Learning Environments Research 2: 157–167, 1999.
© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
158
ANTHONY W. LORSBACH AND JERRY L. JINKS
A constructivist perspective on learning environments has been describedas “a construction of the individuals in a given social setting; an individual’ssocially mediated beliefs about the opportunities to learn and the extent towhich the social and physical milieu constrains learning” (Lorsbach &Tobin, 1995, p. 20). Although learning environments are personal, eachindividual’s constructions are mediated by the actions of others in the socialsetting and the characteristics of the culture in which learning is situated.What actually happens over a period of time constrains the constructionof what an environment is like for learning. Thus, the interactions of thosewho participate in an educational setting shape individual constructionsof the learning environment. Consequently, the nature of a learningenvironment depends on what happens in a given period of time, who ispresent when it happens, and the physical characteristics of the setting.Learning environments are constrained by history. What typicallyhappens, and what has happened in the past, shape the expectations ofparticipants with respect to what ought to happen or what could happen.Furthermore, each individual brings to a setting beliefs about the classroomroles for themselves and others. These beliefs not only govern how thatindividual acts in specific situations, but also constrain the meanings ofthe actions of others.
Learning environment research is primarily focused on student per–ceptions of the learning environment. In their overview of research onlearning environments, Fraser and Fisher (1994) conclude that:
... student perceptions account for appreciable amounts of variance in learning outcomes,often beyond that attributable to background student characteristics. The practicalimplication from this research is that student outcomes might be improved by creatingclassroom environments found empirically to be conducive to learning. (p. 27)
Student perceptions of the learning environment influence learning behaviorsand outcomes that, in turn, become part of the experienced learningenvironment of self and others. We believe that self-efficacy influencesstudents’ perceptions of the learning environment. We submit that thestudent’s perceptions of the learning environment changes moment bymoment and is specific to the teaching/learning dynamic operating at thetime.
1. SELF-EFFICACY
Social learning theorists define perceived self-efficacy as a sense ofconfidence regarding the performance of specific tasks. For example,
SELF-EFFICACY AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
159
Bandura (1986, p. 391) defines the construct as “people’s judgments of theircapabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attaindesignated types of performances. It is concerned not with the skills one hasbut with the judgments of what one can do with whatever skills onepossesses.”
Self-efficacy influences several aspects of behavior that are importantto learning. Among these are the choice of activities that a student makes,the effort put forth and persistence in accomplishing a task (Bandura, 1977,1982, 1989; Schunk, 1989a, 1989b; Zimmerman et al., 1992). The mostfrequently cited self-efficacy theorist, Bandura, theorizes that individualsdevelop general anticipation regarding cause and effect based uponexperience. Furthermore, he suggests that individuals develop particularbeliefs about their ability to cope with situation-specific constructs. If suchtheories are applied to the study of children’s beliefs about learning, itwould be logical to predict that children with high academic self-efficacywould be likely to demonstrate greater success.
Like the claim made by Fraser and Fisher (1994) that student perceptionsaccount for appreciable amounts of variance in learning outcomes, theliterature speaking directly to children’s academic self-efficacy supportsthe link between self-efficacy and academic performance. For example,Schunk (1981, 1982) showed that efficacy accounted for increments in thevariance in children’s achievement gain in mathematics. He also stated that“a heightened sense of efficacy sustains task involvement and results ingreater achievement”... and ... “lower percepts of efficacy lead to lesspersistence and lower achievement” (Schunk, 1983, p. 92). Collins (1982),Bouffard-Bouchard (1990) and Bouffard-Bouchard et al. (1991) alsodemonstrate the independent contribution of self-efficacy to learningoutcomes.
