Academic Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy: How Different. Are They Really? 3 and Einar M. Skaalvik2. Mimi Bong1

Transcription

1 Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2003 (e> 2003) Academic Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy: How Different Are They Really? Mimi Bong1 3 and Einar M. Skaalvik2 Academic motivation researchers sometimes struggle to decipher the distinc tive characteristics of what appear to be highly analogous constructs. In this article, we discuss important similarities between self-concept and self-efficacy as well as some notable differences. Both constructs share many similarities such as centrality of perceived competence in construct definition; use of mas tery experience, social comparison, and reflected appraisals as major informa tion sources; and a domain-specific and multidimensional nature. Both predict motivation, emotion, and performance to varying degrees. However, there are also important differences. These differences include integration vs. separation of cognition and affect, heavily normative vs. goal-referenced evaluation of competence, aggregated vs. context-specific judgment, hierarchical vs. loosely hierarchical structure, past vs. future orientation, and relative temporal stabil ity vs. malleability. We argue that self-efficacy acts as an active precursor of self-concept development and suggest that self-concept research separate out its multiple components and subprocesses and invest more effort toward mak ing students less preoccupied with normative ability comparisons in school. KEY WORDS: self-concept; self-efficacy; self-esteem; motivation. Researchers in personality and social psychology have long been interested in the role of self-related perceptions. Individuals who are otherwise similar feel differently about themselves and choose different courses of action, depending on how they construe themselves what attributes they think 1 Department of Educational Psychology, University of South Carolina, South Carolina, Columbia. 2Department of Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. 3To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Educational Psychol ogy, 135 Wardlaw Hall, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. mimibong@sc.edu X/03/ /O 2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation

2 Bong and Skaalvik they possess, what roles they presume they are expected to play, what they believe they are capable of, how they view they fare in comparison with others, and how they judge they are viewed by others. Without doubt, these are beliefs and perceptions about self that are heavily rooted in one's past achievement and reinforcement history. Yet it is these subjective convictions about oneself, once established, which play a determining role in individuals' further growth and development (Bandura, 1997; Markus and Nurius, 1986). It is only reasonable that these self-perceptions have received a great deal of attention in educational research (Byrne, 1984). Children with dif ferent self-beliefs demonstrate different levels of cognitive, social, and emo tional engagement in school. Because school-related experience makes up a major portion of children's lives and shapes the early paths to important life outcomes, educational researchers students' minds. Various models and theories of self-related been proposed try to grasp the meaning of self in cognition and tested within the context of school learning. Self-concept and self-efficacy are the two self-constructs that have received a lot of at tention. During the past couple of decades, numerous studies in educational research have resorted to either self-concept or self-efficacy to explain the function of self in school contexts. These studies produced abundant evi dence on the potency of each self-belief. The field now struggles to decipher the distinguishing characteristics and comparative usefulness of the two be lief systems. Making have a clear and irrefutable distinction between beliefs of self concept and self-efficacy is not an easy task. However, it is nonetheless possi ble to illuminate some of the similarities and differences between these two conceptions. This is the goal of this article. While more recent reviews on this topic highlighted differences between the two (e.g.. Bong and Clark, 1999), we try to deduce also important similarities underlying the formulation of the two self-beliefs. In doing so, our hope is that the theory and research in this area become more integrated to give educational researchers and practitioners better understandings of students' perception of self and what it does to their cognitive and psychological well-being in school. DEFINITIONS OF CONSTRUCTS Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy Self-concept is colloquially defined as a composite view of oneself. Rosenberg (1979) defined self-concept as "... the totality of the indi vidual's thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an object" (p. 7). Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) provided a similar

3 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy definition of self-concept that formed the theoretical foundation of con temporary self-concept research: In very broad terms, self-concept is a person's perception of himself.... We do not claim an entity within a person called "self-concept." Rather, we claim that the construct is potentially important and useful in explaining and predicting how one acts. One's perceptions of himself are thought to influence the ways in which he acts, and his acts in turn influence the ways in which he perceives himself.... Seven features can be identified as critical to the construct definition. Self-concept may be described as: organized, multifaceted, hierarchical, stable, developmental, evaluative, and differentiable. (p. 411) Self-concept is formed through experiences with the environment and is influenced especially by environmental reinforcements and significant others (Shavelson et al., 1976). Skaalvik (1997a) identified some key antecedents to self-concept in his recent review (see also Rayner and Devi, 2001; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, in press): (1) Frames of reference. Self-concept is heavily influenced by frames of reference or standards against which to judge one's own traits and accomplishments. Social comparison often serves as the most potent source of information for self-concept. Frames of reference play a particularly important role in the development of academic self-concept (Marsh, 1986,1987). (2) Causal attributions. The factors to which people attribute their suc cesses and failures are hypothesized to influence descriptive and af fective aspects of their self-concept. Self-concept and attributions are related in a reciprocal manner such that the types of causal attribu tions made for previous successes and failures influence subsequent self-concept and the self-concept thus formed affects later attribu tions (Skaalvik, 1997a; Stipek, 1993; Tennen and Herzberger, 1987). (3) Reflected appraisals from significant others. Several self-concept re searchers suggested that people come to view themselves as they believe how others view them. Sullivan (1947) stated, "The self may be said to be made up of reflected appraisals" (p. 10). Rosenberg (1979) also claimed that "... there is probably no more critical and significant source of information about ourselves than other people's views of us," referring to Mead's conception that in communication we "take the role of the other." (Mead, 1934) (4) Mastery experiences. Self-schemas are created from individual's past experiences in a particular domain. Relevant information and expe riences are subsequently processed by these self-schemas (Markus and Nurius, 1986). Although self-concept researchers do not explic itly emphasize the role of mastery experiences in self-concept for mation, Skaalvik (1997a) suggested that prior mastery experiences

