This research is focused on self-efficacy among young learners, or more specifically, the lack of self-

efficacy. It directly explores Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (SLT) and aims to draw a conclusion on
methods to use in class to improve self-efficacy among all students.

This resides alongside self-belief and their ability to fulfil academic tasks and successfully achieve
learning objectives. There is considerable evidence to support the direct effects of self-efficacy beliefs on
academic achievement. However, this study aims to directly explore Bandura’s highlight in social cognitive
theory. Achievement and satisfaction are two of the most important learning outcomes and are considered
key indicators of education quality. This study explores aspects of learning and teaching which mediate the
self-efficacy–achievement relationship and understands how and why self-efficacy affects students' academic
achievement and ways to improve this in class.

The sample of students used in this study is all second language learners. All students are in the same
level/class but possess slightly different degrees of English fluency. Qualitative and quantitative research
methods were both used in this research study, among questionnaires/surveys and field notes/observations
to give a more accurate representation of changes over time. The scales that referred to self-efficacy and
expectancy-value beliefs were administered at the beginning of the course, then again at the middle – after
careful implementation and research of new techniques – and again at the end. Field notes and observations
were taken throughout the course of a 3-month period and student surveys (10) were conducted at the end.

Students observe the output of their fellow classmates and become convinced by observing their classmates
learn and succeed, that they too can understand and progress. Research has shown that classmates of the
same age are a more significant model to enhance greater self-efficacy as compared to teachers (Schunk and
Hanson, 1985). Peer models have a greater impact on developing self-efficacy. In particular, observing those
students who had some difficulties at some stage, and later on, removed those barriers in academic tasks they
were completing.

Self-efficacy theory posits that students who believe themselves to be capable are more likely to be
motivated; those who believe themselves incapable will not be motivated (Seitfert, 2004). Much research
shows that self-efficacy influences academic motivation and learning achievement (Pajares, 1996; Shunk,
1995).

).The present results suggest that perceived similarity in competence to models also may influence
children's self-efficacy during cognitive skill acquisition (Brown & Inouye, 1978; Schunk, 1984). Although
subjects' perceptions of similarity in competence to the teacher model were not assessed, it is likely that they
would have been lower than the obtained similarity judgments to the peer models. This is not to suggest that
observing a teacher model necessarily exerts weak effects on children's self-efficacy. Students who typically
learn more readily than the present subjects might have developed higher self-efficacy from observing a
teacher model than did the present sample. Research is needed to explore whether students' abilities
moderate the effects of model characteristics on self-efficacy.
The obtained effects of observing peer models must be qualified before these results can be generalized to the
classroom. The present modelling was systematically designed to portray success, which should raise
observer self-efficacy. Although children observe many peer models in classrooms, the outcomes of
classroom models' actions typically are more variable, that is, classroom peer models succeed and fail. Such
variable effects might leave observers wondering whether they can perform well. In short, observation of
classroom peer models may not automatically raise self-efficacy. Consistent with previous similar research
(Schunk, 1981, 1983), the present study supports the idea that self-efficacy is not merely a reflection of prior
performances. Although the five model conditions did not differ in rate or accuracy of problem-solving during
training, children who previously had observed peer models subsequently judged self-efficacy higher than
subjects who had been exposed only to the teacher model. The present results suggest that higher self-
efficacy brought about by observing peer models was substantiated by children's actual performances during
training and led to higher post-test skills. This study also shows that capability self-perceptions bear an
important relation to subsequent achievement. Personal expectations for success are viewed as important
influences on behaviour by a variety of theoretical approaches (Bandura, 1982; Covington & Beery, 1976;
Kukla, 1972; Schunk, 1984; Weiner, 1979, 1983).

The Student Self-Efficacy

Scale (SSE) was developed by adapting the TSE scale to reflect the role

of a student instead of the teacher’s role. The four areas addressed

by the scale are: a) academic performance, b) skill and knowledge

development, c) social interaction with faculty, and d) coping with

academic stress. For example, the TSE item “I am convinced that I am

able to successfully teach all relevant subject content to even the most

difficult students” was changed to “I am convinced that I am able to

successfully learn all relevant subject content even if it is difficult”. These

changes reflect the students’ role and skills necessary to be successful

in the classroom. This new ten-item scale uses the same four-point

response format. Therefore scores also ranged from 10-40 with higher

scores representing higher student self-efficacy

The measures in the current study included demographic questions, the Modified Questionnaire of
English Self-efficacy (modified from Wang, 2004), the Using English to Learn Self-Efficacy Scale (modified
from Solberg, O’Brien, Villareal, Kennel, & Davis, 1993), and the academic selfefficacy subscale adapted
from the Motivational Strategies and Learning (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993). Journal of
International Students 240 Questionnaire of English Self-Efficacy confirmatory factor analysis and
yielded a good fit. The reliability coefficients were .97 for the entire scale, and were between .88 to .92
for subscales. The convergent validity was .52 and criterion-related validity was .58. In the current study,
researchers modified the original questionnaire to reflect the lifestyle and characteristics of the current
international student population on the southeastern campus in the United States. The internal
consistency Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for English self-efficacy was: listening .92 (seven
items); speaking .92 (six items); reading .91 (six items); and writing .85 (five items). For the entire scale
the Cronbach’s alpha score was .97. The total scores of each subscale were computed by averaging item
responses.

