Sarah Feldberg's PSYC550 Final Paper_10049045
-
Upload
sarah-feldberg -
Category
Documents
-
view
163 -
download
3
Transcript of Sarah Feldberg's PSYC550 Final Paper_10049045
!1
The effects of family, peers, and schools on self-efficacy and academic achievement: A review
Sarah Feldberg
Queen’s University
Running Head: SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!2
Previous research suggests that self-efficacy largely effects academic performance in
adolescence (Chermers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001; Lane & Lane, 2001; Schunk & Pajares). However,
there are many different variables that may contribute to the relationship between these factors.
The goal of this review is to increase understanding of the underlying mechanisms in
the relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance. Specifically, I will address the
role of family, peers, and schools as predictors of the relationship between self-efficacy and
academic performance.
Self-efficacy refers to beliefs about one’s capabilities to learn or perform behaviours at
designated levels (Bandura, 1986, 1997 as cited in Schunk & Pajares). It has been determined
that one’s efficacious beliefs impact academic achievement, such that those who experience high
levels of self-efficacy tend to be academically successful (Schunk & Pajares). Although
academic achievement may have multiple definitions, many studies associate this concept with
grade point average, such that students who have high GPAs are considered to be academically
successful (Chermers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001; Lane & Lane, 2001). This review of the effect of
family, peers, and school on self-efficacy and academic performance is constructed based on
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model.
Bronfenbrenner’s model depicts human development through a progressively more
complex series of reciprocal interactions between the individual and different levels of the
environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1999). The core of this model is the individual, who is
characterized by factors such as age, gender, and health. The individual is an important
component in the relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement, as one’s
personal characteristics may impact individual self-efficacy and lead to changes in academic
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!3
achievement. For instance, there is a general finding that boys tend to be more confident than
girls in academic areas related to math, science, and technology, despite the fact that
achievement differences in these areas are diminishing (Meece, 1991; Pajares & Miller, 1994;
Wigfield, Eccles, & Pintrich, 1996; Eisenberg, Martin, & Fabes, 1996 as cited in Schunk &
Pajares). In this case, gender biases impact self-efficacy, which may lead young girls to believe
that they are bad at math and science, resulting in poor evaluation outcomes in these subject
areas at school. Although individual factors contribute much to the relationship between self-
efficacy and academic performance, this review focuses specifically on the microsystem.
The microsystem is defined as one’s immediate surroundings and includes the family,
peers, and school (Bronfenbrenner, 1999). The microsystem is the focus of this review in order to
to provide a more in-depth account of family, peer, and school influences on the relationship
between self-efficacy and academic performance.
Family characteristics greatly influence the development of adolescents’ efficacious
beliefs (Boardman & Robbert, 2000; McNair & Johnson, 2009; Spera, Wentzel, & Matto, 2009).
The family component of the microsystem includes factors such as socioeconomic status,
parental academic attainment, and parental support.
Socioeconomic status (SES) refers to a family’s social class and includes a diverse array
of indicators such as family income, education level of parents, and employment status
(Boardman & Robbert, 2000; Sirin, 2005). Families who have a low yearly income, low levels of
parental education, and who have unstable occupations appear to reside in lower-income
neighbourhoods (Aneshensel & Sucoff, 1996; Boardman & Robbert, 2000; Spera, Wentzel, &
Matto, 2009). In determining the effects of structural aspects of neighbourhood context on
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!4
adolescents’ emotional well-being, researchers found that youth who reside in low SES
neighbourhoods are subjectively aware of the ambient hazards in their area, such as crime,
violence, graffiti, and drug use, compared to youth living in high SES neighbourhoods
(Aneshensel & Sucoff, 1996). Moreover, it was found that living in an area perceived as
threatening leads to poor mental health outcomes and that neighbourhood SES is significantly
positively correlated with self-efficacy (Aneshensel & Sucoff, 1996; Boardman & Robert, 2000).
Therefore, youth who live in dangerous, low SES neighbourhoods experience low levels of self-
efficacy. It may be that residing in a crime-ridden area leads youth to experience symptoms of
anxiety and depression, which could lead to decreased positive beliefs in one’s capabilities. In
addition to the relationship between SES and self-efficacy, a relationship exists between SES and
academic achievement as well.