4 Bong and Skaalvik might be of comparable importance to the formation of self-concept as they are to the formation of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). (5) Psychological centrality. Rosenberg (1979), in his analysis of self esteem, claimed that self-esteem is based on self-assessments of qual ities that are perceived as important or psychologically central by individuals. Skaalvik's (1997a) review found mixed evidence to sup port this notion. However, Harter and Mayberry (1984) provided evidence that supports the effects of psychological centrality on self concept. These investigators asked fifth to seventh graders to rate both the importance of five different areas (i.e., school, sports, social relations, physical appearance, and behavior) and their own compe tency within these areas. Self-esteem was the highest among students who rated their best areas as also the most important. Historically, self-concept research has emphasized a global construct such as general self-concept. Typically, a composite score was computed by summing self-concept responses from standardized instruments toward var ious aspects of life and was then treated as an indicator of one's self-concept (e.g.. Piers and Harris, 1964; see Marsh, 1990a, for an overview). These global assessments of self-regard that were detached from any specific context con tributed to earlier views of self-concept research as an "ill-disciplined field" and "difficult to conceptualize and operationalize" (Hansford and Hattie, 1982). Harter (1982) also observed that "Typically, constructs such as self concept and self-esteem are vaguely defined at the conceptual level and therefore do not point to any clear operational definition" (p. 87). Owing mostly to this ambiguity, the average relationship between the self (variously termed as self, self-concept, and self-esteem) and academic achievement in dexed in 128 studies located by Hansford and Hattie was only This was a disappointing result in light of intuitive assumptions and theoretical arguments that positive self-beliefs should result in improved performance. The global nature of self-concept has since been criticized as diminish ing its power to explain behavior (Bandura, 1981) and overlooking impor tant distinctions children make across activity domains (Harter, 1982). After decades of research with a myriad of global and undifferentiated views of self, the field has come to realize that any sound understanding of children's self-concept and its impact on their functioning in school must take into ac count the effects of domain on these judgments (Marsh, 1993). As can be seen in the definition by Shavelson et al. (1976), self-concept is now viewed as perceptions of oneself that are multidimensional. Recent self-concept studies that focus on the domain-specific self-concepts have documented that globality is not necessarily inherent in the construct definition (Byrne, 1996). At the same time, perceived competence emerged as a key component

5 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy that has particularly significant bearing on students' motivation and learn ing among the array of information available in their complex school-related self-conceptions (Harter, 1990). The work of Marsh and his associates, for example, reflects both of these recent developments fairly well. Conducted primarily in the framework of the Shavelson hierarchy, this line of work has produced more consistent and encouraging results regarding the self concept effect (Marsh, 1990d, 1993). A recent meta-analysis on math self concept also showed that studies published after 1986 reported particularly stronger relations between self-concept and achievement (Ma and Kishor, 1997). Compared with the self-concept research, research in self-efficacy is characterized by its relatively short history. Bandura (1977) offered a formal theoretical definition of self-efficacy: Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments Such beliefs influence the course of action people choose to pursue, how much effort they put forth in given endeavors, how long they will persevere in the face of obstacles and failures, their resilience to adversity, whether their thought patterns are self-hindering or self-aiding, how much stress and depression they experience in coping with taxing environmental demands, and the level of accomplishments they realize, (p. 3) Like self-concept, self-efficacy is presumed to explain and predict one's thought, emotion, and action. However, efficacy judgment is less concerned with what skills and abilities individuals possess. It considers more important what individuals believe they can do with whatever skills and abilities they may possess. This provides a point of comparison with a self-concept judg ment, which routinely calls for an evaluation of the skills and abilities. While self-concept represents one's general perceptions of the self in given do mains of functioning, self-efficacy represents individuals' expectations and convictions of what they can accomplish in given situations. For example, the expectation that one can high-jump 6 ft is an efficacy judgment (Bandura, 1986). It is not a judgment of whether one is competent in high-jumping in general but a judgment of how strongly a person believes that he or she can successfully jump that particular height under the given circumstances. Self-efficacy researchers thus emphasize the role played by specific contexts in efficacy appraisals. Information for shaping self-efficacy beliefs comes from the following four major sources (Bandura, 1986,1997): (1) Enactive mastery experience. One's prior experiences with the tasks in question provide the most reliable source of information for ef ficacy beliefs. Successes strengthen self-efficacy, whereas repeated failures undermine it. A firm sense of efficacy built on the basis of past successes is believed to withstand temporary failures.

6 Bong and Skaalvik (2) Vicarious experience. People also establish their self-efficacy beliefs on the basis of similar others' performance on the tasks. Modeling thus serves as another effective source of efficacy information. Vi carious experience exerts greater influence on self-efficacy formation when there are no absolute measures of adequacy and when people perceive similarity between the model and themselves (Schunk and Hanson, 1985; Schunk, Hanson, and Cox, 1987). (3) Verbal persuasion. Persuasive communication and evaluative feed back from significant others also influence one's judgment of self efficacy. Verbal persuasion is most effective when people who con vey the efficacy information are viewed knowledgeable and credible and when the information is viewed realistic. However, disconfirm ing mastery experience easily outweighs self-efficacy beliefs created solely on the basis of verbal persuasion. (4) Physiological reactions. Heightened physiological arousals such as sweating, heartbeats, fatigue, aches, pain, and mood changes also send a signal to people that affects their efficacy appraisal. Recog nition of these somatic symptoms leads to self-efficacy adjustments through their effects on cognitive processing. As can be seen, self-concept and self-efficacy share many of the pre sumed antecedents such as past experience, social comparison, and rein forcements from significant others. They share many of the presumed out comes related to cognitive, affective, and behavioral functioning as well. However, there are also differences in how they are conceptualized and op erationalized in research. We discuss some of the noticeable trends in more detail as they pertain to the domain of academic functioning. Academic Self-Concept and Academic Self-Efficacy Academic self-concept and academic self-efficacy refer to individuals' self-concept and self-efficacy beliefs that are formed specifically toward aca demic (as distinct from nonacademic, general, social, emotional, or phys ical) domains. More specifically, academic self-concept refers to individu als' knowledge and perceptions about themselves in achievement situations (Byrne, 1984; Shavelson and Bolus, 1982; Wigfield and Karpathian, 1991). Academic self-efficacy refers to individuals' convictions that they can suc cessfully perform given academic tasks at designated levels (Schunk, 1991). Both constructs received much attention from educational researchers because of their purported influence on students' academic functioning. Nu merous studies reported how positive self-concept or self-efficacy facilitated

