability along with affective reactions toward results of such evaluations. Self-efficacy theorists make clear
distinction between these components and consider affective reactions as a
separate construct that is mainly a consequence of self-efficacy perceptions.
While competence evaluation in self-concept relies heavily on social comparison and hence tends to be normative, self-efficacy evaluation is primarily
goal-referenced and most strongly affected by ones enactive experiences.
Academic self-concept reflects an aggregated judgment or overall impression of ones competence in given academic domains. As such, self-concept
beliefs tend to be past-oriented, stable over time, and resistant to change.
Academic self-efficacy reflects a highly context-specific judgment of ones
competence, although repeated successes or failures make these beliefs more
durable. The dynamic and malleable nature of self-efficacy perceptions renders them more amenable to experimental procedures aiming at efficacy
enhancement.
30
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
judgments of capability to perform given academic tasks successfully at designated levels (Schunk, 1991). Rather than assessing omnibus views of self
that include perceived competence and affect, efficacy researchers study various self-processes (e.g., self-evaluation, self-satisfaction, affect) separately
from self-efficacy within the cyclical phases of self-regulation (Zimmerman,
2000). For example, self-efficacy affects goal setting, which influences selfevaluation and self-satisfaction/affect during the subsequent self-reflection
phase, the results of which, in turn, influence intrinsic interest/value, outcome
expectations, and subsequent self-efficacy.
We believe that academic self-concept research would also benefit from
separating perceived competence components from other elements and examining the specific contributions of each major constituent. This approach
should generate specific guidelines for how these components are linked
within the broader self-system and for when each of them is most useful for
predictive and explanatory purposes.
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
31
it is the perceived competence component of the constructs that best predicts performance and that, within the same domain, it is sometimes difficult
to distinguish between academic self-concept and self-efficacy.
We suggest that academic self-efficacy beliefs provide one cognitive
basis for developing academic self-concept. Self-concept, as viewed in this
article and by others in the field (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Bong and Clark,
1999; Pajares, 1996), represents a constellation of competence and value
perceptions that are swayed mainly by overall impressions. Self-concept
judgments do not easily take into account contextual particularities such
as the scope and levels of specific tasks within a single domain or the changing circumstances under which one has to perform (Bandura, 1986). Instead,
competence perceptions in academic self-concept reflect an abstraction of
numerous experiences within a given domain (Markus, 1977). Therefore,
academic self-concept in its very initial stage is expected to exhibit high
cross-situational variability because of the lack of experience, which makes
such generalization difficult. It is possible that self-concept during this early
stage of development is indistinguishable from self-efficacy judgments.
As students acquire more enactive and vicarious experiences as well as
feedback from significant others, their competence perceptions toward the
task or domain gradually become more stable. After repeated exposures to
achievement situations with the same or similar tasks, they develop an aggregated sense of their own academic capability on the basis of salient success
or failure experiences. Depending on whether this cognitive generalization
reflects favorably or unfavorably on oneself, it gives rise to positive or negative affective reactions. Perceptions of capability thus inevitably influence
how students feel about themselves in a domain, how much they like or
enjoy the particular domain, and even how important they believe that particular academic domain is (e.g., Harter, 1998; Zimmerman, 2000). Students
self-efficacy judgments toward particular tasks or domains now may or may
not be equal to the perceived competence component of self-concept. Perceived self-efficacy in typical achievement situations will correlate strongly
with academic self-concept in that area. Relations between efficacy beliefs
and self-concept will become weaker as given tasks or situations involve
more distinctive elements. Under these latter circumstances, self-efficacy
will demonstrate particularly superior utility to self-concept in predicting
intentions, motivation, and performance.
Educational Implications
Perhaps the most fundamental similarity between theories and research of academic self-concept and self-efficacy, which this article has not
32
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
addressed, is their underlying motive of studying the self. No one can deny
that the ultimate goal of both self-concept and self-efficacy research is to help
students function and adapt better when academic demands are imposed.
Researchers try to do so by understanding students perceptions of themselves in academic contexts and using this information to predict important
outcomes.
Studies from both camps have demonstrated that positive percepts of
self generate many desirable outcomes. Strong self-efficacy and positive selfconcept lead students to set challenging yet attainable academic goals for
themselves, feel less anxious in achievement settings, enjoy their academic
work more, persist longer on difficult tasks, and, overall, feel better about
themselves as a person and as a student. Though it is far from sufficient,
research in both areas has answered many questions on the what and
why of academic motivation. Investigators examined issues such as what
is the nature of academic self-concept and self-efficacy, why students form
different self-evaluations, or why learners express different levels of confidence when their past achievement histories are similar. To some extent,
researchers also analyzed the process of how, such as how academic selfconcept and self-efficacy beliefs are created and how they affect subsequent
motivation, learning, and performance.