A meta-analysis of journal articles published between 1990 and 2000 regarding SES and
academic achievement indicates that there is a medium-strong relationship between SES and
academic achievement (Sirin, 2005). Because it directly influences both self-efficacy and
academic performance, it is possible that SES acts as a third variable in the relationship between
self-efficacy and academic performance. For instance, it may be that low SES leads to poor
mental health outcomes that negatively affect one’s self-efficacy. In turn, one’s low level of self-
efficacy may lead to poor academic performance and achievement. Otherwise, it may be that the
distractors present in low SES neighbourhoods, such as street violence, lead adolescents to
perform poorly in school, thereby decreasing their academic self-efficacy. In addition to the
neighbourhood influence on adolescents’ self-efficacy and academic achievement, parental
characteristics, such as level of education, play a role as well (Spera, Wentzel, & Matto, 2008).
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!5
Parental academic attainment, one of the many determinants of SES, contributes to the
relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement in various ways. For instance, in a
study concerning parental aspirations for their children’s educational attainment, it was suggested
that parents who are highly educated are more likely to have the experience and resources to
draw upon to help their children achieve a higher education (Spera, Wentzel, & Matto, 2008). A
caveat of this study is that regardless of parental academic attainment, all parents do want their
children to succeed. However, it appears that children of parents with low levels of education
often obtain low levels of education themselves. One of the most consistent predictors of
children’s level of educational attainment is their parents’ level of educational attainment
(Mangione and Speth 1998; Mayer 1997; Scott-Jones 1995 as cited in Spera, Wentzel, & Matto,
2008).
Though initial sources of self-efficacy are often centered in the family, the influence is
bidirectional. That is, parents who provide a stimulating environment for their children and allow
for mastery of experiences scaffold their children’s self-efficacy. In turn, children who display
more curiosity and exploration promote parental responsiveness (Schunk & Pajares). Therefore,
in addition to the effects of parental education on academic aspirations for their children,
children’s academic performance is, in turn, significantly positively related to their parents’
academic aspirations for them (Spera, Wentzel, & Matto, 2008). When students strive in school,
their parents often develop higher expectations and aspirations for their future education.
However, if parents see their children as being ‘bad at school’ and treat them as such, this can
have a hugely negative impact on children’s concept of their academic self-efficacy. This
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!6
contribution of parental expectations to academic self-efficacy in children speaks to the influence
of parental support in this complex model.
Parental support may be influenced by socioeconomic status, which serves as a proxy for
ethnicity (Hoff et al. 2002 as cited in Spera, Wentzel, & Matto, 2008). As low SES is associated
with minority ethnicity, minority parents are left with fewer resources, such as expendable
income for books, learning supplies, and educational experiences outside of the classroom, to
assist their children. These scarce resources, in turn, may limit parents’ ability to help their
children achieve the educational aspirations they set for them, or even cause them to re-evaluate
or lower their aspirations over time (Hoff et al. 2002 as cited in Spera, Wentzel, & Matto, 2008).
It has also been postulated that minority parents, in particular, may work in jobs that provide
more rigid work hours and less schedule flexibility or autonomy, leaving little time at the end of
the day for attention to their children’s homework (Rank 2005; Waldfogel 2006 as cited in Spera,
Wentzel, & Matto, 2008). Though parents are established contributors to the relationship
between self-efficacy and academic achievement, adolescents spend the majority of their days
with peers who influence one another in different ways than adults do.
Self-efficacious information is conceived by way of interactions with peers, particularly
during adolescence when one’s perceptions of self are largely influenced by other’s evaluations.
For instance, peers influence one another through model similarity. Model similarity involves
witnessing the success of a similar-level peer and experiencing an increase in self-efficacy and
motivation to perform the task that this peer was successful with. This belief revolves around the
idea that, “If a similar-level peer is successful in this task, I too will succeed” (Schunk, 1987 as
cited in Schunk & Pajares). However, the opposite is also true. For example, if a student
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!7
witnesses their similar-level peer work through a math problem on the blackboard and this peer
fails to find the correct answer, then the student will be less likely to model their peer.
