Self-Efficacy: One Teacher's Concern for Reading Improvement Students

Ohio Reading Teacher, Fall 2003-Spring 2004 by Halsey, Pamela

In the past, research in the affective domain of reading instruction has been limited. One possible reason is the perception that affective concerns are hard to define (Mathewson, 1994). Another possible reason is the difficulty in measuring effects of affective concerns on reading (Athey, 1985; Henk & Melnick, 1995). A call for consideration of affective concerns seems appropriate, since many teachers continue to express concern for issues such as students' motivation to read, attitude toward reading, and value of reading. In fact, this study originated from the concern of a reading improvement teacher who felt her students had very negative feelings about their reading ability and their assignment to a reading improvement course.

Background

This study considered the idea that the self-efficacy of students in a reading improvement class would differ significantly from that of students in traditional language arts classes. The theoretical framework that informed the study is Bandura's theory of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Bandura defined self-efficacy as a person's judgments of his or her ability to perform an activity and the effect this judgment has on the future conduct of the activity. These judgments are likely to either motivate or inhibit learning (Henk & Melnick, 1995). Self-efficacy is not a universal concept individuals apply to every situation they encounter; self-efficacy appears to be context and content specific. For example, a student may possess a high degree of self-efficacy in mathematics and a low degree of self-efficacy in reading. In addition, a student who possesses a high degree of self-efficacy in one aspect of reading, such as decoding, may not possess a high degree of self-efficacy in another aspect of reading, such as comprehension. Measures of self-perception of general achievement or even language arts do not target specific kinds of reading behaviors (Mathewson, 1994). In fact, most measures of self-efficacy leave out major elements of reading such as word recognition, word analysis, fluency, and comprehension (Henk & Melnick, 1995).

Bandura (1977) asserts that there are four major sources of efficacy information. First, performance accomplishments affect an individual's development of self-efficacy. Successful performance of a task raises mastery expectations, while repeated failure lowers them. Next, vicarious experience, which relies on information from social comparison, allows individuals to see others perform a task without negative consequences and generates expectations that they too will improve if they increase efforts and persistence. Vicarious experience through social comparison is a less dependable source of efficacy information than direct evidence from personal experience. Third, verbal persuasion, through encouragement and praise, may contribute to an individual's development of self-efficacy. This too is a weaker source of information because it does not provide an experiential base. Last, emotional arousal during stressful situations might provide information for self-efficacy. These four sources of efficacy information are combined in the Reader Self-Perception Scale.

Henk and Melnick (1995) designed the Reader Self-Perception Scak (RSPS) to measure reader self-efficacy. This instrument uses four scales to measure variables that individuals use to estimate their capabilities as readers. The Progress Scale measures how one's perception of present reading performance compares with past performance. The Observational Comparison Scale measures how a child perceives his reading performance to compare with the performance of classmates. The Social Feedback Scale measures direct or indirect input about reading from teachers, parents, and classmates. The Physiological States Scale measures internal feelings that a child experiences during reading (Henk & Melnick, 1995). These four scales closely resemble the four sources of efficacy information in Bandura's (1977) theory. There is a natural overlap between the scales in the instrument. The reader uses all of the information to make self-perception judgments (Henk & Melnick, 1995).

The Study

The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that seventh grade reading improvement students would score significantly lower on the RSPS than seventh grade students in traditional language arts classes. Children who believe they are good readers are more likely to engage in reading with more success and exhibit a stronger likelihood of positive interactions with text. On the other hand, students in reading improvement classes perform at a lower level of reading achievement; thus, it was predicted that their perceptions of self-efficacy would be lower.

This study was initiated by a seventh grade teacher, Mrs. Blackwell (pseudonym), who taught reading improvement at a junior high school in a small community. Reading improvement classes at the school were formulated by selecting all students who failed the sixth grade standardized reading exam given at the end of sixth grade, and who were not served by special education programs or English as a Second Language (ESL) programs at the school. Students in reading improvement classes had regular education classes in all core subjects (language arts, math, science, social studies, physical education, and computer technology), and they took reading improvement as an elective. Students in traditional language arts classes were also not served by special education or ESL programs. Traditional language arts students did not have a reading improvement class, but they took an elective such as music, art, home economics, woodworking, metalworking, or agricultural studies. Due to interdisciplinary teaming at the school, all students in seventh grade had the same reading improvement teacher, and all students in seventh grade language arts had the same language arts teacher.