Some questions consistent with the original aim of both self-theories
but which still need considerably more research are How can we, as researchers and practitioners, change students self-perceptions to a positive
direction? How can we strengthen their self-confidence toward difficult and
previously unsuccessful academic tasks? How can we make students generalize their heightened self-regards in given areas to other achievement and
performance contexts? Most importantly, how can we help students form accurate yet optimistic self-perceptions and, at the same time, help them avoid
their low academic self-perceptions to negatively affect their self-worth?
Many experiments now exist on how to raise or alter students academic
self-efficacy beliefs by implementing a variety of instructional procedures.
Schunk and his colleagues have been particularly instrumental in offering
specific strategies that could, with a little bit of mindfulness, be easily incorporated in classroom instruction. Teachers can, among other things, provide
students with proximal rather than distal goals (Schunk, 1983), combine process goals with progress feedback (Schunk and Swartz, 1993), employ peers
who share similar attributes to their students as teaching and learning models
(Schunk and Hanson, 1985; Schunk, Hanson, and Cox, 1987), furnish effort
attributional feedback for students progress (Schunk and Cox, 1986), and
prompt students to self-evaluate (Schunk and Ertmer, 1999). These methods
are all known to enhance students perceptions of self-efficacy and ensuing
performance.
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
33
pp686-edpr-455576
34
18:35
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
35
Bong, M. (1998). Tests of the internal/external frames of reference model with subject-specific
academic self-efficacy and frame-specific academic self-concepts. J. Educ. Psychol. 90:
102110.
Bong, M. (1999). Personal factors affecting the generality of academic self-efficacy judgments:
Gender, ethnicity, and relative expertise. J. Exp. Educ. 67: 315331.
Bong, M. (2001a). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle
and high school students: Self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement goals. J. Educ. Psychol.
93: 2334.
Bong, M. (2001b). Role of self-efficacy and task-value in predicting college students course
performance and future enrollment intentions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 26: 553570.
Bong, M. (2002). Predictive utility of subject-, task-, and problem-specific self-efficacy judgments for immediate and delayed academic performances. J. Exp. Educ. 70: 133162.
Bong, M., and Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in academic motivation research. Educ. Psychol. 34: 139154.
Bong, M., and Hocevar, D. (2002). Measuring self-efficacy: Multitrait-multimethod comparison
of scaling procedures. Appl. Meas. Educ. 15: 143171.
Byrne, B. M. (1984). The general/academic self-concept nomological network: A review of
construct validation research. Rev. Educ. Res. 54: 427456.
Byrne, B. M. (1996). Measuring Self-Concept Across the Life Span: Issues and Instrumentation,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Byrne, B. M., and Shavelson, R. J. (1986). On the structure of adolescent self-concept. J. Educ.
Psychol. 78: 474481.
Byrne, B. M., and Worth Gavin, D. A. (1996). The Shavelson model revisited: Testing for
structure of academic self-concept across pre-, early, and late adolescents. J. Educ. Psychol.
88: 215228.
Chapman, J. W., and Tunmer, W. E. (1995). Development of young childrens reading selfconcepts: An examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading
achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 87: 154167.
Coleman, J. M., and Fults, B. A. (1982). Self-concept and the gifted classroom: The role of social
comparisons. Gifted Child Q. 26(3): 116120.
Covington, M. V. (1984a). The motive for self-worth. In: Ames, R., and Ames, C., (eds.), Research
on Motivation in Education. Vol. 1: Student Motivation, Academic Press, Orlando, FL,
pp. 77113.
Covington, M. V. (1984b). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and
implications. Elem. Sch. J. 85: 520.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the Grade: A Self-Worth Perspective on Motivation and School
Reform, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., and Debus, R. L. (1991). Effects of internally focused feedback
and attributional feedback on enhancement of academic self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol.
83: 1727.
Eccles, J. S., and Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents
achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 3: 215
225.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., and Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In: Damon, W. (Series
ed.) and Eisenberg, N. (Vol. ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol. 3: Social, Emotional,
and Personality Development (5th Ed.), Wiley, New York, pp. 10171095.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7: 117140.