Furthermore, peers influence one another at a group level through peer networks, which refers to
large groups of students that associate with one another (Schunk & Pajares). In a study
conducted by Kindermann, McCollam, and Gibson (1996) it was found that that children who
are affiliated with highly motivated groups change positively across the school year, while those
in less-motivated groups change negatively.
However, self-efficacy beliefs overall do tend to decline as students advance through
school. This decline could be attributed to a variety of factors such as increased competition, less
attention from teachers, and stresses associated with school transitions (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996
as cited in Schunk & Pajares). Additionally, classrooms that allow for more social comparison
tend to cause a decrease in self-efficacy in students who feel that they cannot live up to their
peers. Unfortunately, students who have low academic self-efficacy are less likely to participate
in class, which may further decrease their academic performance (Schunk & Pajares). The
influence of peers within the microsystem can be further deconstructed in terms of such factors
as peer victimization, delinquent peers, and peer support.
Bulling, a form of peer victimization, refers to a unique set of aggressive behaviours
between peers, characterized by a power imbalance and the intention to harm (Olweus, 1993 as
cited in Schumann, Craig, & Rosu, 2013). It has been indicated that peer victimization is
negatively associated with various measures of academic achievement and can have a negative
impact on children’s academic self-efficacy (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2008). That is, victimized
children receive lower grades than their more accepted classmates (Buhs & Ladd, 2001; Graham,
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!8
Bellmore, & Mize, 2006; Lopez & DuBois, 2005; Schwartz, Farver, Chang, & Lee-Shin, 2002 as
cited in Verkuyten & Thijs, 2008). There also appears to be a link between victimization and
achievement when mediated by perceived academic self-efficacy, suggesting that victimized
students do less well academically because they consider themselves to be less competent
(Verkuyten & Thijs, 2008).
It has been concluded that students’ academic self-concepts, which include their
perceptions of academic efficacy, have reciprocal relations with academic achievement
outcomes. Not only are these self-perceptions based on actual accomplishments, but they also
have motivating properties that lead to better achievement outcomes (Guay, Larose, & Boivin,
2004; Marsh, Trautwein, Lu ̈dtke, Koller, & Baumert, 2005; Trautwein, Lu ̈dtke, Koller, &
Baumert, 2006; Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper, 2004 as cited in Verkuyten & Thijs, 2008).
Unfortunately, students who are victimized may have difficulty developing an explicit academic
self-concept due to their reluctance to attend school, thereby missing out on the benefits of
school connectedness as well as educational advancement (Eisenberg, Neurnark-Sztainer, &
Perry, 2003 as cited in Verkuyten & Thijs, 2008).
Young people who feel more connected to school and earn higher grades are less likely to
smoke cigarettes, use drugs, become sexually active at younger age, be involved in violence, and
be emotionally distressed than their less connected and less successful peers (Baskin, Quintana,
& Slaten, 2013). Over the course of adolescence, students who exhibit a poor sense of self and
who are less academically connected may become affiliated with gangs (Alleyne & Wood, 2010;
Katsiyannis, Ryan, Zhang, & Spann, 2008; Tremblay et al., 1992).
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!9
There has been much controversy among researchers in defining what a gang is. The
Eurogang definition has been selected for the purposes of this review: “A gang, or troublesome
youth group, is any durable, street-oriented youth group whose involvement in illegal activity is
part of their group identity’’ (Weerman et al., 2009 as cited in Alleyne & Wood, 2010). It has
been found that low self-esteem is significantly associated with various characteristics of gang
membership including delinquency, antisocial tendencies, and aggression (Donnellan et al., 2005
as cited in Alleyne & Wood, 2010). Additionally, research shows that adolescents who suffer
from low self-esteem and lack of confidence are more likely to seek support by way of gang
memberships than by interacting with more confident peers (Dukes et al., 1997 as cited in
Alleyne & Wood, 2010). Given these findings, it may be that adolescents who exhibit delinquent
and incriminating behaviours tend to be associated with gangs in order to pursue illegal activity
in a reinforcing group context. Alternatively, adolescents who suffer from low levels of self-
esteem may be drawn toward the idea of gang membership as a way of increasing self-
confidence, paralleled by increases in gang esteem, by way of successful criminal activity
(Alleyne & Wood, 2010). As such, it is not surprising that adolescents who associate with ‘bad
crowds’ preoccupied with harmful activities display poor achievement outcomes at school.
