1. Gebler1
David Gebler
Professor Schwartz-Bechet
EDTP 650
4/21/11
Action Research: Self-Efficacy
Preface: The following action-research article was conducted by a student in the MAT program
at UMUC in EDTP 650-Student Internship. The author worked as a student-teacher in a 9th
grade Secondary English Classroom in Prince George’s County Public Schools in Maryland.
All names in the results/observations, both student and mentor teacher, are anonymous in order
to secure individual protection of rights.
Introduction:
In 1997, Albert Bandura created social cognitive theory, and established the concept of
self-efficacy (Snowman, McCown, Biehler, p 278). According to Bandura, self-efficacy is an
individual’s perception of how well or how poorly their performance of a certain task is
completed (Snowman, McCown, Biehler, p 278). Subsequently, additional sources validate that
self-efficacy has a direct affect on student achievement. Bandura posits self-efficacy as a
stronger factor than expected rewards or punishments; that an individual’s self-efficacy is a
greater influence than even their possession of skill in determining success (Snowman, McCown,
Biehler, p 278).
A study involving high stakes assessments and students with high reading ability but low
self-efficacy emphasizes this exact opinion; Patrick McCabe states, “such students may even
develop symptoms of learned helplessness, the feeling that there is little or nothing that can be
done to improve their performance on tests” (McCabe, p 2). A closer examination of McCabe's
study reveal the factors that lead to this peculiar issue: how can students at high reading levels do
poorly on an examination that assesses their reading ability? Bandura's social cognitive theory

2. Gebler2
concludes that a variety of self-efficacy issues arise from a variety of psychological backgrounds,
such as family structures and social references (McCabe, p 3).
While it is evident that low levels of self-efficacy can have negative effects on a student’s
achievement, there is a reversal of this trend that is desirable. Students with a high self-efficacy
have higher levels of achievement. In a study conducted by Jay W. Jackson, students in a
psychology class participated in a self-efficacy boosting experiment. Jackson sent out a variety
of emails to a number of students with different goals: some students received a neutral email
that simply gave the student a little extra credit, while other students received a skill-
complimenting message designed to enhance self-efficacy (Jackson, p 3). While there were
notable complications to the study, the hypothesis was proven correct; students receiving a self-
efficacy boosting message scored higher on examinations (Jackson, p 6-12).
To build upon this cause and effect relationship between self-efficacy and student
achievement, Bandura claims students with a high level of self-efficacy are more likely to use a
variety of strategies such as self-regulation, task concentration, design tactics, time management,
and adjustments towards future improvement (Snowman, McCown, Biehler, p 279).
Unfortunately, these same strategies are seemingly neglected by students with low levels of self-
efficacy. Such students are caught in a self-fulfilling prophecy as they try to avoid experiences
on topics in which their opinions of their abilities are low (Snowman, McCown, Biehler, p 279).
While the effects of self-efficacy have been widely studied, there are few sources that discuss
how teachers can successfully utilize this phenomenon towards student achievement. Most
scholars and researchers, whose interest and work in the field certainly spread insight on the
topic of self-efficacy, do not provide any physical or suggestive strategies that teachers can take
advantage of in their own practice. In contrast to the overwhelming evidence that self-efficacy is

3. Gebler3
a huge determinant in student achievement, this is a perplexing conclusion. The purpose of this
research assignment is to rectify that conclusion; identify and implement a variety of teaching
strategies that can positively influence student self-efficacy.
According to Bandura, there are four factors that affect self-efficacy: performance
accomplishment, verbal persuasion, emotional arousal, and vicarious experience (Jackson, p 4).
A brief definition of each is beneficial toward understanding the strategies selected in the
methodology section of this research article:
1) Performance Accomplishment: refers to past success or failures students have
experienced in a particular task. Success or failure in a certain area will yield future
success or failure based off of students’ perceptions of his or hers abilities in said area
(Snowman, McCown, Biehler, p 280).
2) Verbal Persuasion: refers to the efforts of one individual trying to convince another of
their abilities in a given task. In the field, this would constitute for the teacher, peers, or
parents in attempting to verbally persuade a student of their academic skills (Snowman,
McCown, Biehler, pg 280).
3) Emotional Arousal: refers to the emotions students experience during a particular
activity: stress/anxiety, comfort/assured. Particular emotions will affect either high or
low self-efficacy (Snowman, McCown, Biehler, p 280).
4) Vicarious Experience: refers to an individual examining the success or failures with
another individual with whom they identify as a model. Examples consist of peers,
parents, role models, etc (Snowman, McCown, Biehler pg 280).

