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


!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).


!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


!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


!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,


!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).


!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.


!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


!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


!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


!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,


!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


!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


!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


!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


!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.


!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.


!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


!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.


!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


Sarah Feldberg's PSYC550 Final Paper_10049045

Documents

Transcript of Sarah Feldberg's PSYC550 Final Paper_10049045