Studies suggest that friendships with gang members present a significant, positive
correlation with psychological distress and a significant negative correlation with academic
achievement (Dishion et al., 2005 as cited in Baskin, Quintana, & Slaten, 2013). Therefore,
despite a potential increase in self-esteem as a result of affiliating with similar others to
accomplish crime-oriented goals, it appears that associating with delinquent peers leads to
overall poor mental health outcomes that distracts students from participating fully in school.
!10
Additionally, adolescents may take time away from school in pursuit of gang activities (ex.
planning crimes, selling drugs). An unfortunate result may be low school achievement.
While researchers have been unable to identify a causal relationship between delinquency
and academic achievement, an apparent reciprocal relationship has been demonstrated between
early behavioural problems and poor academic outcomes (Katsiyannis, Ryan, Zhang, & Spann,
2008). For instance, a strong inverse relationship between delinquency and intelligence has long
since been identified, such that delinquent youth exhibit significantly lower scores on
intelligence tests than their non-delinquent peers (Lynam et al., 1993 as cited in Katsiyannis,
Ryan, Zhang, & Spann, 2008). Furthermore, research has clearly shown that students who
display low academic self-efficacy are at greater risk of engaging in delinquent behaviours
(Bandura, 1997; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Bandura, Barbaranelli, et
al., 2001; Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, & Regali, 2001 as cited in Caroll et al.,
2009). Bringing these findings together, delinquency appears to independently effect both
academic achievement and academic self-efficacy in ways that may account for the relationship
between these two factors. The poor achievement outcomes demonstrated by delinquent
adolescents at school may be a determinant of their low levels of academic self-efficacy, or vice
versa. Stated differently, delinquency may serve to mediate the relationship between the
inadequate achievement displayed by delinquent youth and how academically capable they
perceive themselves to be. Though delinquent adolescents have the ability to greatly effect the
academic outcomes of their peers in a negative way, a more positive factor to consider in regards
to peer influence on the relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance is peer
support.
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!11
Social support is a multifaceted concept. It can include material assistance, such as taking
actions to further another’s goals; cognitive aspects, as in helping someone to think through a
problem; and an emotional element, as in demonstrating the acceptance of others (Kahn and
Antonucci, 1980 as cited in Rigby, 2000). Supportive relationships with others have been
regarded as resources that promote successful adaptation during adolescence (Bandura,
Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, & Caprara, 1999; Compas, Hiden, & Gerhardt, 1995; Juang &
Silbereisen, 1999; Sandler & Twohey, 1998; Saunders, Davis, Williams, & Williams, 2004 as
cited in Vieno, Santinello, Pastore, & Perkins, 2007). When support is recognized as being
available, it is expected to have positive effects on one's well-being. The “buffer hypothesis”
suggests that social support may have differing effects on well-being depending on the level of
stress being experienced, such that the more stressed someone feels, the greater benefit they will
receive (Cohen and Hoberman, 1983 as cited in Rigby, 2000). If this is true, it is possible that
students who are the most frequently victimized will be helped most by the perceived availability
of social support (Rigby, 2000).
In one study, it was found that the mental health of adolescents was related independently
to the degree of bullying they experience at school and also the extent to which these students
felt they could rely upon the support of others when they had a serious problem (Rigby, 2000).