Gottfried, A. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. J.
Educ. Psychol. 82: 525538.
Hansford, B. C., and Hattie, J. A. (1982). The relationship between self and achievement/performance measures. Rev. Educ. Res. 52: 123142.
Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Dev. 53: 8797.
Harter, S. (1990) Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-span
perspective. In: Sternberg, R. J., and Kolligian, J. (eds.), Competence Considered, Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT, pp. 6797.
36
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
Harter, S. (1998). The development of self-representations. In: Damon, W. (Series ed.) and
Eisenberg, N. (Vol. ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol. 3: Social, Emotional, and
Personality Development (5th Ed.), Wiley, New York, pp. 553617.
Harter, S., and Mayberry, W. (1984). Self-Worth as a Function of the Discrepancy Between
Ones Aspirations and Ones Perceived Competence: William James Revisited, University
of Denver, Denver, CO.
Harter, S., and Pike, R. (1984). The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance for young children. Child Dev. 55: 19691982.
Joo, Y. J., Bong, M., and Choi, H. J. (2000). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic
self-efficacy, and Internet self-efficacy in Web-based instruction. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev.
48(2): 518.
Lau, I. C., Yeung, A. S., Jin, P., and Low, R. (1999). Toward a hierarchical, multidimensional
English self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol. 91: 747755.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., and Larkin, K. C. (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of academic
performance and perceived career options. J. Couns. Psychol. 33: 265269.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., and Gore, P. A., Jr. (1997). Discriminant and predictive validity
of academic self-concept, academic self-efficacy, and mathematics-specific self-efficacy. J.
Couns. Psychol. 44: 307315.
Ma, X., and Kishor, N. (1997). Attitude toward self, social factors, and achievement in mathematics: A meta-analytic view. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 9: 89120.
Mac Iver, D., Stipek, D., and Daniels, D. (1991). Explaining within semester changes in student
effort in junior high school and senior high school courses. J. Educ. Psychol. 83: 201
211.
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 35: 6378.
Markus, H., and Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. Am. Psychol. 41: 954969.
Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference
model. Am. Educ. Res. J. 23: 129149.
Marsh, H. W. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol.
79: 280295.
Marsh, H. W. (1990a). Causal ordering of academic self-concept and academic achievement: A
multiwave, longitudinal panel analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 82: 646656.
Marsh, H. W. (1990b). Influences of internal and external frames of reference on the formation
of math and English self-concepts. J. Educ. Psychol. 82: 107116.
Marsh, H. W. (1990c). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson model. J.
Educ. Psychol. 82: 623636.
Marsh, H. W. (1990d). A multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept: Theoretical and empirical
justification. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2: 77172.
Marsh, H. W. (1992). Content specificity of relations between academic achievement and academic self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol. 84: 3542.
Marsh, H. W. (1993). Academic self-concept: Theory, measurement, and research. In: Suls, J.
(ed.), Psychological Perspectives on the Self (Vol. 4 ), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 5998.
Marsh, H. W. (1999a). Academic Self Description Questionnaire I: ASDQ I, University of
Western Sydney, Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation Research Centre,
Macarthur, Australia.
Marsh, H. W. (1999b). Self Description Questionnaire II: SDQ II, University of Western
Sydney, Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation Research Centre, Macarthur,
Australia.
Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., and Shavelson, R. J. (1988). A multifaceted academic self-concept:
Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 80:
366380.
Marsh, H. W., and Shavelson, R. J. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure.
Educ. Psychol. 20: 107123.
Marsh, H. W., Walker, R., and Debus, R. (1991). Subject-specific components of academic
self-concept and self-efficacy. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 16: 331345.
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
37
Marsh, H. W., and Yeung, A. S. (1997a). Causal effects of academic self-concept on academic achievement: Structural equation models of longitudinal data. J. Educ. Psychol. 89:
4154.
Marsh, H. W., and Yeung, A. S. (1997b). Coursework selection: Relations to academic selfconcept and achievement. Am. Educ. Res. J. 34: 691720.
Marsh, H. W., and Yeung, A. S. (1998). Top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal models: The
direction of causality in multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept models. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 75: 509527.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., and Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. J. Educ. Psychol. 80: 514523.
Meece, J. L., and Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students achievement goals. J. Educ.
Psychol. 85: 582590.
Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., and Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence
on young adolescents course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics. J.
Educ. Psychol. 82: 6070.