4. Gebler4
Methodology:
Important Notes: The methodology of this Action Research project has undergone radical
changes in order to protect the individual rights of students, parents and the community. The
original plan, as was designed through various courses in the MAT program at UMUC prior to
EDTP 650 was to use a student survey to identify students battling with issues of self-efficacy.
Once a certain number of students had been selected, a grade log of test/quiz scores and
homework assignments would have been created in order to establish a comparative note for
future results. These students would receive a letter, either physically or digitally, that targeted
specific areas designed to increase academic self-efficacy; results would be logged in order to
comment on the effectiveness of these research strategies.
Immediately, upon entering my student internship, the possibilities of a survey were
removed; my mentor teacher in the Prince Georges Public High School informed me that this
procedure would require specific research privileges that would have to be cleared by the state,
individual students, and parents. As I discussed with my mentor on an alternative, I realized that
almost all of the methods described above would have to be changed, including the recording of
student academic performance. My mentor emphasized the importance of teacher/student/parent
privacy, and while I was in fact a student-teacher at the High School, a research article that
would utilize actual recordings would infringe on this relationship even if identities remained
anonymous. This sentiment was expressed by the vice-principal via a one on one conversation;
an alternative methodology would have to be created. The following is the product of
discussions between myself, my mentor teacher, and professor/s at UMUC.

5. Gebler5
During the month of February, 2011, four students with sub academic performance were
identified via in class observations as well as general guidance from my mentor teacher. These
students were selected to test research strategies designed to increase self-efficacy in an effort to
increase academic performance.
Starting on March 7thth, 2011, and ending on March 11th, a series of one on one
conversations took place after class involving myself and one of the selected students. During
each conversation, I highlighted previous performance accomplishment either in the form of in
class behavior, contributed insight to class discussion, or specific improvements on quiz
grades/homework assignments from my own observations when applicable. Each student
received a form of verbal persuasion that sought to increase their opinion of their own abilities;
as an educator, I told each student that their intelligence could yield real academic success if the
effort was put forth. Finally, I sought to establish a positive emotional arousal in the classroom
by encouraging each student that their presence was beneficial to not only other students, but to
my role as a teacher. Vicarious experience was not targeted, specifically to avoid personal
inquiries on students as well as the simple fact that each of these students were performing below
the average and any modeling to peers could adversely affect self-efficacy.
Starting from March 14th, and ending on April 15th, I conducted my own observations of
student in-class performance. On April 17th, an interview/questionnaire was completed by my
mentor teacher as he was able to access actual quantitative results. My hypothesis was that we
would see a variety of increased academic performance throughout the time duration allotted for
observation from all students.

6. Gebler6
Results:
Personal Observations:
Note: As I was unable to record or look at academic records, the only observations I can make
are personal ones that deal with in-class behavior and discussion.
Max: After conducting a conversation with Max, I feel that he gave much more energy in the
classroom. While I cannot say for certain whether or not he made any academic progress, I feel
as if the extra effort that he put forth led to better grades on certain assignments.
Jermaine: I generally believe we saw an increase in his desirable behavior in the classroom. At
times I felt that he was building an interest in his academic grades based upon personal
conversations we held in class. On certain class assignments, Jermaine was bright, insightful and
lively, but it varied from day to day.
Amanda: At first, I saw immense change out of Amanda and was quite excited about her
progress. From my previous observations with Amanda, she spent most of the time with her
head on her desk, neglecting her class assignments. After our conversation, Amanda was much
more engaged and willing to participate in class discussion. While her answers varied on
quality, I was content with the newfound energy she was giving to the classroom. However, this
change was short lived. After two or three weeks, Amanda went back to being very quiet and
lost most of her drive on completing class assignments. Near the end of the study duration, she
was back to her original habits of sleeping in class and ignoring class work.
Jeff: There was no change out of Jeff. While he shows signs of being very bright, the amount of
energy he gives towards his school work is extremely detrimental to his grade. The conversation
we held changed little to nothing.