Students who reported being bullied frequently and had low social support appeared to be at
most risk of poor mental health. However, there was no evidence suggesting that the perceived
availability of social support affected frequently victimized students more than others, thereby
contradicting the proposed effects of the buffering hypothesis. The results of the study conclude
that being bullied and having low social support may affect the mental health of students
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!12
independently; that is, the effect of one of these two factors on mental health cannot be explained
by reference to the other. However, children who have little or no support from others are clearly
more vulnerable to attack from those who may wish to bully them (Rigby, 2000). Therefore, this
finding may not imply that peer support has an absolute null influence on adolescents’ peer
relationships and mental health outcomes as a whole. In fact, research shows that although peer
support systems may not eliminate bullying altogether, they can serve a preventative measure
(Naylor & Cowie, 1999 as cited in Cowie & Hudson, 2010). Importantly, peer support systems
reduce the negative effect of bullying on victims and make it more acceptable to report incidence
of bullying (Naylor & Cowie, 1999 as cited in Cowie & Hudson, 2010). Additionally, studies
strongly suggest that peer support is an effective method for helping bystanders to improve the
quality of peer relationships among school age pupils (Cunningham et al., 1998; Stacey, 2000 as
cited in Cowie & Hudson, 2010). In regards to these findings, it may be concluded that positive
relationships with peers benefit adolescents by fostering good communication skills and conflict
resolution strategies, in addition to providing social and emotional support. One might postulate
that the constructive influence of peer support greatly enhances mental health outcomes in
adolescents, yielding positive perceptions of academic capabilities. In turn, increases in academic
self-efficacy may be displayed by increases in academic achievement, as demonstrated by better
testing performance or GPA. As suggested by previous research, the influence of peers can
promote both positive and negative academic outcomes in adolescence. While these different
types of peer interactions may occur in many environments, the school setting is inextricably
linked with these social connections. As such, one may also consider the influence of schools on
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!13
the relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance. Specifically, the role of
educators in the classroom, characteristics of the classroom environment, and the school climate.
The role of educators in the classroom appears to impact students’ sense of academic self-
efficacy, thereby contributing to academic achievement, via particular teaching methods. The
way a teacher interacts with a classroom through instructional practices influences the
development of students’ academic self-efficacy, such that teachers who incorporate proximal
and specific learning goals, strategy instruction and verbalization, social models, performance
and attributional feedback, and performance-contingent rewards in their teachings appear to
motivate their students to perform well (Schunk, 1995 as cite in Schunk & Parjes). It seems that
students’ academic achievement increases when they are made aware of their capabilities and
progress. However, teachers must be also weary of instructional methods that have potential to
hinder overall class performance.
For instance, teaching methods that promote competition in the classroom seem to reduce
students’ academic self-efficacy, which may be indicated by decreased academic performance
and achievement (Ames & Archer, 1988; Urdan, Midgley, & Anderman, 1998 as cited in Ryan &
Patrick, 2001; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996 as cited in Schunk & Parjes). As mentioned previously,
comparisons may be especially detrimental to the efficacious beliefs of students who feel
academically inferior to their peers (Schunk & Parjes). It is possible that the decline in self-
efficacy that results from peer comparisons in the classroom further reduce these students’
achievement outcomes. That is, there may be a cyclical pattern in the classroom in which poorly
performing students compare themselves to their higher achieving peers, experience diminished
academic self-efficacy, and continue to perform at poor levels or decrease in performance even
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!14
further. Teachers must be especially aware of this negative pattern and find ways to reduce these
comparisons. In particular, promoting autonomy and relatedness in the classroom, may be an
effective strategy in countering peer comparisons (Hymel, Comfort, Schonert-Reichl, &
McDougall, 1996 as cited in Schunk & Parjes).
By enhancing autonomy in the classroom, students may be less likely to focus on how
they fare in comparison to their classmates and be more apt to appreciate their unique scholastic
abilities. For example, an adolescent student with a high sense of autonomy may be especially
cognizant of her excellent reading skills, rather than comparing her poor mathematics skills to
classmates who perform better in math. Additionally, by indicating relatedness of students in the
classroom, educators may facilitate students’ connections to one another, thereby promoting a
sense of belongingness and reducing comparisons among one another (Hymel, Comfort,
Schonert-Reichl, & McDougall, 1996 as cited in Schunk & Parjes). Feeling confident in the
uniqueness of one’s academic capabilities, as well as strong affiliations with peers, may lead to
increases in academic self-efficacy that can be exhibited through academic achievement
outcomes. For instance, it has been found that students who feel confident in their problem-
solving abilities demonstrate greater performance monitoring and persist longer than do students
with lower self- efficacy (Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Larivee, 1991 as cited in Schunk &
Parjes). Despite the importance of the instructional method selected, personal characteristics of a
teacher, such as being uncaring and unsupportive, may interfere with students’ ability to develop
a strong sense of academic self-efficacy and academic achievement.
