Self-Efficacy for Reading and Writing: Influence of Modeling, Goal Setting, and Self-Evaluation

By: Dale H. Schunk, Ph.D.

Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-

evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 159-172.

Made available courtesy of Taylor and Francis: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/

designated levels, plays an important role in their motivation and learning. Self-efficacy is a key mechanism in

social cognitive theory, which postulates that achievement depends on interactions between behaviors, personal

factors, and environmental conditions. Self-efficacy affects choice of tasks, effort, persistence, and

achievement. Sources of self-efficacy information include personal accomplishments, vicarious experiences,

social persuasion, and physiological indicators. At the outset of learning activities, students have goals and a

sense of self-efficacy for attaining them. Self-evaluations of learning progress sustain self-efficacy and

motivation. Research on academic learning is summarized, showing how modeling, goal setting, and self-

evaluation affect self-efficacy, motivation, and learning. Suggestions for applying these ideas to teaching are

provided.

In this article I discuss theory, research, and applications relevant to one type of personal belief: perceived self-

efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to beliefs about one’s capabilities to learn or perform behaviors at designated

levels (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Research shows that self-efficacy predicts students’ academic motivation and

learning (Pajares, 1996; Schunk, 1995, 1996).

Within this context, I present research evidence showing how social models, goal setting, and self-evaluation

affect self-efficacy, motivation, and learning. Modeling refers to patterning one’s thoughts, beliefs, actions,

strategies, and behaviors after those displayed by one or more models. A goal, or what one is consciously trying

to accomplish, provides a standard against which people can gauge their progress (Schunk, 1990). Self-

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Social Cognitive Theory

Self-efficacy is part of a larger theoretical framework known as social cognitive theory, which postulates that

human achievement depends on interactions between one’s behaviors, personal factors (e.g., thoughts and

beliefs), and environmental conditions (Bandura, 1986, 1997). With respect to the link between personal factors

and behaviors, much research shows that students’ self-efficacy beliefs influence such achievement behaviors as

choice of tasks, effort, persistence, and achievement (Schunk, 1995). Conversely, students’ behaviors can alter

efficacy beliefs. As students work on tasks, they note their progress toward their goals. Goal progress and

accomplishment convey to students that they are capable of performing well, which enhances self-efficacy for

continued learning.

Students’ behaviors and classroom environments also are related. Consider a teacher who directs students’

attention by stating, “Look at this.” Environmental influence on behavior occurs when students direct their

attention without conscious deliberation. Students’ behaviors also can alter their environments. When students

answer questions incorrectly, the teacher may reteach the lesson differently rather than continue with the

original material.

Those with low efficacy may attempt to avoid the task, which can disrupt the classroom. The influence of

environment on thought is evident when teachers give students feedback (e.g., “That’s right, you really are good

at this.”), which raises self-efficacy and sustains motivation for learning.

Self-efficacy is hypothesized to influence task choice, effort, persistence, and achievement (Bandura, 1986,

1997; Schunk, 1995). Compared with students who doubt their learning capabilities, those who feel efficacious

for learning or performing a task participate more readily, work harder, persist longer when they encounter

difficulties, and achieve at a higher level.

perform a task are apt to believe that they, too, are capable of accomplishing it.

Learners often receive information from parents, teachers, coaches, and peers that they are capable of

performing a task (“You can do this.”). Positive persuasive information raises efficacy, although this increase

will be temporary if students subsequently perform poorly. Students also acquire efficacy information from

such physiological indicators as sweating and heart rate. Symptoms signaling anxiety may convey that one lacks

skills; experiencing decreased anxiety may raise self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy is important but not the only influence on achievement. Other important influences are skills,

knowledge, outcome expectations, and perceived value. High efficacy will not produce competent performances

Self-efficacy and Academic Learning

students have goals and a sense of self-efficacy for learning (Schunk, 1995; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000;

Zimmerman, 2000). Learners’ self-efficacy sustains their motivation and promotes learning. During periods of

self-reflection, they evaluate their progress by comparing their performances to their goals. Self-evaluations of

progress enhance efficacy and maintain motivation. Learners may decide to continue pursuing their goals,

modify them, or set new ones.

Although low self-efficacy is detrimental for learning, effective learning does not require that efficacy be

extremely high. At overly high levels, students may feel overconfident and slack off in their efforts, which can

retard learning (Salomon, 1984). Assuming that learners feel efficacious about surmounting problems, holding

some doubt about whether one will succeed can mobilize effort and lead to better use of strategies than will

feeling overly confident.