Midgley, C., Anderman, E., and Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle
school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. J. Early Adolesc. 15: 90113.
Mischel, W. (1977). On the future of personality measurement. Am. Psychol. 32: 246254.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., and Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic
outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. J. Couns. Psychol. 38: 3038.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Rev. Educ. Res. 66: 543578.
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In: Maehr, M., and Pintrich,
P. R. (eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 10), JAI Press, New York,
pp. 149.
Pajares, F., and Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 24: 124139.
Pajares, F., and Johnson, M. J. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in the writing of high school students:
A path analysis. Psychol. Sch. 33: 163175.
Pajares, F., and Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem-solving. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 20: 426443.
Pajares, F., and Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 86: 193203.
Pajares, F., and Miller, M. D. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics performances:
The need for specificity of assessment. J. Couns. Psychol. 42: 190198.
Pajares, F., Miller, M. D., and Johnson, M. J. (1999). Gender differences in writing self-beliefs
of elementary school students. J. Educ. Psychol. 91: 5061.
Piers, E. V., and Harris, D. B. (1964). Age and other correlates of self-concept in children. J.
Educ. Psychol. 55: 9195.
Pietsch, J. (1999). Self-Efficacy, self-Concept and Academic Achievement: An Empirical Comparison of Self-Efficacy and Self-Concept, and the Relative Predictive Utility of These SelfPerceptions Within Academic Contexts. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Sydney,
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Pintrich, P. R., and De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components
of classroom academic performance. J. Educ. Psychol. 82: 3340.
Randhawa, B. S., Beamer, J. E., and Lundberg, I. (1993). Role of mathematics self-efficacy in
the structural model of mathematics achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 85: 4148.
Rayner, S. G., and Devi, U. (2001). Self-esteem and self-perceptions in the classroom: Valuing circle time? In: Riding, R. J., and Rayner, S. G. (eds.), International Perspectives on
Individual Differences. Vol. 2: Self Perception, Ablex, Westport, CO, pp. 171208.
Renick, M. J., and Harter, S. (1989). Impact of social comparisons on the developing selfperceptions of learning disabled students. J. Educ. Psychol. 81: 631638.
Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., and Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological
environment and early adolescents psychological and behavioral functioning in school:
The mediating role of goals and belonging. J. Educ. Psychol. 88: 408422.
38
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
Rogers, C. M., Smith, M. D., and Coleman, J. M. (1978). Social comparison in the classroom:
The relationship between academic achievement and self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol. 70:
5057.
Rosenberg, M. (1968). Psychological selectivity in self-esteem formation. In: Gordon, C., and
Gergen, K. J. (eds.), The Self in Social Interaction, Wiley, New York, pp. 339346.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self, Basic Books, New York.
Scheirer, M. A., and Kraut, R. E. (1979). Increasing educational achievement via self concept
change. Rev. Educ. Res. 49: 131150.
Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on childrens achievement: A selfefficacy analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 73: 93105.
Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on childrens perceived selfefficacy and achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 74: 548556.
Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects on selfefficacy and achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 75: 848856.
Schunk, D. H. (1984). Sequential attributional feedback and childrens achievement behaviors.
J. Educ. Psychol. 76: 11591169.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educ. Psychol. 26: 207231.
Schunk, D. H., and Cox, P. (1986). Strategy training and attributional feedback with learning
disabled students. J. Educ. Psychol. 78: 201209.
Schunk, D. H., and Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Self-regulatory processes during computer skill acquisition: Goal and self-evaluative influences. J. Educ. Psychol. 91: 251260.
Schunk, D. H., and Hanson, A. R. (1985). Peer models: Influence on childrens self-efficacy and
achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 77: 313322.
Schunk, D. H., and Hanson, A. R. (1989). Self-modeling and childrens cognitive skill learning.
J. Educ. Psychol. 81: 155163.
Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., and Cox, P. (1987). Peer-model attributes and childrens achievement behaviors. J. Educ. Psychol. 79: 5461.
Schunk, D. H., and Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy
and writing achievement. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 18: 337354.
Schunk, D. H., and Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence.
Educ. Psychol. 32: 195208.
Shavelson, R. J., and Bolus, R. (1982). Self-concept: The interplay of theory and methods. J.
Educ. Psychol. 74: 317.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., and Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct
interpretations. Rev. Educ. Res. 46: 407441.
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., and Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 81: 91100.
Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., and Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievementlevel differences. J. Educ. Psychol. 87: 386398.