More recently, Jinks and Morgan (1996) reported relationships betweenelementary students’ perceptions of self-efficacy and self-reported grades,with these relationships holding constant across urban, suburban, and ruralschool environments. The apparent dynamic is that self-efficacy beliefsare “not simply inert predictors of future behavior”, but that those withmore efficacious beliefs “make things happen” (Bandura, 1989, p. 731).It seems clear that the agency whereby self-efficacy mediates learningis that it encourages perseverance and provides the confidence to trydifferent strategies. Those who doubt their ability to succeed tend to giveup a learning process if early efforts do not result in perceived success(Brown & Inouye, 1978; Schunk, 1984). This leads us to suspect that otherinteractions probably also occur. For example, one might expect that therelationship between low self-efficacy and performance could easily
160
ANTHONY W. LORSBACH AND JERRY L. JINKS
develop into a negative spiral. Low self-efficacy probably leads to lesseffort, which in turn would lead to lower success resulting in even lowerself-efficacy. Furthermore, someone with a higher level of self-efficacymight not be motivated to exert effort if it is felt that there is little more tolearn about the topic or if the learner feels that what is left to learn is oflittle value given what is already known. For example, in a case studycompleted by Lorsbach (1992), a seventh grade student named Alan hadan extensive knowledge of science that was more sophisticated than wasevident in class activities, discussions and assignments. Alan, whorecognized his science knowledge and abilities, completed few assignmentsand received poor grades. Alan’s most often asked question was, “Whydo I have to do this when I already know it?” Self-efficacy was not an issuefor him. Instead, Alan was intrinsically motivated to learn and was notmotivated to complete assignments that were not perceived as personallymeaningful or motivating.
Although perceived self-efficacy is an important self-referent factor thatmediates the interrelationships between knowledge and performance, themotivation to try, and to persevere, is also associated with outcomeexpectations. Outcome expectations are beliefs regarding the results ofgiven actions regardless of one’s beliefs about one’s personal efficacy toperform those actions. For example, a student might feel very efficaciousabout his knowledge of a certain subject but, because he believes that theteacher doesn’t like him, might have a low outcome expectation regardinga forthcoming test. On the other hand, a student might believe that theteacher is a fair grader, has his best interests at heart and knows that correctanswers will result in a high grade, but also he believes that he lacks theprerequisite talent or knowledge to do well. In this case, there is a low levelof self-efficacy although the outcome expectation associated withperformance is high. Consequently, both perceived self-efficacy andoutcome expectations are critical elements of the learning environmentbecause they are learned perceptions associated with student motivation.The proposition that dynamics such as these mediate children’s learningof academic material is somewhat speculative due to the relative scarcityof learning self-efficacy research with children. However, that self-efficacybeliefs contribute to academic success is a reasonable hypothesis in lightof the research cited above, as well as research that links self-efficacy andperformance in other domains. For example, Bandura (1997) reported that,in developing coping strategies, self-efficacy is related to level ofperformance by enhancing intensity and persistence of effort. Feltz et al.(1979) assert that their work with athletes supports the idea of a reciprocalrelationship between successful performance and self-efficacy, and Biran
SELF-EFFICACY AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
161
and Wilson (1981) reported a high congruence between self-efficacy andbehavior on individual performance tasks. The research cited herereinforces the conclusion that authentic mastery experiences are the mostinfluential source of efficacy information. Furthermore, once established,enhanced self-efficacy generalizes to other situations with the strongesteffects occurring in activities that are most similar to those in which self-efficacy has been improved. Such findings would seem to be importantconsiderations for learning environment researchers.
2. LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND SELF-EFFICACY
We believe that the concept of self-efficacy is an important component ofall three of Moos’s dimensions for classifying human environments. Fromthe perspective of Relationship Dimensions, self-efficacy is dependent onthe nature of personal relationships. Self-efficacy is perceived in large partby comparisons to one social group (social-comparative appraisals). Thatis, students’ self-efficacy is perceived by comparing personal knowledgeand skills to other students. The teacher’s use of social-comparativeappraisals with students also affects students’ self-efficacy (Rosenholtz &Rosenholtz, 1981). The related idea of outcome expectation also can beinfluenced by others. Self-efficacy is associated with Personal DevelopmentDimensions. Although self-efficacy is rooted in the social system in whichone acts, it is essentially about one’s personal appraisal of ability andgrowth. Self-efficacy is dependent upon components of the classroomenvironment that are determined by how such things as goals, incentives,and expectations are created and maintained. Such concepts are identifiedwith System Maintenance and System Change Dimensions because orderand clarity of purpose within a learning environment allow for moreaccurate appraisals of ability. In short, the concept of academic self-efficacyis strongly linked to perceptions of the learning environment.
Bandura, in his social cognitive theory (1986), argues that self-referentthought mediates knowledge and action and is consistent with others whoargue that an individual’s beliefs are a “filter through which new phenomenaare interpreted and subsequent behavior mediated” (Pajares, 1996, p. 544).Thus, self-efficacy beliefs can determine if learning environments areperceived positively or negatively.