Many students suffer from low self-efficacy for improving their literacy skills. In such areas as reading

comprehension and essay writing, it is difficult to ascertain how much one is improving. Students typically rely

on teacher feedback for progress information, and they may not be able to reliably gauge progress on their own.

occurrence, even with motivational inducements in effect (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1987). Students must attend

to a model, code the information for retention, be capable of producing the demonstrated pattern, and be

motivated to perform it. An important form of observational learning occurs through cognitive modeling, which

incorporates modeled explanations and demonstrations with verbalizations of the model’s thoughts and reasons

for performing the actions (Meichenbaum, 1977). Teachers often employ cognitive modeling when teaching

new skills and concepts.

The functional value of behavior, or whether modeled actions result in success or failure, reward or punishment,

exerts strong effects on observer modeling. Modeled behaviors are likely to be performed if they lead to

rewarding outcomes but unlikely if they result in punishment.

hypothesized to be an important source of information for gauging the appropriateness of behavior and forming

outcome expectations. The more alike observers are to models, the greater is the probability that similar actions

by observers are socially appropriate and will produce comparable results. Similarity is highly influential when

students have experienced difficulties and have doubts about performing well. These points suggest that peer

models may, under certain conditions, have more desirable effects on students than teacher models.

Goal Setting

Goals are integral components of motivation and learning. At the start of a learning activity, students have such

goals as acquiring skills and knowledge, finishing work, and making good grades. During the activity, students

observe, judge, and react to their perceptions of goal progress (Bandura, 1988; Locke & Latham, 1990; Schunk,

Goals can be acquired through modeling. People are more likely to attend to models when they believe the

modeled behaviors will help them attain their goals. Academically oriented learners are apt to attend to teachers

demonstrating new skills, whereas children with strong social goals may be more attentive to actions by popular

peers. Goals motivate people to exert extra effort and persist, and they focus people’s attention on relevant task

features and the strategies that will help them accomplish the task (Locke & Latham, 1990).

By themselves, goals do not automatically enhance learning and motivation. Rather, the goal properties of

specificity, proximity, and difficulty are important. Goals that incorporate specific performance standards are

more likely to enhance learning and activate self-evaluative reactions than are such general goals as “Do your

best” (Locke & Latham, 1990). Specific goals also promote efficacy because it is relatively easy to evaluate

progress toward an explicit goal.

children who cannot fully represent distant outcomes in thought.

Difficulty is important because people expend greater effort to attain a difficult goal than an easier one. But the

benefits of difficulty are limited. People do not attempt to attain what they believe is impossible. Goals that are

perceived as moderately difficult raise motivation and convey a clear sense of progress, which raises efficacy.

Goal effects also may depend on whether the goal denotes a learning or performance outcome (Meece, 1991). A

learning goal refers to what knowledge and skills students are to acquire; a performance goal denotes what task

students are to complete (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Although most goal setting research has focused on rate or

quantity of performance, there is increasing emphasis on learning processes and strategies (Schunk, 1996).

can continue to improve by working diligently.

Critically important for maintaining self-efficacy for learning and performing well are positive self-evaluations

of one’s capabilities and progress in skill acquisition. These raise self-efficacy and motivation because students

believe they are learning and capable of further progress (Schunk, 1990).

Low self-evaluations will not necessarily diminish self-efficacy and motivation if students believe they can

succeed but that their present approach is ineffective (Bandura, 1986). Such students may work harder, persist

longer, adopt what they believe is a better strategy, or seek help from teachers and peers (Schunk, 1996; Schunk

dividing fractions now compared with how you were when the lesson began?”).

RESEARCH EVIDENCE

This section summarizes research on reading and writing that highlights the important roles played by self-

efficacy, modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. The focus is on studies that implemented programs

designed to improve students’ academic skills or that sought to clarify processes in their acquisition. There

exists much non-intervention research that is not summarized here but which highlights the central role of self-

efficacy and writing motivation and achievement (e.g., Pajares & Johnson, 1994; Shell, Murphy, & Bruning,

1989; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990).

Reading Achievement

Much research in achievement settings attests to the effectiveness of goals for raising students’ motivation, self-

efficacy, and achievement (Bandura, 1988; Locke & Latham, 1990; Schunk, 1990). In an early study using

goal-setting conferences, Gaa (1973) assigned elementary-school children to one of three conditions:

children received general information about material covered previously and what would be covered next. All

children set goals at the end of the study. Conference children demonstrated the highest reading achievement

and the smallest discrepancy between goals set and mastered, which implies that goal setting promoted accurate

self-evaluations of capabilities. Gaa (1979) replicated these results and found that goal-conference students took

greater responsibility for their successes than children without goal setting. Although Gaa had researchers hold

conferences with children, they easily can be done by teachers.

Tollefson, Tracy, Johnsen, Farmer, & Buenning (1984) taught goal setting to junior high school students with

learning disabilities. Each week for four weeks students selected moderately difficult spelling words. Following

the study, students predicted how many words they would spell correctly on a test. The goal and a study plan

Schunk and Rice (1989) explored the effects on self-efficacy and reading comprehension of process (learning)

and product (performance) goals among students with low reading skills. Students were taught a strategy to

answer comprehension questions (finding main ideas) by an adult teacher who cognitively modeled (explained

and demonstrated) the strategy. At the start of each lesson, some students received a process goal—learn to use

the strategy, whereas others were given a product goal—answer questions. Children in a third (control) group

were advised to work productively. Compared with control students, process and product goal children judged

self-efficacy for answering comprehension questions higher, and process goal children demonstrated better

comprehension.

A follow-up study (Schunk & Rice, 1991) explored the role of feedback that linked performance with strategy

Another source of evidence on the important role played by self-efficacy in reading achievement comes from

studies investigating strategy instruction and strategy value feedback. Much research shows that teaching

students to use learning strategies enhances achievement outcomes, motivation, and self-evaluations of

capabilities (Pressley et al., 1990; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998).

Schunk and Rice (1987) found in two experiments that multiple sources of information stressing the value of a

strategy to identify main ideas raise achievement outcomes. Children received a goal of learning to use the

strategy and were given general strategy information, specific strategy-value information, specific plus general

information, or no strategy-value information. General information emphasized the value of the strategy for all

reading tasks; specific information conveyed the value of using the strategy to identify main ideas. In a follow-

up study, children received strategy-effectiveness feedback, specific strategy-value information, or feedback

plus specific information. The feedback linked children’s performances with strategy use. In each study, the

combined treatment best promoted self-efficacy and comprehension. This treatment may have led children to

believe that they could affect their comprehension, which can raise self-efficacy. Teachers can provide multiple

Further evidence that remedial readers benefit from information on strategy usefulness comes from two studies

by Schunk and Rice (1992). Children with reading skill deficiencies received comprehension instruction on

main ideas. In the first study, some students were taught a comprehension strategy, while others received

strategy instruction by observing an adult model and receiving strategy-value feedback linking strategy use with

improved performance; control children received comprehension instruction without the strategy. In the second

study, children were taught the strategy or received instruction without strategy training; they then were given

comprehension instruction on locating details. Some were taught how to modify the strategy for the new

comprehension task, whereas others did not employ the strategy on details. Children who received strategy-

value feedback (Study 1) and strategy-modification instruction (Study 2) demonstrated the highest self-efficacy,

comprehension, strategy use, and transfer of the strategy to the new comprehension task.

fading/no-feedback condition scored lower than the other three conditions on self-efficacy and achievement.

Fading plus feedback led to higher self-evaluations of strategy use, compared with the fading-only and

feedback-only conditions, and to higher comprehension compared with the feedback-only condition. Fading is

very useful in classrooms, because when several students verbalize aloud, it can distract others from their work.

Writing Achievement

Research in the field of writing also shows that self-efficacy promotes motivation and learning and that

modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation exert desirable effects. For example, Schunk and Swartz (1993a,

1993b) explored the effects of learning goals and progress feedback on children’s self-efficacy, achievement,

and use of writing strategies. The context was instruction on writing paragraphs. Average-ability and gifted

were told their goal was to write paragraphs; general-goal students were advised to do their best. Process-goal

plus feedback students periodically received verbal feedback from the adult that linked strategy use with

improved writing performance.

Results showed that the process-goal plus feedback condition was the most effective and that there also were

some benefits of providing a process goal alone. Process-goal plus feedback students generally outperformed

product- and general-goal students on self-efficacy and writing achievement, and they evaluated the

effectiveness of the strategy positively and demonstrated the greatest amount of strategy use. Gains made by

process-goal plus feedback students were maintained after six weeks and generalized to types of paragraphs on

which students had received no instruction. Goals and feedback are easily given by teachers and integrate well

with normal lesson planning.

Graham and Harris (1989a, 1989b; Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, 1992) have shown that teaching students with

learning disabilities a strategy for writing essays or stories improves self-efficacy and composition and that

gains are maintained following instruction and generalize to other content and settings. The strategy was taught

via a cognitive modeling procedure, in which models (1) explained and demonstrated the strategy while

by comparing goals with their achievement. Again, these components are integrated easily into normal

instructional practices.