7. Gebler7
Mentor Teacher Questionnaire/Interview
Completed by my Mentor Teacher
According to your own observations, did we see academic increase in any of the following
areas? (Dates: March 14th- April 15th).
In-class performance:
Max: His level of class participation increased as he responded to being called upon more
frequently. The quality of his responses was often mediocre.
Jermaine: He had always participated well in class discussions. However, he cherished the
increased attention and often gave intelligent responses.
Amanda: For a brief period, she seemed eager to participate before she succumbed to her usual
conspicuous sleeping in class.
Jeff: There was no noticeable change in his class participation.
Homework performance:
Max: This student never had problems with completing homework assignments, and therefore it
is impossible to say what effect the amorphous "efficacy" approach has had on him.
Jermaine: His homework output did not show much improvement.
Amanda: Her homework output did not improve at all.
Jeff: His homework output did not improve at all.
Test/Quiz Performance:
Max: While his quiz grades did not improve, he made some modest gains in his overall grade
aggregate.
Jermaine: His quiz and test grades did not improve.
Amanda: Her quiz and test grades did not improve.
Jeff: His quiz and test grades did not improve.
Overall Academic Performance:
Max: He made some modest gains in his overall grade aggregate.
Jermaine: While he talked more in class, his aggregate grades did not improve.
Amanda: Her grades did not improve.
Jeff: His grades did not improve.

8. Gebler8
Based from my own observations, as well as the results I received from my mentor
teacher, it is more than likely conclusive that my hypothesis was incorrect; the strategies that I
selected to increase student self-efficacy were not effective. While one of the students made fair
improvements, the majority of the students remained at the same level of achievement;
furthermore, there is not enough evidence to conclude that the improving student made such
strides as a result of the strategies selected. However, the one observation that my mentor
teacher and I did initially see surface among the students was some varied improvements on
class behavior or discussion; unfortunately, this development was either minimal or short-lived.
Based on the extremely small control group, I am adamant that this study in no way
denounces the effectiveness of self-efficacy in the classroom. While it is unlikely that this
research article was the only one did not see benefits from targeting self-efficacy, the
overwhelming amount of information that states the benefits of such a strategy are not wasted in
the practice of my own or others classrooms. It is highly probable that the
methodology/strategies used to increase self-efficacy were not effective.
There are a variety of theories as to explain why the strategies used were not effective. It
is plausible that the students did not view my compliments/encouragement as valid; perhaps if
this research was conducted by someone other than a student-teacher, one would see different
results. Or perhaps the absence of substantial and previous performance accomplishment to
build off of presented too large of an obstacle. It is interesting that one of the results of these
strategies was a slight increase to student discussion/behavior, albeit not vastly rewarding, as this
was the main area where I focused to highlight student strengths/performance accomplishment. I
do not believe that efforts to target performance accomplishment, verbal persuasion, or
emotional arousal are ineffective as other studies have tried similar strategies and have yielded

9. Gebler9
quite different results. However, it is curious that other studies included efforts to target
vicarious experience, where as this one did not; it is a possibility that vicarious experience plays
a larger role in self-efficacy than I previously concluded. All of these theories are valid, but it is
hard to determine the source of the inconclusive results.
My main theory for the hypothesis being proved incorrect, however, was the nature of the
long-range effects of targeting self-efficacy. It is my opinion that the initial and minor increase
in in-class behavior was a result of the strategies used to increase self-efficacy (it should be
noted, that my mentor teacher only observed this from one of the students). While I think the
techniques to increase self-efficacy were slightly beneficial at first, soon lost steam after a
duration of time. It is my theory that while the students may have first developed increased self-
efficacy as a result of our discussion, soon lost the positive effects as future academic scores did
yield desirable success. Had this insight been granted prior to the completion of this research,
continuous and progressive discussions to increase self-efficacy would have been conducted for
each of the students. Rather than target performance accomplishment, verbal persuasion, and
emotional arousal just once in a month long period, it possibly would have been beneficial to the
study/research had a discussion occurred between myself and the student/s once a week.
However, it is unknown if this kind of isolated scenario could be maintained progressively in the
public high school environment.
Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to confirm this theory; it is merely
speculation of the results. However, it does lend itself to an interesting research topic for future
studies. From my own observations and research, there seems to be a good deal of evidence that
supports attempts to increase student self-efficacy. Would continuous efforts to increase self-
efficacy yield much greater results compared to the outcome of this research project?

10. Gebler10
References
1. Jackson, J. (2002). Enhancing Self-Efficacy and Learning Performance. Journal of
Experimental Education, 70(3), 243. Retrieved from Teacher Reference Center
database.
2. McCabe, P. (2003). Enhancing self-efficacy for high-stakes reading tests. Reading
Teacher, 57(1), 12-20. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
3. Snowman, J., McCown, R., & Biehler, R. (2009). Pyschology applied to teaching.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.