7 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy students' academic engagement, goal-setting, task choice, persistence and effort, intrinsic motivation, strategy use, performance and achievement, and even career selection (see discussion under the Predictive Outcomes be low). Despite the vast volume of evidence attesting to the powerful nature of these constructs, it is not always easy to locate specific factors or work able strategies to enhance these beliefs to realize such desirable outcomes. This difficulty is in part due to the hazy distinction between self-concept and self-efficacy, which thwarts any synthesis or integration efforts of the sort. The rather subtle conceptual distinction between self-concept and self efficacy applies equally to these academic self-perceptions. Because now they are both dealing with the same "academic" domain, it is conceivably more difficult to identify the critical distinction between these two constructs. Theoretical definitions alone are often not enough to point out specific di mensions on which they are believed to be similar or different. It becomes much easier to distinguish academic self-concept from academic self-efficacy and vice versa when provided with operational definitions of each. On one hand, the clearer divergence of operational definitions may indicate that the differences between the two constructs have been exaggerated because of the different assessment and analytic strategies that are associated with each theory (Bong and Clark, 1999; Skaalvik and Rankin, 1996a). On the other hand, operational definitions are manifestation of implicit and explicit the oretical tenets and, as such, may reflect genuine differences between these two constructs. Rather than comparing conceptual definitions that are some times obscure on how best to capture the construct in question, we start with analyzing the current and representative operationalizations of academic self-concept and academic self-efficacy. By far, the most commonly used method of measuring both constructs is self-reports. Items that are typically used to assess academic self-concept include "Schoolwork is easy for me," "I have always done well in (a subject)," and "Compared with others my age, I'm good at (a subject)." Students indi cate how much they agree with each of these statements on 1-5,1-6, or 1-7 response scales. It is worth noting that there exist different views among re searchers regarding whether academic self-concept also includes emotional reactions to the tasks such as interest, enjoyment, and satisfaction. Some regard these as part of self-concept, whereas others consider them a distinct construct. Researchers who endorse the former view add items such as "I am interested in (a subject)" and "I look forward to (a subject)" to academic self concept assessment (Marsh, 1999a, 1999b). Other researchers (e.g., Eccles and Wigfield, 1995; Eccles, Wigfield, and Schiefele, 1998; Wigfield, Eccles, Mac Iver, Reuman, and Midgley, 1991) make clear conceptual distinctions between ability- or expectancy-related perceptions and task-value compo nents (e.g., interest, importance, usefulness). The issue of whether or not

8 Bong and Skaalvik the competence and affective components of self-concept are empirically distinguishable has not been resolved. Another procedure that is frequently used to measure academic self concept of young children involves presenting two contrasting descriptions of hypothetical children. For example, a statement, "Some kids do very well at their classwork," is written on the left column of a page. An opposite statement, "Other kids don't do very well at their classwork," is on the right column. Children first select which of the two statements describes them better. They then judge whether the selected statement is really true for them or just sort of true for them (Harter, 1982; Harter and Pike, 1984). This assessment procedure yields self-concept response scores that range from 1 to 4 on each item. The standard method of measuring academic self-efficacy is to present problems that are similar to the actual problems students must solve. Stu dents estimate their confidence that they can solve each problem correctly (e.g., Bandura and Schunk, 1981). Alternatively, academic self-efficacy items may include written descriptions of problems or tasks in place of actual problems for example, "How sure are you that you can correctly spell all words in a one-page story or composition?" (Pajares, Miller, and Johnson, 1999), "How confident are you that you can successfully solve equations containing square rootst' (Bong, 2002) or "How confident are you that you will get a grade better than a B in mathematics at the end of this term?" (Zimmerman and Bandura, 1994). Students rate the degree of their confi dence for successfully accomplishing each task on a or scale in 10-unit intervals. A score of 0 represents absolute lack of confidence and a 100 represents complete confidence. Other self-efficacy items include "I expect to do very well in (a subject) class" and "I am sure that I can do an excellent job on the problems and tasks assigned for (a subject) class" (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990). As was the case with self-concept items, re spondents mark how much they agree with each of these efficacy statements on a Likert-type response scale. A quick glance at these items makes evident several features that can be easily overlooked when given only the theoretical definition of each con struct. First of all, despite several apparent differences in assessment proce dures, both constructs seem to call for a subjective judgment of perceived competence in reference to some target domain or activities. In addition to the cognitive appraisal of one's competence, academic self-concept ment also often inquires about students' affective reactions to the recognized self and its attributes. Items such as "I enjoy doing work in (a subject)," "I assess hate (a subject)," and "I never want to take another (subject) course" (Marsh, 1990b) exemplify this. In judging self-efficacy, respondents make largely cognitive evaluations of their perceived capability without deliberately

9 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy reflecting on their feelings generated by those evaluations (Zimmerman, 1996). The nature of self-concept and self-efficacy evaluations differ from one another. Assessing one's capability in academic self-concept relies heavily on social comparative information and reflected appraisals from significant others. Items such as "Compared with others my age, I'm good at (a sub ject)" or "In (a subject), I am one of the best students in my class" are com monly found in self-concept scales (e.g., Marsh, 1999a). Some self-concept researchers suggest that students further compare their academic capabil ity in one domain to their capability in other domains. Such ipsative compa rison makes performance improvement in one domain cause decrease in self concepts in other areas (Marsh, 1986). In contrast, self-efficacy items solicit goal-referenced evaluation and do not directly ask students to compare their ability to those of others. Although normative information wields tangible in fluence on self-efficacy estimation at times, efficacy is gauged mainly against concrete performance standards (Bong and Clark, 1999; Zimmerman, 1996). Academic self-concept items typically refer to specific school subjects, whereas self-efficacy items most often refer to specific tasks. Both constructs are thus closely tied to academic content areas. However, it is noticeable that the expected performance or features of the outcome against which to evaluate one's competence are not explicitly stated in self-concept items. The lack of context-specific information leads students to make some aggre gated judgments of their competence in the given area. Self-efficacy items provide respondents with a specific description of required performance as a referent against which to appraise their competence. Judgments formed as a result of such appraisal are not only specific to certain academic con tent but also specific to given performance contexts. Self-concept is orga nized in multidimensional and hierarchical fashion such that self-concepts in more specific domains are subsumed under self-concepts in more general domains (Shavelson et al., 1976). Self-efficacy beliefs are also multidimen sional in the sense that students form differentiated perceptions of capa bility across diverse tasks and domains. Relationships among these beliefs are only loosely hierarchical because self-efficacy in more general areas may not sufficiently incorporate particularities of diverse contexts that influence self-efficacy judgments toward more specific tasks. The theoretical and operational definitions of the constructs, when com pared, also create the impression that self-concept embodies fairly stable perceptions of the self that are past-oriented, whereas self-efficacy repre sents relatively malleable and future-oriented conceptions of the self and its potential. Despite these differences, self-concept and self-efficacy are used to predict a fairly similar set of outcomes including motivation, emotion, and