How can self-efficacy theory inform learning environment research?To illustrate, we examined papers from previous issues of this journalfrom the perspective of self-efficacy theory. For example, Tobin (1998)examined how perspectives on learning environments associated with the
162
ANTHONY W. LORSBACH AND JERRY L. JINKS
Internet promoted elementary and middle school teachers’ understandingsof science teaching. Tobin described an on-line learning environment usedby teachers in a degree program. Examples of student uses of the Internetwere provided by Alberto, a high-achieving teacher enrolled in the program.All descriptions of Alberto seem to indicate that he was highly efficaciousregarding the use of technology and the reflective nature of the program. Asa result of his high self-efficacy, he is more likely to persist in the developmentand execution of personal and program goals. Consideration of self-efficacymight have led to questions about individuals that might be less confidentregarding the use of technology and the reflective nature of the program.Research has shown that individuals possessing low self-efficacy tend to giveup easily when faced with frustration. But self-efficacy and persistenceincrease with incremental successes. For those interested in developing aprogram similar to Tobin’s, questions about how the program was perceivedby low self-efficacy students and how the program addressed the particularneeds of such low self-efficacy students would have been helpful.
Kiley and Jensen (1998) described a study of cooperative and studentteachers’ perceptions of the learning environment and the degree to whichthe perceptions are shared by using the School-Level EnvironmentQuestionnaire (SLEQ; Fisher & Fraser, 1991). The SLEQ is based uponMoos’s scheme for classifying human environments; self-efficacytheory’s relationship to Moos’s scheme is outlined above. Additionally,there is evidence that teachers’ and student teachers’ instructional self-efficacy can account for such perceptions of the learning environment(Bandura, 1997):
Teachers who have a high sense of instructional efficacy devote more classroom time toacademic activities, provide students who encounter difficulties with the guidance theyneed to succeed, and praise their academic accomplishments. In contrast, teachers of lowperceived efficacy spend more time on academic pastimes, readily give up on students ifthey do not get quick results, and criticize them for their failures. Thus, teachers whobelieve strongly in their ability to promote learning create mastery experiences for theirstudents, but those beset by self-doubts about their instructional efficacy constructclassroom environments that are likely to undermine students’ judgments of their abilitiesand their cognitive development. (Bandura, 1997, p. 241)
Teachers with a high sense of instructional efficacy tend to createenvironments to accomplish learning goals, while teachers with a low senseof instructional efficacy spend more time creating environments to managebehavior. Therefore, while the SLEQ and other questionnaires can indicateperceptions of learning environments, investigations into teachers’ self-efficacy could provide insights into why teachers’ perceptions are whatthey are.
SELF-EFFICACY AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
163
In addition, it does not make sense to look at teachers’ perceptions ofthe learning environment in isolation from the social milieu in which theyare a part. Current self-efficacy research assumes that “teachers operatecollectively within an interactive social system rather than as isolates.Therefore, educational development through efficacy enhancement mustaddress the social and organizational structures of educational systems”(Bandura, 1997, p. 243).
Self-efficacy theory might also have provided insight into why Waxmanand Huang’s (1998) middle school students perceived their learningenvironments less positively than elementary and high school students ina large urban setting. Middle school students have to manage changes inbiological, educational, and social roles. Bandura states:
Adolescents must manage not only pervasive pubertal changes but difficult educationaltransitions as well. The transition to middle level schools involves major environmentalchange that taxes personal efficacy. Adolescents move from a personalized schoolenvironment of familiar peers to an impersonal, departmentalized one with curriculartracking into college preparatory, general, or vocational paths. Under these new socialstructural arrangements, they have to reestablish their sense of efficacy, social connectedness,and status within an enlarged heterogeneous network of new peers and multiple teachersin rotating class sessions. During this adaptational period, young adolescents sense someloss of personal control, become less confident in themselves, are more sensitive to socialevaluation, and suffer some decline in self motivation. (Eccles & Midgely, 1989; cited inBandura, 1997, p. 178)
Clearly the environmental assault on middle school students’ personalefficacy is a reasonable explanation that might account for Waxman andHuang’s (1998) results. Furthermore, personal efficacy holds promise asan avenue for enhancing the learning environment for such students.While the body of learning environment research has shown that learningenvironments are associated with student outcomes, we feel, like Roth(1998), that an understanding of the beliefs of individual students isnecessary for students’ perceptions of the learning environment to improveand, consequently, for student outcomes to improve. While the notion ofstudent beliefs can be an imposing area of research, we believe thatendeavoring to change one aspect of beliefs, self-efficacy, could alterstudent perceptions of the learning environment. Unlike most beliefssystems, which can be highly personal, academic self-efficacy is generallya belief set that is addressable in a classroom context.