Silon, E. L., and Harter, S. (1985). Assessment of perceived competence, motivational orientation, and anxiety in segregated and mainstreamed educable mentally retarded children.
J. Educ. Psychol. 77: 217230.
Skaalvik, E. M. (1997a). Issues in research on self-concept. In: Maehr, M., and Pintrich,
P. R. (eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 10), JAI Press, New York,
pp. 5197.
Skaalvik, E. M. (1997b). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego-orientation: Relations with task
and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. J. Educ. Psychol.
89: 7181.
Skaalvik, E. M. (1998). Self-Enhancing and Self-Defeating Ego-Goals: Relations with Task and
Avoidance Goals, Achievement, and Self-Perceptions, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Skaalvik, E. M., and Hagtvet, K. A. (1990). Academic achievement and self-concept: An analysis of causal predominance in a developmental perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58:
292307.
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35
39
Skaalvik, E. M., and Rankin, R. J. (1990). Math, verbal, and general academic self-concept:
The internal/external frame of reference model and gender differences in self-concept
structure. J. Educ. Psychol. 82: 546554.
Skaalvik, E. M., and Rankin, R. J. (1992). Math and verbal achievement and self-concepts:
Testing the Internal/External Frame of Reference Model. J. Early Adolesc. 12: 267279.
Skaalvik, E. M., and Rankin, R. J. (1995). A test of the Internal/External Frame of Reference
Model at different levels of math and verbal self-perception. Am. Educ. Res. J. 32: 161184.
Skaalvik, E. M., and Rankin, R. J. (1996a). Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy: Conceptual Analysis,
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New York.
Skaalvik, E. M., and Rankin, R. J. (1996b). Studies of Academic Self-Concept Using a Norwegian Modification of the SDQ, Paper presented at the XXVI International Congress of
Psychology, Montreal, Canada.
Skaalvik, E. M., and Skaalvik, S. (2000). Math and Verbal Achievement, Motivation, Anxiety,
and Study Behavior: A Study of Relations in a Developmental Perspective, Paper presented
at the 7th Workshop on Achievement and Task Motivation, Leuven, Belgium.
Skaalvik, E. M., and Skaalvik, S. (2002). Internal and external frames of reference for academic
self-concept. Educ. Psychol. 37: 233244.
Skaalvik, E. M., and Vals, H. (1999). Achievement and Self-Concept in Mathematics and Verbal Arts: A Study of Relations, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J., and Connell, J. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and
whether Ive got it: A process model of perceived control and childrens engagement and
achievement in school. J. Educ. Psychol. 82: 2232.
Stipek, D. J. (1993). Motivation to Learn: From Theory to Practice, Allyn and Bacon, Boston,
MA.
Sullivan, H. S. (1947). Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry: The First William Alanson White
Memorial Lectures, William Alanson White Psychiatric Foundation, Washington, DC.
Tanzer, N. K. (1996). Interest and Competence as Components of Academic Self-Concepts for
the Self Description Questionnaire I, Paper presented at the XXVI International Congress
of Psychology, Montreal, Canada.
Tennen, H., and Herzberger, S. (1987). Depression, self-esteem, and the absence of selfprotective attributional biases. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52: 7280.
Vispoel, W. P. (1995). Self-concept in artistic domains: An extension of the Shavelson, Hubner,
and Stanton (1976) model. J. Educ. Psychol. 87: 134153.
Wigfield, A., and Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25: 6881.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D. A., and Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions during early adolescence: Changes in childrens domain-specific self-perceptions and general
self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Dev. Psychol. 27: 552565.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J. A., Freedman-Doan, C.,
et al. (1997). Change in childrens competence beliefs and subjective task values across the
elementary school years: A 3-year study. J. Educ. Psychol. 89: 451469.
Wigfield, A., and Karpathian, M. (1991). Who am I and what can I do? Childrens self-concepts
and motivation in achievement situations. Educ. Psychol. 26: 233261.
Wolters, C. A., and Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and
self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instr. Sci.
26: 2747.
Yeung, A. S., Chui, H. S., Lau, I. C., McInerney, D. M., Russell-Bowie, D., and Suliman, R.
(2000). Where is the hierarchy of academic self-concept? J. Educ. Psychol. 92: 556567.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In: Bandura, A. (ed.),
Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 202231.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1996). Misconceptions, Problems, and Dimensions in Measuring SelfEfficacy, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York.
40
pp686-edpr-455576
18:35