Self-efcacy refers to the person’s belief in his or her ability to organize and execute the courses of action
required to achieve goals (Bandura, 1997). Bandura (1982) refers to self-efcacy as the individual’s
conviction of being able to master specic activities, situations or aspects of his or her own psychological
and social functioning. It can be concluded that self-efcacy made person believe with their capability to
overcome obstacle that hindering achievement their goal. They believe that they can reach their
willingness, their dreams, and their goal in effective ways.It has been argued that human accomplishments
and positive well being require an optimistic sense of personal ef cacy. This is because ordinary social
realities are lled with difculties, adversities, setbacks and frustrations. According to Schwarzer (1997),
people need to have a

Journal of Educational, Health and Community PsychologyVol. 2, No. 1, 2013Alay Ahmad, Triantoro
Safaria26healthy sense of personal efcacy to sustain the perseverant effort needed to succeed. An
afrmative sense of efcacy contributes to psychological well being as well as to performance
accomplishments. Furthermore, a person who believes in being able to cause an event can carry out a
more active and self-determined life course (Schwarzer, 1997). Judge (1997) views self-ef cacy as a type
of self-evaluation, specically regarding how well one can perform across a variety of situations.In present
study we examined the effects of high and low self-efcacy on the academic achievement of our
subjects. The result showed that there is a difference between means of the two groups with a p of less
than 0.01, and then this nding rejected the null hypothesis. It shows individual with high self-ef cacy
believes to solve a greater number of mathematical problems. This study con rmed that there is a
signicant difference between means of a group with high self-efcacy and with low self-ef cacy among
subjects. On the basis of the results we support earlier studies as discussed elsewhere in this paper.
Subjects with high self-efcacy had condence to perform assigned work. They believed to accomplish
experimental tasks more. Table 1 shows results concerning hypothesis number one.It is obvious that self-
efcacy makes a difference in how people feel, think and act (Bandura, 1997b). In terms of thinking, a
strong sense of competence facilitates cognitive processes and performance in a variety of settings. In terms
of feeling, a low sense of efcacy is associated with depression, anxiety and helplessness. Such individuals
also have low self-esteem and harbor pessimistic thoughts about their accomplishments and personal
development. As far as action is concerned, people experiencing a high level of self-ef cacy may have a
sense of enhanced motivation, enabling them to select tasks and to persevere with these.Table 1Effect of
High and Low Self-Efcacyon Subtraction and Multiplication Problems Mean t pHigh Self –ef cacy
subjects 6.864.48 < 0.01Low Self –efcacy subjects1Self-efcacy facilitates goal setting, effort investment,
persistence in the face of barriers and recovery from setbacks. It can be regarded as a positive resistance
resource factor. Perceived self-efcacy is an operative construct - i.e. it is related to subsequent behavior
and, therefore, is relevant for clinical practice and behavior change (Bandura, 1997b). The construct of
perceived self-efcacy reects an optimistic self-belief. This is the belief that one can perform novel or
difcult tasks, or cope with adversity, in various domains of human functioning (Bandura, 1997b). It is
clear that Bandura’s view of self-efcacy relates to the explication of self-ef cacy in speci c domains,
rather than a global sense of competence.