Teacher support has been defined differently among researchers. However, this concept
generally refers to several characteristics of teachers including caring, friendliness,
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!15
understanding, dedication, and dependability (Ryan & Patrick, 2001). In particular, students
identify teacher support as their teacher’s willingness to establish valuable relationships with
them (Ryan & Patrick, 2001; Trickett & Moos, 1973 as cited in Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007).
Research has shown that perceptions of their teacher’s supportiveness is associated with
students’ achievement motivation. That is, when students view their teachers as supportive
figures, they report greater enjoyment and interest in their schoolwork (Goodenow, 1993; Fraser
& Fisher, 1982; Midgley et al., 1989; Skinner & Belmont, 1993 as cited in Ryan & Patrick,
2001), a more positive academic self-concept (Felner, Aber, Primavera, & Cauce, 1985 as cited
in Ryan & Patrick, 2001), and greater expectancies for success in the classroom (Goodenow,
1993 as cited in Ryan & Patrick, 2001). As such, teacher support appears to be a strong predictor
in the establishment of academic self-efficacy in students. Teachers who are identified as being
supportive may assist students in developing their sense of academic self-efficacy in various
ways.
For instance, effectively teaching the curriculum material by remaining within the
students’ zone of proximal development and allowing students to ask questions during class time
could lead to increased material comprehension and learning overall. When students understand
the given classroom material, one might expect a greater likelihood of increased grades, which
may, in turn, enhance levels of academic self-efficacy. Another way in which teacher’s could
increase academic self-efficacy in students is by providing academic counselling in their subject
area. For example, a supportive math teacher might provide a struggling student with tips for
improvement, whereas an unsupportive math teacher may not actively provide this sort of helpful
information, or students may be less likely to seek their assistance because they are
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!16
unapproachable. As a result, students’ levels of self-efficacy and academic achievement may
suffer. Though a teacher’s primarily role is to administer curriculum material, they also tend to
set the tone of the classroom environment by facilitating interactions among their students.
Specifically, teachers may encourage social interaction in the classroom by identifying
classmates as valuable resources to increase learning (Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Perhaps students
who display lower academic abilities benefit from peer teaching. Specifically, students may feel
more efficacious about their ability to learn and complete activities successfully when interaction
among students is promoted, because they have a greater array of resources on which to draw
than if they were only working individually (Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Therefore, teachers may
promote group work in class whereby students who are at differing academic levels learn
together in small groups. It is postulated that students who work with peers at their academic
level maintain a sense of academic self-efficacy, while working with more skilled peers may
assist student in learning of the curriculum material better, as well as motivating students to
achieve these same higher levels of achievement. Additionally, it is possible that a simple
classroom characteristics may also contribute to students’ academic self-efficacy and
achievement outcomes.
Students who are able to receive much individual attention from teachers, which is
expected to occur in smaller classrooms, may gain confidence in their academic abilities as they
could simply be learning more than they would if they were in a large classroom where a teacher
could not spend as much time helping each individual student. For instance, when students are in
elementary school, they receive much individual attention from their teachers. The consistent,
personalized guidance that is administered to these younger students promotes both learning of
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!17
classroom curricula as well as academic self-efficacious beliefs (Eccles & Midgley, 1989;
Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, 1984 as cited in Schunk & Parjes). However, as students progress into
middle school, and eventually high school, levels of self-efficacy may decrease as a result of less
frequent attention in the classroom (Harter, 1996; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989 as cited in
Schunk & Parjes). Additionally, due to the lack skills-progress monitoring by teachers in upper
grades, students may see a decline in academic achievement. Therefore, periods of transition in
school lead to decreased attention by teachers which may result in decreased academic self-
efficacy and academic achievement. Similarly to classroom characteristics, certain overall school
characteristics may also affect students’ academic self-efficacy and achievement.