In his review of the use of learning environment instruments, Fraser(1998) cites only six studies whose purpose was to foster teachers’ attemptsto improve classroom learning environments. Learning environmentresearch should do more than report results to teachers. An emphasis on
164
ANTHONY W. LORSBACH AND JERRY L. JINKS
academic self-efficacy in learning environment research might shift thefocus from teachers having the onerous responsibility of creating anenvironment to support the learning of dozens of individual students tofacilitating a learning environment in which students are more self-determined and self-monitoring (characteristics of students with higheracademic self-efficacy).
We believe that a primary purpose of schooling should be student growthtoward greater self-determination. Such an idea is consistent withHabermas’ (1971) idea of emancipatory interests incorporated into theConstructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES; Taylor et al., 1997)and described within a constructivist perspective of learning environmentresearch by Lorsbach and Tobin (1995). Bandura (1997) asserts: “Goodschooling fosters pyschosocial growth that contributes to the quality of lifebeyond the vocational domain. The major goal of formal education shouldbe to equip students with the intellectual tools, efficacy beliefs, and intrinsicinterests to educate themselves in a variety of pursuits throughout theirlifetime” (p. 214). It is apparent that growth in student autonomy is at theintersection of learning environment and self-efficacy research and couldhold some promise for transforming student perceptions of classroomlearning environments.
3. CONCLUSIONS AND DEPARTURES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
How could an understanding of concepts associated with academic self-efficacy aid understanding of what is happening in classrooms and enableresearchers, teachers and students to improve the learning environment?Such understanding would contribute in the following ways:
1.Self-efficacy theory provides learning environment researchers withthe following new and exciting questions. “How can self-efficacy bedetected in young learners?” “Because mastery experiences seem tobe an influential way to enhance learner self-efficacy, what wouldclassrooms look like if they were structured on baseline masterymeasures?” “How is cooperative learning theory influenced by theknowledge that comparing one’s performance to others contributesself-efficacy information?”
2.Teachers interested in improving students’ perceptions of the learningenvironment would benefit from knowledge of individual academicself-efficacy because this knowledge can inform one’s teaching. Forinstance, teachers could identify those students who were highly
SELF-EFFICACY AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
165
efficacious (and consequently more likely to take risks) and createopportunities for them to engage in more self-determined learning.By the same token, low self-efficacy students could be helped bycreating environments that are structured with small and obviousincremental steps that provide opportunities for frequent and cumulativesuccess. Such enactive attainment leads to enhanced self-efficacy.3.Higher self-efficacy beliefs would allow students to contribute to thelearning environment because such students exhibit more emancipatorybehaviors than low self-efficacy students and are less troubled byvariations in the preferred and actual learning environment. Highlyefficacious students are more likely to learn regardless of theenvironment, whereas low efficacious students are much moredependent (Pajares, 1996). Clearly, then, high efficacy students createenvironments conducive to learning.These few examples are meant to be illustrative rather than inclusive.Currently there is a dearth of research on student self-efficacy as it relatesto perceptions of the learning environment. From a constructivist perspective,self-efficacy is probably an important factor in shaping perceptionsbecause, along with learning experience, there come concomitantjudgments about those experiences. Self-efficacy is a personal appraisalof those judgments brought to bear on new learning situations.Consequently learning environment research must take self-efficacy beliefsinto consideration and one of the things that we find most intriguing aboutjoining learning environment research with self-efficacy theory is the clearimplication for encouraging proactive student behavior, which can beamong the most powerful outcomes of a high quality education.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psy-chological Review, 84, 19–1215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,37, 122–147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist,44, 1175–1184.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Biran, M. & Wilson, G.T. (1981). Treatment of phobic disorders using cognitive andexposure methods: a self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-chology, 49, 886–899.