Journal of Educational, Health and Community PsychologyVol. 2, No. 1, 2013Alay Ahmad, Triantoro
Safaria27Self-efcacy is also a much stronger predictor of how effectively people will perform a given task
than either their self condence or their self-esteem. A high degree of self-ef cacy leads people to work
hard and persist in the face of setbacks. In a dynamic work context, where ongoing learning and
performance improvement is needed, high self-efcacy helps individuals to react less defensively when
they receive negative feedback. In areas where their self-efcacy is low, people often see a negative
outcome as conrming the incompetence they perceive in themselves. This can set up a vicious cycle,
whereby ambiguous results are considered as evidence of perceived inability, further lowering an
individual’s self-efcacy, effort, and subsequent performance. When people have low self-ef cacy, they
also tend to blame either the situation or another person when things go wrong. Denial of any
responsibility for poor performance inhibits the chance that an individual will learn how to perform more
effectively in the future (Heslin, & Klehe, 2006).Content analysis of interviewee’s responses shows that
subjects with high self-efcacy showed higher effort and persistence to achieve goals while subjects with
low self-efcacy discontinued their work. Our observation of subjects’ behavior also con rmed lack of
interest in accomplishment by giving tasks by the subjects with low self- ef cacy. Our study veri es social
cognitive theorists. Our research participants with high self-ef cacy planed to study dif cult courses as
compared to their counterparts. In Pakistan majority of parents compel their children in selection of
courses. Our student support that parents’ role in choosing courses is not signi cant. We are in a strong
position to support the positive impact of high self-efcacy on academic issues. The summary ofthe results of
hypothesis 2 was presented in Table 2.Table 2Effect of Self-efcacy on Choice of Research Participants’
Courses High self-efcacy(n=7)Low-self efcacy(n=8)Medical (n=4) Medical (n=2)Engineering (n=2)
Humanities (n=5)Not decided (n = 1) Not decided (n = 1)Previous study conrmed that individual with
self-efcacy has more ability to face stressful situation. Study by Friedman (2003) found teacher with
higher self-efcacy has more hardiness when experience a burnout situation. This study concluded that
perceived sense of self-efcacy was inversely correlated with perceived burnout: the lower the sense of self-
efcacy, the higher the perceived burnout. Perceived sense of self-ef cacy was inversely correlated
with perceived burnout: the lower the sense of self-efcacy, the higher the perceived burnout. Self-
efcacy beliefs are a key factor affecting burnout directly and indirectly. Individuals with a stronger sense of
self-efcacy experience low stress in threatening or taxing situations, and experience situations as less
stressful owing to their belief in their ability to cope (Bandura, 1997). It was documented that self-ef cacy
predicts the level

Journal of Educational, Health and Community PsychologyVol. 2, No. 1, 2013Alay Ahmad, Triantoro
Safaria28of stress and anxiety experienced and manifested in interpersonal transactions (Friedman, 2003).
Individual with low sense of efcacy when exposure to chronic occupational stressors will increases
vulnerability to burnout because they cannot manage job demands with pessimistic attitude (Schmitz,
2000)

Learning environment differences

Few researchers have examined the learning environment perceptions of students considered to be
academically at-risk (Klassen 2010). We found that, overall, students considered academically at-risk
perceived the learning environment less positively than their counterparts and that these differences
were statistically significant for the four CCQ-P scales of Equity, Task Clarity, Responsibility for Learning
and Task Orientation. The relatively large effect sizes for these scales indicated that the magnitudes of
these differences are educationally important, thus providing additional research information to fill the
current knowledge gap in this area. Discussed in the following section are the results for each of the four
scales in turn.

Equity

The statistically-significant difference for the Equity scale suggests that students at-risk perceived their
learning environment as less equitable than did students not-at-risk. This finding supports the work of
previous researchers who reported that students who are academically at-risk participate less in
learning tasks (Finn and Rock 1997) which, in turn, leads students to perceive that learning opportunities
are inequitable (Kirk and Jay 2018).

Potentially, the perceptual differences identified in this study could be because of the pedagogical
adjustments made by educators in an attempt to enhance learning for students at-risk. Important
insights for teachers can be found in these results when tailoring the learning environment for students
at-risk. Based on our findings, when striving to provide additional learning support, teachers should
avoid making students at-risk perceive that they are being treated differently from their classmates. It is
also suggested that educators be cognisant of providing students at-risk with equitable experiences of
feeling involved in learning, including equitable opportunities to share their ideas and respond to
questions.

Task clarity

For Task Clarity, relative to students not-at-risk, students at-risk reported lower scores than their
counterparts, indicating that students at-risk were less clear about the learning intentions for academic
tasks and about the expectations associated with completing the activity successfully. Intuitively, this
result makes sense, given that students at-risk generally find learning challenging, in part because of the
skill requirements of comprehending task instructions. This suggests that teachers should examine how
they explain task instructions to ensure that students at-risk are not disadvantaged. The importance of
task clarity for students at-risk is supported by various researchers who recommend that lesson
structure includes a clear statement of learning intentions and that explicit instructions are vital to
support successful task completion (Gagné 1985; Hattie 2012; Hollingsworth and Ybarra 2009).
Highlighted in these findings is the importance of providing clear learning intentions, instructions,
practice examples and success criteria in order to strengthen task clarity (McDonald 2013; Westwood
2004).