APPLICATIONS TO TEACHING

The preceding ideas suggest many potential applications to teaching. One suggestion is to make extensive use

of models in the classroom. Especially important are cognitive models who verbalize their actions and thoughts

as they work on a task. At times, it may be important to use coping models who initially portray learning

difficulties and express low self-efficacy for learning but gradually improve as a result of persistence, effort,

effective strategy use, and verbalizing coping statements (e.g., “I have to pay better attention”) (Schunk,

Hanson, & Cox, 1987). Coping models contrast with mastery models who perform the task flawlessly from the

offer suggestions for improvement (Fitzgerald, 1987). Group members serve as models for one another,

especially when they explain their writing process.

A second application is to build self-efficacy by having students experience learning progress and success,

exposing them to successful models, and providing encouraging feedback substantiated by success. Teachers

can incorporate these sources of efficacy information into the classroom by teaching effective strategies to use

during learning, employing social models, and providing progress feedback (e.g., “You are doing much better”).

Although actual performance successes exert strong effects on self-efficacy, the vicarious and persuasive

sources also are effective.

combination of modeling, guided practice, independent practice, and peer conferences. For example, an

important component of writing is revising. Compared with average writers, better writers spend a longer time

revising what they have written (Byrnes, 1996). Yet many students are reluctant to revise. This may reflect low

motivation—the belief that revising will not significantly improve writing— as well as lack of knowledge of

how to evaluate the quality of writing and thereby know what to revise.

Teachers can model a strategy for assessing the clarity of writing. They could state their purpose in writing, then

as they read aloud what they have written, they evaluate whether it is focused on the purpose, clearly stated, and

comprehensible. Students can be given examples of writing to revise, as well as encouraged to write their own

essays and revise them. Peer conferences can be used in which peers provide feedback and suggestions for

revisions.

Teaching students strategies to improve their writing builds self-efficacy. The belief that students know what to

do to succeed at an academic task raises their efficacy for performing well. Further, the use of peer models

provides an important vicarious source of efficacy information.

learning. Research shows that self-efficacy and achievement can be enhanced through instructional methods

that incorporate modeled strategies, progress feedback, goal setting, and self-evaluations of progress. To the

extent that these and other efficacy-enhancing methods are employed in classrooms, teachers will foster

academic achievement and motivation for continued learning among all learners.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1988). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal systems. In V. Hamilton, G. H.

Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation (pp. 37-61). Dordrecht, The

Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57, 481-506.

Gaa, J. P. (1973). Effects of individual goal-setting conferences on achievement, attitudes, and goal-setting

behavior. Journal of Experimental Education, 42, 22-28.

Gaa, J. P. (1979). The effects of individual goal-setting conferences on academic achievement and modification

of locus of control orientation. Psychology in the Schools, 16, 591-597.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989a). Components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning

disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353-361.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989b). Improving learning disabled students’ skills at composing essays: Self-

instructional strategy training. Exceptional Children, 56, 201-214.

Pressley, M., Woloshyn, V., Lysynchuk, L. M., Martin, V., Wood, E., & Willoughby, T. (1990). A primer of

research on cognitive strategy instruction: The important issues and how to address them. Educational

Psychology Review, 2, 1-58.

Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of mental effort in

learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647-658.

Sawyer, R. J., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1992). Direct teaching, strategy instruction, and strategy instruction

with explicit self-regulation: Effects on the composition skills and self-efficacy of students with learning

disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 340-352.

Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57, 149-

174.

Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist,

25, 71-86.

Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy,

adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 281-303). New York: Plenum Press.

Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children’s cognitive skill learning. American

San Diego: Academic Press.

Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., & Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer model attributes and children’s achievement

behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 54-61.

Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1987). Enhancing comprehension skill and self-efficacy with strategy value

information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19, 285-302.

Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1989). Learning goals and children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Reading

Behavior, 21, 279-293.

Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1991). Learning goals and progress feedback during reading comprehension

instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 351-364.

Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1992). Influence of reading-comprehension strategy information on children’s

feedback on self-efficacy and skills. Roeper Review, 15, 225-230.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.) (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective

practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in

reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 91-100.

Tollefson, N., Tracy, D. B., Johnsen, E. P., Farmer, A. W., & Buenning, M. (1984). Goal setting and personal

responsibility training for LD adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 224-233.

Wigfield, A. (1994). The role of children’s achievement values in the self-regulation of their learning outcomes.

In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and

educational applications (pp. 101-124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.