A positive school climate has been defined as “shared beliefs, values, and attitudes that
shape interactions between students, teachers, and administrators and set the parameters of
acceptable behavior and norms for the school” (Emmons, Comer, & Haynes, 1996; Kuperminc,
Leadbeater, Emmons, & Blatt, 1997 as cited in Koth, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2008). Therefore,
school climate is the result of teacher-student social interactions, is affected by educational and
social values, and has been shown to be associated with social situations within classrooms and
to the school in its entirety (Koth, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2008). Research has found that
adolescents’ perceptions of their school environment are associated with academic motivation
and achievement, such that positive perceptions of school characteristics are related to increased
academic motivation and achievement, while negative perceptions indicate the opposite (Roeser
et al., 1998 as cited in McNair & Johnson, 2009). Furthermore, it has been found that adolescent
views of school importance serves as a predictor of academic performance (Mullis et al., 2003;
Wentzel, 1989, 1993, 1996; Wentzel & Wigfield, 1998 as cited in McNair & Johnson, 2009). It
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!18
appears that the quality of the school environment influences adolescents’ attitudes towards
school, which, in turn, affects their GPA (McNair & Johnson, 2009). A possible reason for this
finding may be that students who attend safe, well-kept schools of an average size are more
likely to respect the school environment, thereby enhancing perceptions of worthiness at school
that may be displayed through high performance. In contrast, students who attend unsafe, run-
down, overpopulated schools may be have more negative perceptions of the school environment
which may translate to a decrease in academic self-efficacy. In fact a significant, negative
association has been found between larger school enrolment and achievement motivation (Koth,
Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2008). It may be that student who attend larger schools do not receive the
same benefits as students who attend smaller schools where teacher-student relationships are
more intimate and individual attention can be provided more often. An unfortunate result could
be low academic achievement outcome.
The purpose of this review was to examine family, peers, and schools as predictors of the
relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance. Because this review focused on
factors that affect adolescents’ immediate surroundings, it was structured based on the
microsystem level of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model. As previously stated, self-
efficacy relates to academic achievement, such that those who experience high levels of self-
efficacy tend to be academically successful, as demonstrated by a high GPA (Schunk & Pajares).
The family component of the microsystem consisted of socioeconomic status, parental
academic attainment, and parental support. This review proposed that the relatively strong
relationship between SES and academic achievement, in addition to the symptoms of anxiety and
depression displayed by adolescents who reside in low SES neighbourhoods, indicates the
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!19
possibility that SES acts as a third variable in the relationship between self-efficacy and
academic achievement. It was additionally noted that parental educational attainment is one of
the most consistent predictors of children’s level of educational attainment, indicating that
parents with minimal education, who tend to be of low SES and ethnic minorities, may have
particular difficulty supporting their children in achieving high educational outcomes (Mangione
and Speth 1998; Mayer 1997; Scott-Jones 1995; Hoff et al. 2002 as cited in Spera, Wentzel, &
Matto, 2008).
This review also considered the influence of peers in the the relationship between self-
efficacy and academic achievement. It was found that peer victimization is negatively associated
with various measures of academic achievement and can have a negative impact on children’s
academic self-efficacy (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2008). Additionally, research showed that
adolescents who suffer from low confidence are more likely to seek support by way of gang
memberships than by interacting with more confident peers (Dukes et al., 1997 as cited in
Alleyne & Wood, 2010). Supportive relationships with others have been regarded as resources
that promote successful adaptation during adolescence (Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, &
Caprara, 1999; Compas, Hiden, & Gerhardt, 1995; Juang & Silbereisen, 1999; Sandler &
Twohey, 1998; Saunders, Davis, Williams, & Williams, 2004 as cited in Vieno, Santinello,
Pastore, & Perkins, 2007). It may be concluded that positive relationships with peers benefit
adolescents by fostering good communication skills and conflict resolution strategies, in addition
to providing social and emotional support, thereby building self-efficacy and increasing the
likelihood of positive achievement outcomes at school.
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!20
In consideration of the influence of schools on the relationship between self-efficacy and
academic performance, this review found that teaching styles that make students’ aware of their
capabilities and progress are most beneficial to academic outcomes. Additionally, teacher support
appears to be a strong predictor in the establishment of academic self-efficacy in students.
Moreover, it was determined that adolescents’ perceptions of their school environment are
related to their academic motivation and achievement (Roeser et al., 1998 as cited in McNair &
Johnson, 2009). It appears that the quality of the school environment influences adolescents’
attitudes towards school, which, in turn, affects their GPA (McNair & Johnson, 2009).