Responsibility for Learning

For the Responsibility for Learning scale, students not-at-risk reported higher scores than did students
at-risk. This suggests that, compared to students not-at-risk, students who are academically at-risk
perceived that they were less-frequently given opportunities to be responsible for their own learning.
Whilst this result makes sense given the additional teacher assistance that students at-risk are likely to
receive, this finding is consistent with previous research which indicates that students at-risk perceive
themselves as being less in control of (or responsible for) their own learning than their peers (Finn and
Rock 1997; Westwood 2004). According to Westwood (2004), students at-risk require learning
experiences which assist them to develop self-regulatory skills—that is, to develop responsibility for
learning through self-monitoring of their learning, reflecting on their thought processes, and modifying
learning strategies as required. Whereas students at-risk require additional teacher support and group
work to achieve success, they also require opportunities for independent learning including goal setting,
making learning choices, and having some control over what they do in the classroom and the manner in
which they do it (Westwood 2004).

Task orientation

For Task Orientation, the results suggest that students at-risk perceived themselves as less focused on
completing learning activities than students not-at-risk. This finding is consistent with research by Taylor
et al. (1995) which suggests that students at-risk tend to be less task oriented than their peers. Similarly,
Westwood (2004) purports that students at-risk can be more easily distracted from activities, which can
be detrimental to learning. Potentially, the results of this study (outlined above) could be attributed to
the phenomenon, described by Westwood (2004), in which students experiencing academic difficulty
prefer their failure to be perceived as being caused by lack of effort rather than an ability deficit.
Therefore, it is recommended that students at-risk are given enhanced learning opportunities with
explicit connections to prior knowledge (Westwood 2004), close teacher supervision (Westwood 2004),
frequent attentional cues (Snell and Brown 2000), strategies to attract and maintain attention (Hunt and
Marshall 2002) and guidance in self-regulation strategies (Westwood 2004).

In summary, given the limited past research into differences in learning environment perceptions
between students at-risk and not-at-risk, important insights for teachers can be found in these results
when tailoring classrooms for students at-risk. This study is of practical significance for educators
wishing to enhance primary-school learning environments and student self-efficacy, as well as to cater
for the differing needs of students at-risk. The key implications drawn from the findings are summarised
below.

Self-efficacy differences

This study revealed that students at-risk reported reduced levels of self-efficacy compared with students
not-at-risk. It seems reasonable that students who are academically at-risk are more likely to experience
adversities in learning than their peers and hence have lower levels of self-efficacy. This result resonates
with past research findings that students who are academically at-risk potentially experience reduced
levels of self-efficacy (Baird et al. 2009; Klassen 2010). Klassen (2010) and Westwood (2004) suggest that
this phenomenon among at-risk students could be attributed to academic doubts associated with skill
deficits among these students.

Whereas this result is not unexpected, it is concerning. Based on the findings of this study, teachers are
recommended to consider implementing strategies to enhance the self-efficacy of students at-risk, such
as additional instruction, practice and repetition, social persuasion, mastery experiences and
opportunities to observe successful others.

To enhance the self-efficacy of students at-risk, previous researchers have recommended opportunities
for repetition and practice to transfer knowledge from short-term to long-term memory (Klassen 2010;
Westwood 2004), thus fostering confidence in students’ own abilities. To enhance the self-efficacy of
students at-risk, Bandura (1977) recommends regular encouragement, mastery experiences to provide
frequent opportunities for success, fewer experiences of failure (which undermine self-efficacy), and
observation of peers and teachers successfully demonstrating skills.

Learning environment–self-efficacy associations

The strong associations between primary-school students’ perceptions of the classroom climate and
their self-efficacy replicate numerous past studies that suggest that the learning environment is a
powerful determinant of self-efficacy (Aldridge et al. 2012b; Fraser 2012b; Koul et al. 2011). In all cases,
associations were positive, suggesting that more positive learning environments are likely to enhance
student self-efficacy.

Important educational implications can be found in these results. For example, student self-efficacy
could be enhanced by altering these malleable aspects of the learning environment, especially the three
scales of Task Clarity, Task Orientation and Involvement.
The strong associations between Task Clarity and self-efficacy support research by Wiliam (2005) who
found that, when students understand task instructions and comprehend how to complete the task
successfully, they report greater self-efficacy. To enhance students’ self-efficacy, then, teachers are
encouraged to provide clear instructions and success criteria prior to learning activities, which also has
been recommended by Hattie (2012) and McDonald (2013).

The positive relationship between Task Orientation and self-efficacy reinforces research by Bandura
(1977) and Lopez (2012) suggesting that, when students are clear about the goal of tasks and
understand the importance of task completion, they report higher levels of self-efficacy. Similarly, other
studies have revealed positive and statistically-significant relationships between task orientation and
self-efficacy (Al Zubaidi and Aldridge 2016; Velayutham and Aldridge 2013). To enhance student self-
efficacy, teachers can provide frequent encouragement and feedback, ensure that students understand
task goals, and use strategies to optimise students’ on-task behaviours (Bell and Aldridge 2014; Hattie
2012).