166
ANTHONY W. LORSBACH AND JERRY L. JINKS
Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1990). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cognitivetask. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 353–363.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S. & Larivée, S. (1991). Influence of self-efficacy onself-regulation and performance among junior and senior high-school aged students.International Journal of Behavior Development, 14, 153–164.
Brown, I., Jr. & Inouye, D.K. (1978). Learned helplessness through modeling: the role ofperceived similarity in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,36, 900–908.
Collins, J.L. (1982, March). Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behavior. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,New York.
Eccles, J.S. & Midgley, C. (1989). State-environment fit: developmentally appropriateclassrooms for young adolescents. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on moti-vation in education, vol. 3: goals and cognitions (pp. 139–186). New York: AcademicPress.
Feltz, D.L., Landers, D.M. & Raeder, U. (1979). Enhancing self-efficacy in high-avoid-ance motor tasks: a comparison of modeling techniques. Journal of Sport Psychol-ogy, 1, 112–122.
Fisher, D.L. & Fraser, B.J. (1991). School climate and teacher professional develop-ment. South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 19, 17–32.
Fraser, B.J. (1990). Individualised Classroom Environment Questionnaire. Melbourne,Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Fraser, B.J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: development, validity and ap-plications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7–33.
Fraser, B.J., Anderson, G.J. & Walberg, H.J. (1982). Assessment of learning environ-ments: manual for Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and My Class Inventory(MCI) (3rd ed.). Perth, Australia: Western Australian Institute of Technology.
Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L. (1994). Assessing and researching the classroom environ-ment. In D.L. Fisher (Ed.), The study of learning environments, volume 8 (pp. 23–38)Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Jinks, J.L. & Morgan, V.L. (1996). Students’ sense of academic efficacy and achieve-ment in science: a useful new direction for research regarding scientific literacy? TheElectronic Journal of Science Education [On-line], 1(2). Available: http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/jinksmor.html
Kiley, T.J. & Jensen, R.A. (1998). Cooperating and student teachers’ actual and pre-ferred learning environments: a matched pair analysis. Learning Environments Re-search, 1, 181–197.
Lorsbach, A.W. (1992). Air drums and boredom: how a smart kid survives science class.In H.C. Waxman & C.D. Ellett (Eds.), The study of learning environments, volume 5(pp. 34–41). Houston, TX: University of Houston.
Lorsbach, A.W. & Tobin, K. (1995). Toward a critical approach to the study of learningenvironments in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 25, 19–32.Moos, R.H. (1974). The Social Climate Scales: an overview. Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.
Moos, R.H. & Trickett, E.J. (1987). Classroom Environment Scale manual (2nd. ed.).Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Re-search, 66, 543–578.
SELF-EFFICACY AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
167
Rosenholtz, S.J. & Rosenholtz, S.H. (1981). Classroom organization and the perceptionof ability. Sociology of Education, 54, 132–140.
Roth, W.-M. (1998). Teacher-as-researcher reform: student achievement and perceptionsof learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 1, 75–93.
Schunk, D.H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children’s achievement: aself-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93–105.
Schunk, D.H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children’s perceivedself-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 548–556.Schunk, D.H. (1983). Progress self-monitoring: effects on children’s self-efficacy andachievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 51, 89–93.
Schunk, D.H. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. EducationalPsychologist, 19, 48–58.
Schunk, D.H. (1989a). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychol-ogy Review, 1, 173–208.
Schunk, D.H. (1989b). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B.J.Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achieve-ment: theory, research and practice (pp. 186–213). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Taylor, P., Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learn-ing environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293–302.Tobin, K. (1998). Qualitative perceptions of learning environments on the World WideWeb. Learning Environments Research, 1, 139–162.
Waxman, H.C. & Huang, S.L. (1998). Classroom learning environments in urban el-ementary, middle, and high schools. Learning Environments Research, 1, 95–113.Welch, W.W. & Walberg, H.J. (1972). A national experiment in curriculum evaluation.American Educational Research Journal, 9, 373–383.
Zimmerman, B.J., Bandura, A. & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for aca-demic attainment: the role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 29, 663–676.
ANTHONY W. LORSBACH AND JERRY L. JINKS
Department of Curriculum and InstructionIllinois State University NormalIL 61790, USA
(Correspondence to: Anthony W. Lorsbach)
168ANTHONY W. LORSBACH AND JERRY L. JINKS
因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容