These research findings may be useful in creating intervention strategies to increase
adolescents’ self-efficacy and academic achievement. For instance, interventions could be
administered to low SES communities to teach parents how to build their children’s academic
self-efficacy in hopes of raising levels of academic achievement. Additionally, anti-bullying
campaigns, support groups for delinquent students, and the encouragement of peer support can
be applied in schools, in addition to teaching strategies that will enhance academic efficacious
beliefs. Furthermore, educators may benefit from professional development workshops that
advise them of the most effective teaching methods and ways of enhancing their students’
academic self-efficacy that will render better academic achievement.
Future research should continue to examine factors within the microsystem that
contribute to adolescent self-efficacy and academic achievement, such as the impact of religion
and health-related variables. Furthermore, the additional levels of Bronfenbrenner’s model, the
mesosystem, exosystem and macrosystem, should be examined in order to establish a thorough
review of the factors that contribute to self-efficacy and academic achievement in adolescence.
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!21
References
Alleyne, E., & Wood, J. L. (2010). Gang involvement: psychological and behavioral
characteristics of gang members, peripheral youth, and nongang youth. Aggressive
Behavior, 36(6), 423–436. http://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20360
Aneshensel, C. S., & Sucoff, C. A. (1996). The neighborhood context of adolescent mental
health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 37(4), 293–310. http://doi.org/Retrieved
from: http://hsb.sagepub.com/
Baskin, T. W., Quintana, S. M., & Slaten, C. D. (2014). Family Belongingness, Gang
Friendships, and Psychological Distress in Adolescent Achievement, 92(October), 398–
405. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00166.x
Boardman, J. D., Robert, S. A., Boardman, J. D., & Robert, S. A. (2015). Neighborhood
Socioeconomic Status and Perceptions of Self-Efficacy. Neighborhood socioeconomic
status and perceptions of self-efficacy, 43(1), 117–136.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1999). Environments in developmental perspective: Theoretical and
operational models. In S.L. Friedman & T.D. Wachs (Eds.), Measuring
environment across the life span: Emerging methods and concepts (pp. 3-28).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Cowie, H., & Hutson, N. (2005). Peer support: A strategy to help bystanders challenge school
bullying. Pastoral Care in Education, 23(2), 40–44. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.
0264-3944.2005.00331.x
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!22
Katsiyannis, A., Ryan, J. B., Zhang, D., & Spann, A. (2008). Juvenile Delinquency and
Recidivism: The Impact of Academic Achievement. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24(2),
177–196. http://doi.org/10.1080/10573560701808460
Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student
perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom-level factors. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100(1), 96–104. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.96
McNair, R., & Johnson, H. D. (2009). Perceived school and home characteristics as predictors of
school importance and academic performance in a diverse adolescent sample. North
American Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 63–84.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom
social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99(1), 83–98. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.83
Rigby, K. (2000). Effects of peer victimization in schools and perceived social support on
adolescent well-being. Journal of Adolescence, 23(1), 57–68. http://doi.org/10.1006/jado.
1999.0289
Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The Classroom Social Environment and Changes in
Adolescents’ Motivation and Engagement During Middle School. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(2), 437–460. http://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038002437
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (n.d.). Development of Academic Self-Efficacy 1. Development,
1446, 1–27.
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
!23
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Review
of Research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453. http://doi.org/
10.3102/00346543075003417
Spera, C., Wentzel, K. R., & Matto, H. C. (2009). Parental aspirations for their children’s
educational attainment: Relations to ethnicity, parental education, children's academic
performance, and parental perceptions of school climate. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 38(8), 1140–1152. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9314-7
Thijs, J., & Verkuyten, M. (2008). Peer victimization and academic achievement in a multiethnic
sample: The role of perceived academic self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology,
100(4), 754–764. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0013155
Tremblay, R. E., Masse, B., Perron, D., Leblanc, M., Schwartzman, A E., & Ledingham, J. E.
(1992). Early disruptive behavior, poor school achievement, delinquent behavior, and
delinquent personality: longitudinal analyses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 60(1), 64–72. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.60.1.64
Vieno, A., Santinello, M., Pastore, M., & Perkins, D. D. (2007). Social support, sense of
community in school, and self-efficacy as resources during early adolescence: An
integrative model. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(1-2), 177–190. http://
doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9095-2
SELF-EFFICACY & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT