Running Head: SELF-EFFICACY AND MOTIVATION
Self- Efficacy: A Key to Student Motivation and Academic Achievement
Susan D. Muir
EADM 811
University of Saskatchewan
1
SELF-EFFICACY AND MOTIVATION
2
The topic of motivation spreads throughout educational discussions more today than ever.
The lack of motivation to learn from students, resulting in low academic achievement, is a
concern for educators and parents. The models of motivation from the industrial revolution no
longer fit in 21st century classrooms. 21st century classrooms require the implementation of
strategies to obtain positive self-efficacy. Growing evidence has altered previous theoretical
views of behaviour and motivation. To understand where motivation fits with today’s academic
achievement, we first need to look at motivation from a theoretical point of view. Throughout
this paper, I will chronologically review earlier understandings of motivation as a driving force
for behaviour and performance, beginning with the scientific management movement, towards
theories of human relations and needs. This paper will argue how elements of theories have led
to the importance of positive self-efficacy resulting in students’ increased motivation and
academic performance. Finally, this paper will suggest further research needed to increase
student self-efficacy and academic performance from effective instruction and assessment
practice.
Early Theories in Motivation
Much has been written about motivation, but we do not fully understand where it comes
from. Earlier theories defined motivation quantitatively, as the duration, intensity and direction
of behaviour (Ames, 1990). This description of motivation was not sustainable for long term
motivation and academic achievement as it did not account for thought patterns or beliefs (Ames,
1990). Maslow’s (1943/2011) theory of motivation is present in 21st century constructs of
motivation. Maslow’s theory was based on his definition of human needs and stated humans
were motivated by multiple needs existing in a hierarchical order.
SELF-EFFICACY AND MOTIVATION
3
Scientific Management
Frederick Taylor (1916/2011) was a leading theorist during the ‘evolution’ of scientific
management (p. 67). Taylor was an efficiency expert. According to Taylor (1916/2011) , a lack
of motivation was present during this time as it was the people’s belief to go slow and work as
little as possible (p. 65). Due to this belief, Taylor (1916/2011) proposed four principles of
scientific management that motivated and increased output of workers. The motivation was
purely compensational; more output lead to more pay. Taylor gathered information about the
work and the workers to formulate the principles. He looked for best practices in order to
standardize the work. Similarly, the practice of standardization was mirrored in the educational
system during the industrial revolution.
Taylor’s principles provided a set of criteria to obtain a task however, this did not provide
positive self-efficacy, as the principles were too often described as orders and people felt as
though they were treated like human machines. It was not until the 1970’s that Bandura’s theory
of self-efficacy was proven but aspects of it existed within Taylor’s principles. Zimmerman
(2000) stated that Bandura’s (1977) research on self-efficacy focused on measurement of
performance rather than personal qualities. In addition Zimmerman (2000) stated that human
self-efficacy was dependent on the mastery of criteria during a task. This also held true within
the educational environment during the industrial revolution; orders were given from the teacher
and students acted like machines producing output in an assembly line. This approach of orders
to produce an output was similar to McGregor’s theory X as workers were viewed as lazy with a
lack of motivation, only to be motivated by reward or threat of punishment. This earlier view of
motivation was mirrored in both factory and educational settings. Taylor’s principles were a step
SELF-EFFICACY AND MOTIVATION
4
in the right direction by providing efficient criteria to perform a task, yet the human aspect was
missing.
Human Behaviour
The research of Roethlisberger (1941/2011) concluded that human behaviour was not so
easily understood. Human relations and the satisfying of social needs met at work motivated
workers. This was something that Taylor’s principles were missing. Roethlisberger (1941/2011)
stated that human issues need to come from human solutions. Roethlisberger (1941/2011) found
that by paying attention to people and asking them about their needs led to increased
productivity. Likewise, by “listening to learners informs our teaching practice” (Davies, 2000, p.
14) and increases student achievement. The single act of altering the external environment does
not bring lasting success. Rather, motivation from internal human factors such as increased selfefficacy increases student achievement. Strategies for positive self-efficacy are what
Roethlisberger (1941/2011) may have suggested for 21st century learners.
Human Needs
By the late 1950’s a deeper look at the factors associated with motivation emerged
(Steers, Mowday, & Shapiro, 2004). Maslow’s theory of human motivation (1943/2011)
theorised that in order for humans to be motivated to their true potential, certain needs must be
fulfilled. Maslow (1943/2011) proposed that within every human being there were five basic
needs: 1) physiological, 2) safety, 3) love, 4) esteem, and finally 5) self-actualization. In order to
motivate someone, you must understand what level of the hierarchy they are on so that you can
motivate towards the next highest need. Once a need is satisfied, the higher need is increased
(Hall & Nougaim, 1968). McGregor (1957/2011) was influenced by the work of Maslow and
Roethlisberger. McGregor (1957/2011) believed that “a satisfied need is not a motivator of
SELF-EFFICACY AND MOTIVATION
5
behaviour” (p. 184). Once a lower need was satisfied, there was no longer the motivation to
satisfy that lower need. Needs however, could be controlled by depriving one of the lower needs
in order to control human behaviour (McGregor, 1957/2011). This was considered McGregor’s
(1957/2011) theory X or the “carrot and stick theory of motivation” (p. 186). Within the
educational classroom the practice of theory X still exists. The desire to have control over ones’
needs therefore motivates one to accomplish a task: ‘you must do this before you get this.’
However, theory X brought low morale and did not work with people motivated by higher needs.
Mary Parker Follett (1926/ 2011) would have concurred with McGregor in that solely the giving
of orders would not lead to desired results. This concurred with Roethlisberger and Follett
(1926/2011) as they both stated that change needed to come internally from humans, not external
change from the environment. Similarly, McGregor’s theory Y worked on the premise that
people were intrinsically motivated and did not need rewards or punishment to accomplish a
task. McGregor (1957/2011) believed that humans were not lacking motivation, but rather
displayed these lazy behaviours due to factors in their environment. It was theory Y that gave
people the belief that all students had great potential and it was the educator’s responsibility to
create the conditions and direct behaviour to obtain goals or performance. Self-efficacy theory
could have been built on the McGregor’s theory Y as Bandura (1977) stated that every human
had the capacity to be successful in obtaining a goal. Similarly, McGregor (1957/2011) stated,
“…the readiness to direct behaviour toward organizational goals are present in all of us” (p.
187). Furthermore, McGregor (1957/2011) stated that “the essential task of management is to
arrange organizational conditions and method of operation so that people can achieve their goals
best by directing their own efforts toward organizational objectives” (p. 187). McGregor’s quote
gives light to future constructs of motivation including self-efficacy and achievement.
SELF-EFFICACY AND MOTIVATION
6
Chronologically, Follett’s (1926/2011) work came before that of McGregor and Maslow;
however, her writing informed us that changes to human behaviour were a result of resulted
changes in attitude and habits. Follett spoke to the importance of changing habit patterns in
people resulted in a change of thought process and beliefs.
The educators of the 21st century require changes in habit patterns. Specifically, how
teachers relate to student motivation. Rather than the giving of orders, or external motivation
through reward or punishment, change in practice is required. This change in practice will come
from the understanding of our learners’ needs and wants to further create the conditions to
achieve success. The learner must also change habits in achievement because it is not about the
final grade, but rather the value in the learning process.
Self-efficacy Theory
Recent studies have shown that self-efficacy has both positive and negative effects on
motivation. Furthermore, research has found that students with higher self-efficacy achieve
more academic success versus less efficacious students having lower academic success (Schunk,
1991). Today, self-efficacy is one of the most researched self-constructs of academic motivation
and has been a highly effective predictor of student motivation and academic success (Bong &
Clark, 1999; Zimmerman, 2000). Self-efficacy defined by Bandura (1977) is the belief that one
has the personal capacity to successfully perform a given task. Bandura (1977) further suggested
that self- efficacy will anticipate avoidance or persistence to accomplish a task. Self- efficacy
does not come from the praise of nice words that may lead to an increased self-confidence. Selfefficacy comes from the setting of short term goals while being modeled the strategies to
progress through these goals (Ames, 1990).
SELF-EFFICACY AND MOTIVATION
7
Social Cognitive Theory
Self-efficacy is a part of a social cognitive theory. According to Bandura’s (1993) selfefficacy theory, efficacy determines effort, persistence, and goal setting. The stronger the
student’s belief in their efficacy to regulate their own learning will determine motivation and
academic success. Equally important is a teacher’s belief of self-efficacy to motivate and
promote learning to students.
A study written by Bandura (1983), selected students from three levels of mathematical
ability: low, medium, and high, were all given difficult problems to solve (Collis, 1982).
Students that had a higher self-efficacy out-performed the less efficacious students. Collins
(1982) concluded that people who possessed the skills still performed poorly when a lack of selfefficacy was present. Further work of Bandura (1977) as cited by Schunk (1991), suggested that
self-efficacy was a predictor of avoidance or persistence to accomplishing a task. People that
were characterized by having low self-efficacy avoided tasks, where as highly efficacious people
resulted in a higher effort and persistence while performing a task.
Future Implications
Bandura stated that “A major goal of formal education should be to equip students with
the intellectual tools, self-beliefs, and self-regulatory capabilities to educate themselves
throughout their lifetime” (1993, p. 136). Educators can do this by strengthening student selfefficacy leading to intrinsically motivated, successful learners. Self-directed learning requires
the motivation obtained through high self-efficacious behaviours.
According to Schunk (2003), high self-efficacious behaviours are obtained through
modeling, goal setting and self-evaluation. The work of Bandura as stated by Schunk (2003),
found that observational learning occurred when observers showed new behaviours that were not
SELF-EFFICACY AND MOTIVATION
8
present prior to modeling. Goal setting is also a predictor of efficacious behaviour. Goals
themselves do not create success, but rather the specific process to obtain the goals creates
success and positive self-efficacy. General goals such as ‘try hard’ do not have specific
indicators however, specific feedback to what behaviours are required to ‘try hard’ increase selfefficacy. Understanding the knowledge and skills to complete the task is essential. Specific
feedback on the performance is necessary to raise self-efficacy as it informs the learner their
competence and how they can improve to obtain their goal (Schunk, 2003). High self-evaluation
is critical in maintaining high self-efficacy. The act of self-evaluation needs to be modeled as
many students do not have the capability to self-evaluate on their own (Schunk, 2003).
The background knowledge from the history and development of organizational theory
contributed to the shift in paradigm leading to present day theories of motivation. Research for
this paper has built the foundation that will use motivation theory and research into best practice
within the classroom. Further research of formative assessment strategies, including
strengthening self-efficacy from self-assessment, immediate specific feedback, and goal setting
will be explored in a subsequent paper.
Conclusion
The process of learning brings value to the understanding of how to improve skills that
lead to positive self-efficacy. Motivation comes from the personal capacity and belief of
accomplishment and academic success. 21st century educators need to create the conditions
necessary to obtain high levels of self-efficacy in all students. The learning process that obtains
positive self-efficacy resulting in students’ increased motivation and academic performance is
the future of education.
SELF-EFFICACY AND MOTIVATION
9
References
Ames, C. (1990). Motivation: What teachers need to know. The Teachers College Record, 91(3),
409-421.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bong, M., & Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in
academic motivation research. Educational psychologist, 34(3), 139-153.
Davies, Anne. Making Classroom Assessment Work . Merville, BC:Connections Publishing,
2000.
Follett, M. P. (1926). The giving of orders. In J. M. Shafritz, J. S. Ott, & Y. S. Jang (Eds.),
Classics of organization theory (7th ed., pp. 65-76). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage
Learning.
Hall, D. T., & Nougaim, K. E. (1968). An examination of Maslow's need hierarchy in an
organizational setting. Organizational behavior and human performance, 3(1), 12-35.
Maslow, A. H., (1943/2011). A theory of human motivation. In J.M. Schafritz, J. S. Ott, & Y. S.
Jang (Eds.), Classics of organization theory (7th ed., pp. 171-182). Boston, MA:
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
McGregor, D. M., (1957/2011). The human side of enterprise. In J.M. Schafritz, J. S. Ott, &
Y. S. Jang (Eds.), Classics of organization theory (7th ed., pp. 183-188). Boston, MA:
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
SELF-EFFICACY AND MOTIVATION
10
Roethlisberger, F.J. (1922). The Hawthorne experiments. In J.M. Shafritz, J. S. Ott, & Y. S. Jang
(Eds.), Classics of organizational theory (7th ed., pp. 162-170). Boston, MA:
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-Efficacy and Academic Motivation. Educational Psychologist,
26(3/4), 207.
Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Shapiro, D. L. (2004). Introduction to special topic forum: The
future of work motivation theory. The Academy of Management Review, 379-387.
Taylor, F. W. (1916/2011). The principles of scientific management. In J.M. Shafritz, J. S. Ott, &
Y. S. Jang (Eds.), Classics of organizational theory (7th ed., pp. 65-76). Boston, MA:
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.