10 10 Bong and Skaalvik Table I. Comparison Between Academic Self-Concept and Academic Self-Efficacy Comparison dimensions 1. Working definition 2. Central element 3. Composition 4. Nature of competence evaluation 5. Judgment specificity 6. Dimensionality 7. Structure 8. Time orientation 9. Temporal stability 10. Predictive outcomes Academic self-concept Knowledge and perceptions about oneself in achievement situations Perceived competence Cognitive and affective appraisal of self Normative and ipsative Domain-specific Multidimensional Hierarchical Past-oriented Stable Motivation, emotion, and performance Convictions Academic self-efficacy for successfully performing given academic tasks at designated levels Perceived confidence Cognitive appraisal of self Goal-referenced normative and Domain-specific and context-specific Multidimensional Loosely hierarchical Future-oriented Malleable Motivation, emotion, cognitive and self-regulatory processes, and performance performance. In addition, self-efficacy predicts cognitive and self-regulatory processes. Table I lists the working definition of academic self-concept and self-efficacy used in this article and summarizes the key dimensions of com parison including central element, composition, nature of competence evalu ation, judgment specificity, dimensionality, structure, temporal stability, and predictive outcomes. Below we elaborate and present evidence for the pur ported similarities and differences on each of these dimensions. CENTRAL ELEMENT One of the most glaring similarities between the conceptualization self-concept and self-efficacy is the central role played by one's competence perceptions. Perceived competence in defined domains or activities comprises the single most critical element in both self-beliefs (Eccles et al., 1998). Con temporary academic self-concept researchers assert that students' percep tions of competence in given areas provide key ingredients to their self concepts (e.g., Harter, 1982; Marsh, 1990a, 1992; Shavelson and Bolus, 1982; Wigfield et al., 1997; Wigfield and Karpathian, 1991). Perceived capability in reference to specific academic tasks and domains is also the principal constituent of academic self-efficacy judgments (Pajares, 1996). Many researchers recognize that academic self-concept includes a self efficacy component and that this component may be the most important of

11 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy 11 building block in one's self-concept (Bong and Clark, 1999; Schunk, 1991). Pajares (1996) suspected that at the domain level of specificity, academic self-concept and self-efficacy beliefs might not be separable. Thus far, re searchers have reported that students' responses to the Self Description Questionnaire, one of the popular self-concept scales, formed two separate factors: cognitive and motivational (Skaalvik and Rankin, 1996a; Tanzer, 1996). The cognitive academic self-concept factor was empirically indistin guishable from the academic self-efficacy factor (Pietsch, 1999; Skaalvik and Rankin, 1996a). Because few studies have addressed the equivalence of self-concept and self-efficacy responses systematically, it is still premature to draw any firm conclusion regarding the nature of relationship between these two constructs. At minimum, many empirical investigations need to be conducted. At present, there is still some room for debate whether the perceived competence component in self-concept is indeed identical to percepts of self-efficacy. For example, different information sources have been known to affect the two self-systems to different degrees, as is shown later in this article. The two self-beliefs, in turn, have sometimes yielded different psy chological and behavioral outcomes. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to assume, on the basis of limited available evidence, that there is at least con siderable overlap in the makeup of academic self-concept and academic self-efficacy and that perception of academic capability is the major com mon denominator between the two. COMPOSITION Although perceived capability constitutes the core in contemporary views of academic self-concept, self-concept has long been recognized to re flect more than one's competence perceptions. Scheirer and Kraut (1979), for example, argued that self-concept consists of at least four distinguishable as pects. These include descriptive categorization of self in terms of social roles and personality traits, evaluation of the self-attributes according to social de sirability, comparison of qualities through which individuals determine their "ranking relative to other people on a specific dimension," and emotional at titudes toward the self called self-esteem. More recently, Skaalvik (1997a) distinguished between descriptive, evaluative, and affective/motivational aspects of self-concept. However, consistent with the observation of Shavelson et al. (1976), he claimed that a clear empirical distinction be tween self-description and self-evaluation often could not be made. He wrote... self-conceptions like "I am tall" and "I learn mathematics easily" include both de scriptive and evaluative aspects. The descriptive or cognitive component represents

12 12 Bong and Skaalvik knowledge and beliefs that a person has about herself or himself in different areas (see Markus, 1977); for example, the belief that he or she learns mathematics easily. However, a person's belief that he or she learns mathematics easily is also the result of an evaluation. When a person "describes" himself as "clever in mathematics" this description can therefore not be distinguished from the person's evaluation of her or his mathematics abilities. I shall therefore refer to this aspect of self-concept as descriptive/evaluative, (p. 53) With specific regard to self-concept in the academic domain, Skaalvik (1997a) argued that its descriptive/evaluative aspect (e.g., "I learn mathe matics easily") could be distinguished from its affective/motivational aspect (e.g., "I am proud of my mathematics ability" or "I like mathematics"). In a similar vein, Bong and Clark (1999) suggested that academic self-concept consists of cognitive and affective dimensions and that a cognitive dimen sion is further differentiated into descriptions and evaluations of self and its attributes. We conjecture that the cognitive dimension of self-concept gives rise to the affective/motivational reactions. For instance, conceiving one self as smart almost unanimously engenders positive emotional responses (Covington, 1984b, 1992). Because ability to achieve competently is highly valued, students who regard themselves as smart and competent usually feel good about that aspect of their self-description. These affective evaluations toward the self are believed to have important implications for further mo tivation. As Wigfield and Karpathian (1991) noted, children avoid academic tasks and situations that are likely to make them feel bad about themselves in an attempt to maintain positive self-regard (see also Covington, 1984a). The tendency to avoid negative information about the self is in line with predictions of the social comparison theory. Academic self-concept is largely determined by the result of social comparison and such comparison with sim ilar others is believed to result in strong emotional consequences (Festinger, 1954). These presumed emotional reactions might explain why some of the theoretical as well as operational definitions of academic self-concept in clude a mixture of components that deal with students' cognition, affect, and motivation in domains under consideration. Instruments intended to measure academic self-concept vary with respect to which of these different aspects they stress. For example, although Harter (1998) fully acknowledged the importance of affect in many theoretical conceptualizations of self and its integration with cognitive and social processes, she nonetheless made a distinction between perceived competence, anxiety, and motivational ori entation (Silon and Harter, 1985). Her self-concept instrument, the Per ceived Competence Scale, concentrates on children's perceptions of compe tence, the dimension she believed most central to children's self-evaluation (Harter, 1982). Expectancy-value theorists (e.g., Eccles and Wigfield, 1995; Eccles et al., 1998; Wigfield et al., 1991) also distinguish between perceived competence from task-value perceptions.

13 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy 13 In comparison, the Self Description Questionnaire developed by Marsh and his associates (e.g., Marsh, 1999b) combines the cognitive (e.g., "I do badly in tests of mathematics") and affective/motivational aspects of self concept (e.g., "I hate mathematics"). Recent research suggests that these two dimensions of self-concept do form separate factors (Pietsch, 1999; Skaalvik and Rankin, 1996b; Tanzer, 1996). Chapman and Tunmer (1995, Experiments 3 and 4) also reported that a three-factor model best explained students' responses to the Reading Self-Concept Scale. The three factors were perceptions of difficulty with reading, perceptions of competence in reading, and attitudes toward reading. Intercorrelations among these sub components and their relations with measures of reading skills differed in different age groups. Again, these questions on the internal composition of academic self-concept whether cognitive and affective components are both part of self-concept or whether they need to be treated as separate constructs are a relatively recent issue in self-concept research. Although investigators cited above reported evidence of "separability" between these components, most existing academic self-concept scales have not yet incor porated such a distinction explicitly. As such, it seems reasonable to say that academic self-concept measures tend to reflect multiple aspects of the self, including some forms of cognitive evaluations and affective reactions. Measures of academic self-efficacy are designed to tap exclusively the cognitive aspect of students' self-perceptions. Self-efficacy measures ask stu dents to judge how well they can execute particular courses of actions. Obvi ously, this judgment involves an evaluation of what one is and is not capable of performing. Hence, the cognitive aspects of both self-concept and self efficacy measures include a strong evaluative component, although there may be a distinct difference in the nature of these evaluations and the emo tions that are generated thereafter. Even though measures of academic self efficacy never refer to affective or motivational responses directly, the the ory presumes that self-efficacy beliefs determine subsequent motivation and emotion through a self-regulatory mechanism (Bandura, 1986; Pajares and Miller, 1994; Schunk and Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000). Bandura (1986) claimed that "... those who regard themselves as inefficacious... suffer much anxiety and stress" (p. 395). Several studies showed that self efficacy is indeed a strong predictor of anxiety and depression (Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, and Caprara, 1999; Pajares et al., 1999; Pajares and Kranzler, 1995; Pajares and Miller, 1994). In sum, both academic self-concept and academic self-efficacy percep tions are related to how students feel about themselves. Self-concept re searchers traditionally tend to view these emotional and motivational orien tations as an important aspect of self-image that needs to be integrated in the definition of the construct. Self-efficacy researchers similarly acknowledge

14 14 Bong and Skaalvik the close link between cognitive self-perceptions and affective self-reactions. However, they consider these motivational and emotional responses as mainly a correlate or consequence of perceived self-efficacy and not a nec essary constituent for defining self-efficacy beliefs. Self-processes such as intrinsic interest/value or self-satisfaction/affect are linked to self-efficacy within the cyclical self-regulatory processes (Schunk and Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000). NATURE OF COMPETENCE EVALUATION The social comparison theory of Festinger (1954) suggests that, when objective standards of comparison are not provided, people appraise them selves using significant others in their immediate environment as the bases of comparison. Many self-concept investigations demonstrated the effects of social comparison on academic self-concept. For example, Rogers, Smith, and Coleman (1978) rank-ordered and assigned students to high-, medium-, and low-achieving groups either on the basis of their within-classroom rank ings or on the basis of their achievement scores irrespective of their within classroom standing. Across reading and math, significant group differences on various academic and nonacademic self-concepts were observed only when the trichotomy was conducted in the context of students' classrooms. The investigators thus concluded, "the most meaningful way to understand the relation between academic achievement and self-concept is within the context of the social comparison group or classroom" (p. 56). Because per formance standards are only implicitly alluded to in self-concept assessment, students often engage in social comparison processes as an alternative way of evaluating how good they are or how well they do academically. Social comparison effects on self-concept were documented with special populations. Renick and Harter (1989) found that a majority of learning disabled students spontaneously compared themselves to regular classroom students when reporting their self-concepts. When they did, their self-concepts suffered. Coleman and Fults (1982) reported analogous find ings with gifted students. Students identified as gifted and who subsequently participated in the special gifted program soon formed less favorable views of themselves, presumably because of their new, comparably performing peers. Those who stayed in the regular classes maintained their high self concept. Because social comparison is one of the most powerful sources of evaluative information for judging self-concept (Marsh, 1990d, 1993), stu dents in the high-ability schools often experience loss in their academic self concept. Marsh (1987) observed that, after the difference in individual ability was controlled for, school-average ability demonstrated negative effects on

15 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy 15 students' academic self-concept. In other words, students judge themselves less capable in the environment with highly able students and more capable in the environment with less able peers. Marsh termed this social comparison effect on self-concept the big-fish-little-pond effect. Another comparative frame of reference thought to influence aca demic self-concept is internal comparison. Marsh (1986) argued that stu dents base their academic self-concepts in a particular subject not only on how their ability compares with those of other students (i.e., social or ex ternal comparison) but also on how their ability in that subject compares with their abilities in other subjects (i.e., internal comparison). Internal comparison is presumed to create a negative relationship between achieve ment in one domain and self-concept in other domains. For example, as students' achievement levels in math improve, their math self-concepts also improve. At the same time, their recent success in math is more likely to make them believe that their math ability is better than their verbal abil ity. This recognition subsequently joint effects of internal and external comparisons lowers their verbal self-concepts. The (hence the I/E model) are assumed to balance each other out, resulting in a near-zero correla tion between math and verbal self-concepts. The external or social com parison tends to result in a positive correlation between students' verbal and math self-concepts because verbal and math achievements are often highly correlated. The internal comparison presumably yields a negative correlation between students' verbal and math self-concepts. Depending on the weight assigned to each comparison, relationships between verbal and math self-concepts can be positive or negative but almost always sub stantially reduced in magnitude from the corresponding relationships be tween achievements. Predictions of the I/E model are supported in a number of studies (Marsh, 1990b; Skaalvik and Rankin, 1992, 1995; but see Bong, 1998). People's inferences about themselves are also affected by how others perceive them. Reflected appraisals from significant others provide useful information for molding one's self-concept. In his classic volume on self concept, Rosenberg (1979) refers to a large body of research indicating that individuals actually tend to view themselves as they are seen by others. Students are believed to shape their academic self-concept in part on the basis of their impressions of how their parents, teachers, and peers appraise their academic ability (Harter, 1990). In the absence of absolute standards against which to estimate one's capabilities, students determine how good they are in the given subject by comparing their ability to those of their peers and, at the same time, monitoring other people's appraisals of their ability. Reflected appraisals function as an important source of evaluative information in academic self-concept formation.

16 16 Bong and Skaalvik In contrast, a sense of academic self-efficacy is most heavily affected by one's previous encounters with the same or similar tasks (Bong, 1997; Bong and Clark, 1999; Zimmerman, 1995). As discussed earlier, individuals' own prior mastery experiences carry heavier weight in self-efficacy appraisal than vicarious information, verbal persuasion, or physiological reactions (Bandura, 1977). Because students gauge their confidence for success against goals and standards, there is less reason for them to engage in vigorous social comparison. Instead, they calibrate their chances of successfully carrying out the described performance at designated levels (Schunk, 1991). Self-efficacy judgments are hence goal-referenced evaluations that are less affected by relativistic impressions. Although self-efficacy is less influenced by social comparison than is self-concept, social comparative information provides critical information for judging efficacy under certain circumstances. Stu dents often gather efficacy-related cues by observing teachers and peers, especially when the task is novel or when there exists no clear and immedi ate standard for evaluating performance (e.g., Schunk, 1981; Schunk et al., 1987; Schunk and Hanson, 1985). In general, if the observers judge their ability to be comparable to the model's capability, successes and failures of the model have stronger effect on the observers' self-efficacy (Schunk et al., 1987). The internal comparison processes described by the I/E model (Marsh, 1986) do not seem relevant in self-efficacy estimation. Predictions from the I/E model are not supported by academic self-efficacy measures (Bong, 1998; Marsh, Walker, and Debus, 1991; Skaalvik and Rankin, 1990). More specifi cally, verbal and math self-efficacy perceptions usually demonstrate a strong positive correlation that is commensurate with the corresponding correla tion between verbal and math achievements. Moreover, high achievement in the verbal area does not necessarily lower efficacy judgments in math or vice versa. On the other hand, reflected appraisals are implicit in self-efficacy judg ments. Verbal persuasion by credible others is known to influence percep tions of self-efficacy. Verbal persuasion, in effect, is a concrete manifestation of how a person is perceived or evaluated by significant others. It was pointed out above that when the task is novel or when the criteria for success are not clear, students estimate their efficacy perceptions primarily on the basis of so cial comparative information (Bandura, 1977). Under such circumstances, their efficacy beliefs are also more heavily swayed by verbal persuasion of significant and knowledgeable others. However, percepts of efficacy in stilled purely by verbal persuasion can only be maintained when followed by successful mastery experiences. Self-efficacy increase to an unrealistic level wanes quickly by disappointing failures. Therefore, the difference between self-concept and self-efficacy regarding social comparison and reflected

17 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy 17 appraisals is one of degree. These sources of information are regarded less powerful for self-efficacy adjustment than for self-concept development. In ternal comparison only influences self-concept. JUDGMENT SPECIFICITY Students express academic self-concept and academic self-efficacy that are both domain-specific. Domain-specificity of self-perceptions is ascer tained when these perceptions are differentiated clearly tent areas and when they relate only across different con to relevant outcomes in the same content area and not to those in different areas. Because academic self-perceptions are commonly assessed at the school subject level (e.g., math self-concept), domain-specificity is often viewed synonymous to subject-specificity. Al though subject-specificity certainly attests to the domain-specificity of a con struct, the term domain-specificity should not be equated to a particular measurement level. Rather, a domain can represent from relatively limited skill areas such as reading comprehension areas such as social science. in English to broader content Although both constructs are associated with certain a degree of domain-specificity, traditional measures of self-concept and self-efficacy dif fer with respect to the level of measurement specificity (Pajares, 1996). Aca demic self-concept, even when assessed in reference to particular domains, has been measured at more general levels. Students typically report their overall feelings of doing well or poorly in given subject areas. Compared with the self-concept assessment, beliefs of self-efficacy have been examined at more specific levels, usually in the context of performing specific tasks within a particular domain. Self-efficacy has also been measured at a more general level beyond particularized tasks or academic subjects. The primary reason for assessing self-efficacy at different levels of specificity, both specific and general, has been to ensure correspondence between self-efficacy percep tions and performance criterion. For example, when the researchers' goal is to predict performance of broader scope such as course grades and over all grade point averages, perceived self-efficacy at correspondingly broader levels are assessed (e.g., Pajares and Miller, 1995; Randhawa, Beamer, and Lundberg, 1993; Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons, 1992). Researchers express little disagreement as regards the purported dif ferences between task-specific academic self-efficacy and subject-specific academic self-concept (e.g., Marsh et al., 1991; Pajares, 1996). However, when the two constructs are put side by side at the same level of measure ment specificity, the opposing arguments collide. Academic self-efficacy re searchers express pessimistic views that self-concept can ever be assessed at

18 18 Bong and Skaalvik task-specific or problem-specific levels (Bong and Clark, 1999; Pajares, 1996). Academic self-concept researchers, on the other hand, question the practical utility of self-efficacy judgments beyond what they view as microlevel anal yses of performance. The problem worsens because both self-concept and self-efficacy theories contend that their construct can be assessed at varying levels of measurement specificity (Bandura, 1997; Shavelson et al., 1976). Self-concept items rarely specify what constitutes successful academic performance. This omission forces respondents to come up with aggregated evaluations of themselves in the particular domain. Rosenberg (1968) once stated that "... a man's global self-esteem is not based solely on his as sessment of his constituent qualities; it is based on his self-assessments of qualities that count" (p. 339). This seems true for global self-esteem and ap plicable to domain-specific self-concepts. Students are asked to make evalua tions of their competence in academic domains without being provided with explicit information about criteria. Specific performance criteria that indi viduals should take into account in appraising their competence are largely left to the individuals to decide. As a result, competence information that is most salient and readily accessible in one's self-schema in the domain of interest tends to dominate the perceptions of self. An important requirement in the self-efficacy measurement is that it should be tailored so as to directly correspond to the specific target per formance (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996; Zimmerman, 1995). The problem of aggregating different dimensions and impressions regarding the self thus becomes fairly irrelevant in academic self-efficacy estimation. Ordinarily, im portant features of tasks that could wield tangible influence on performance outcomes are clearly spelled out in self-efficacy items (Bandura, 1997). This context-specificity helps respondents to focus on the suggested dimensions and to reach more accurate assessment of their capabilities regarding the particular tasks (Mischel, 1977). Stronger relations of academic self-efficacy beliefs with diverse performance measures have been reported when the content and specificity of self-efficacy measures corresponded closely with criterial performance (Joo, Bong, and Choi, 2000; Multon, Brown, and Lent, 1991; Pajares and Miller, 1995). One recent study provides a good example that highlights the differ ences between the measurements of two constructs. Lau, Yeung, Jin, and Low (1999) assessed four skill-specific self-concepts in English: listening, speaking, reading, and writing self-concepts. If we strictly concern ourselves with the measurement specificity of the scale, these skill-specific academic self-concepts appear to be at the same level of specificity as task-specific academic self-efficacy (e.g., writing self-efficacy; Pajares et al., 1999). When we examine the questions, however, we soon realize that the difference is more profound than the measurement level per se. Lau et al. assessed

19 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy 19 students' self-concepts in different skill areas by substituting the school sub ject portion of the Self Description Questionnaire items with each skill area. For example, English speaking self-concept was assessed with items such as "Compared with other students, I'm good at speaking (in English)," "I'm hopeless when it comes to speaking (in English)," and "I have always done well in speaking (in English)." Respondents were students in Hong Kong who were enrolled in English-as-a-second-language program. In providing definitions of these skills, the authors wrote, "to these stu dents, listening typically refers to understanding English speeches in formal and social situations and in academic and nonacademic contexts; speaking refers to activities such as the delivery of a talk or having a conversation with another person in class and out of class; reading refers to the comprehension of written prose, understanding of vocabulary, and study for academic and nonacademic purposes; and writing refers to written work leading to essays, reports, and all other work in the written form as required academically in their respective disciplines at the university" (p. 749). However, these are assumptions made by the researchers on how each skill would be interpreted by respondents. When students respond to an item, "Compared with other students, I'm good at speaking in English," some of them may try to evaluate their competence on the basis of their capability for carrying out casual En glish conversations, whereas others may concentrate on their ineptness for making public speeches and class presentations in English. The assessment levels are now skill-specific, but the aggregated judgments of competence in each skill area are still being solicited. It is perhaps a useful exercise to try to come up with self-efficacy items for this particular skill area. An assumption is made that the target of pre diction is students' proficiency in speaking in English in their everyday life. Three items are readily conceivable on the basis of the authors' definition of speaking in English (Lau et al., 1999): "How confident are you that you can successfully deliver a talk in English in front of your class?" "How confident are you that you can carry out English conversations in class?" and "How confident are you that you can successfully carry out conversations in English outside your class?" More detailed examples of academic self-concept and self-efficacy items at task-specific and subject-specific levels of measurement specificity are provided in Tables II and III, respectively. Again, regardless of whether the measurement level is specific or general, self-concept items seek out students' overall reactions toward the given area, whereas self-efficacy items specify different aspects or levels in the expected target performance. Earlier, we suggested that domain-specificity is further demonstrated when self-perceptions in one area relate only to relevant outcomes in the same content area and not to those in different areas. Academic self-concept researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that students' self-concept in a

20 20 Bong and Skaalvik Table II. Sample Academic Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy Items at Task-Specific Measurement Levels (e.g.. Writing) Writing self-concept I have always done well in writing. Work in writing is easy for me. Compared with others my age I am good at writing. I get good marks in writing. I learn things quickly in writing. I'm hopeless when it comes to writing." It is important to me to do well in writing. I am satisfied with how well I do in writing. Writing self-efficacy How confident are you that you can... correctly spell all words in a one-page story or composition? correctly punctuate a one-page story or composition? correctly use parts of speech such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, or adverbs? write a simple sentence with good grammar? correctly use singulars and plurals, verb tenses, prefixes, and suffixes? write a strong paragraph that has a good topic sentence or main idea? write a paragraph with details that support the topic sentence or main idea? organize sentences into a paragraph that clearly expresses an idea? write a well-organized and well-sequenced paper that has a good introduction, body, and conclusion? Note. Self-concept items were adapted from the Academic Self Description Questionnaire I (Marsh, 1999a); Self-efficacy items were reprinted from Pajares, Miller, and Johnson (1999) with permission from the first author. "Negatively worded items. particular school subject relates most strongly with achievement indexes in the same subject area. Its relations to achievement measures in other school subjects are considerably weaker (e.g., Byrne and Shavelson, 1986; Marsh, 1992; Marsh, Byrne, and Shavelson, 1988; Skaalvik and Rankin, 1995; Skaalvik and Vals, 1999). Self-efficacy investigators typically include mea sures that belong to a single academic domain and, as such, have not fre quently tested whether the within-domain relations between self-efficacy and performance are stronger than their cross-domain relations. However, several recent studies reported evidence of strong content-specificity of aca demic self-efficacy beliefs that is comparable to that obtained in academic self-concept research. Joo et al. (2000), for instance, measured students' biol ogy self-efficacy, Internet self-efficacy, written biology test performance, and Internet biology test performance during Web-based instruction in biology. Students' biology self-efficacy predicted their written biology test scores, whereas students' self-efficacy for using the Internet predicted their biology test performance based on the Internet search. Bong (2002) also reported that when multiple self-efficacy and achievement indexes in English and math entered the same predictive equation, English self-efficacy emerged as the sole predictor of English performances, with math self-efficacy as the sole

21 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy 21 Table III. Sample Academic Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy Items at Subject-Specific Measurement Levels (e.g.. Math) Mathematics Math self-concept subjects I often need help in is one of my best mathematics." 1 look forward to mathematics classes. I have trouble understanding anything with mathematics in it." I enjoy studying for mathematics." I do badly in tests of mathematics." I get good marks in mathematics. 1 never want to take another mathematics course." I have always done well in mathematics. 1 hate mathematics." Math self-efficacy How confident are you that you can... pass mathematics at the end of this term? pass mathematics at the end of this term with a grade better than a D? get a grade get a grade get a grade get a grade get a grade get a grade better than a D+ in mathematics? better than a C in mathematics? better than a C in mathematics? better than a C+ in mathematics? better than a B~ in mathematics? better than a B in mathematics? get a grade better than a B+ in mathematics? get a grade better than an A~ in mathematics? get an A in mathematics? Note. Self-concept items were reprinted from the Self Description Questionnaire II (Marsh, 1999b); Self-efficacy items were adapted from Zimmerman and Bandura (1994) with permission from the first author. "Negatively worded items. predictor of math performances. Relations of self-efficacy in one academic domain to performance scores in the other domain were not significant. Therefore, although the context-specificity issue is still a ground for much debate, evidence is fairly consistent that both academic self-beliefs reflect domain-specific judgments. DIMENSIONALITY AND STRUCTURE Self-concept is a multidimensional construct that is differentiated across domains of functioning. These domain-specific perceptions are hierarchically structured with the most general perceptions at the apex of the hierarchy (Shavelson et al., 1976). With regard to the academic arena, Shavelson et al. hypothesized that a general academic self-concept would subsume more area-specific self-concepts. Although their basic tenets of multidimensional ity and hierarchy of self-concept still hold, researchers later discovered that the nature of academic self-concept hierarchy was slightly different from what Shavelson et al. originally envisioned. Specifically, students' academic

22 22 Bong and Skaalvik self-concepts in the verbal and math areas are so weakly correlated that they cannot be represented by a single general academic self-concept (Byrne and Shavelson, 1986; Marsh, 1990c; Marsh et al., 1988). Consequently, the aca demic portion of the Shavelson hierarchy was revised to represent two verbal and math higher order academic self-concept factors (Marsh and Shavelson, 1985). Although the multidimensionality of self-concept is rarely disputed, re searchers do not always agree on the hierarchical nature of self-concept structure (Harter, 1990). Many different orientations exist as regards the internal structure of self-concept (Byrne, 1984, 1996). Harter (1998) ques tioned the validity of self-concept hierarchy stating that.. one has to ask whether the statistical structure extracted does, in fact, mirror the psy chological structure as it is phenomenologically experienced by individuals" (p. 579). Evidence is not conclusive (Marsh and Yeung, 1998) but tends to support potential self-concept hierarchy (Byrne and Shavelson, 1986; Byrne and Worth Gavin, 1996; Vispoel, 1995). Several recent studies demonstrated that skill-specific self-concepts within a domain (i.e., speaking, reading, and writing English self-concepts) formed a higher order English self-concept factor. Moreover, this second-order English self-concept factor was found to be equivalent to an independently assessed "global" English self-concept factor. English self-concepts that were empirically extracted from more cific self-concept factors demonstrated correlation coefficients close to 1.0 with directly assessed English self-concepts (Lau et al., 1999; Yeung et al., 2000, Studies 3 and 5). These investigations provide much stronger support for the hierarchical nature of academic self-concept. Evidence suggests that academic self-efficacy perceptions may also form a multidimensional and what can be described as a "loosely hierarchical" structure. Students make reliable differentiation between their self-efficacy judgments across different academic domains (Bong, 1997; Bong and Hoce var, in press). The degree of such differentiation varies somewhat depending on gender, grade, and levels of prior knowledge (Bong, 1999, 2001a). Stu dents also make a distinction, within a given subject area, between their efficacy beliefs at different levels of measurement specificity (Bong, 2001b; Lent, Brown, and Gore, 1997) or toward different aspects of required skills (Shell, Colvin, and Bruning, 1995; Shell, Murphy, and Bruning, 1989). As was the case with academic self-concept, two higher order factors, verbal and quantitative academic self-efficacy, normally embrace more area-specific academic self-efficacy beliefs. This finding is consistently observed regardless of whether self-efficacy beliefs were assessed with specific problems (Bong, 1997) or with subject-level self-efficacy statements (e.g., "I'm certain that I can do an excellent job on the problems and tasks assigned for [a specific subject] class"; Bong, 2001a). spe

23 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy 23 However, questions still remain as to whether the internal structure of self-efficacy belief resembles the hierarchical organization of self-concept. Although Bong's series of studies (Bong, 1997, 1999, 2001a, 2001b) pro vided enough evidence to confirm the generality and multidimensionality of academic self-efficacy beliefs, they have not yet provided direct evidence to confirm the hierarchical organization of self-efficacy beliefs. It needs to be demonstrated, as self-concept researchers have (Lau et al., 1999; Yeung et al., 2000), that the common factor underlying more specific self-efficacy beliefs is equivalent in content to the self-efficacy beliefs that are directly assessed at the more general level. Even when such an attempt could be successful empirically, Bandura (1986) warns against the danger in coming up with such a simplified measure and questions its usefulness in predict ing behavior. He wrote, "The most informative efficacy analysis requires detailed assessment of the level, strength, and generality of perceived self efficacy commensurate with the particularity and perceptions with which performance is measured.... particularized measures of self-percepts of efficacy surpass global measures in explanatory and predictive power" (p. 397). There has been at least one consistent discrepancy between what appear to be otherwise similar internal structures. While academic self-concepts in verbal and math areas are nearly uncorrected (Byrne and Shavelson, 1986; Marsh et al., 1988; Skaalvik and Rankin, 1995), verbal and math academic self-efficacy are almost always highly correlated (Bong, 1997, 2001a; Marsh et al., 1991; Skaalvik and Rankin, 1995). Whether this difference reflects a true construct-related difference or some artifact of methodological proce dures is not yet known. As discussed previously, the internal and external frames of reference model of academic self-concept (Marsh, 1986; Marsh et al., 1991) explains the near-zero correlation between verbal and math self-concepts as a result of simultaneous operation of internal and external comparison processes. Students do not undergo internal comparison pro cesses when judging their self-efficacy (Bong, 1998) and, therefore, express efficacy beliefs in different domains that are more highly correlated. Recently, Bong and Hocevar (in press) compared three academic self efficacy scales that differed in terms of measurement specificity, using a mul titrait, multimethod framework. Academic self-efficacy factors at different levels of specificity were positively correlated within each domain. Further, the types of problems/tasks included in the measure and the subject ar eas from which these problems/tasks were drawn concomitantly determined students' responses to problem-specific and task-specific self-efficacy items. In contrast, students' responses to subject-specific self-efficacy items were more or less uniform within each academic domain and did not differ much by the individual items. More interestingly, students' percepts of efficacy in

24 24 Bong and Skaalvik different school subjects were most highly correlated when assessed with spe cific problems and least highly correlated when assessed with subject-level statements. Compared with self-efficacy studies, an overwhelming majority of contemporary academic self-concept studies use more general-level mea sures (e.g., Self Description Questionnaire, Perceived Competence Scale). This finding, therefore, suggests the possibility that the difference in the strengths of relations between verbal and math self-concepts might have been created, at least in part, by the different assessment specificity. TIME ORIENTATION It is worth noting that most academic self-concept items begin with phrases that read "I am good.. "I am hopeless.. or "I have done well.. (see Byrne, 1996). Self-efficacy items usually start with "How confident are you that you can...?" "How well can you...?" or "I am confident that I will be able to.. (see also Pajares, 1996). The wording of self-concept items tends to direct the attention of respondents toward their past accomplishments, whereas that of self-efficacy items focuses the attention of students on their future expectancies (see Wigfield and Eccles, 2000, for related discussion). Although self-concept and self-efficacy items make salient the past or the future time frames, respectively, both types of judgments are primarily a product of past experiences. Even when self-concept items refer to the current self, for example, "Mathematics is easy for me," such judgments can only be formed on the basis of one's mathematics achievements in the past. As pointed out by Markus and Nurius (1986), self-concepts are past-oriented because relevant information and experiences need to be processed by self schemas and these schemas are created from individuals' past experiences in a particular domain. Self-efficacy perceptions are inherently future-oriented because they represent individuals' confidence for successfully accomplish ing the imminent tasks. Yet these expectations, too, are in large part results of self-schemas that are created from their earlier experiences. The same previous experiences in the domain provide vital information for carving both one's self-concept and self-efficacy beliefs. However, indi viduals do not necessarily reach the same conclusion. Because self-efficacy items make an explicit reference to outcomes in the upcoming future, there is ample room for the same individual or for different individuals with sim ilar achievement records to arrive at drastically different expectations for success. Consider two students who believe that they have always done well in mathematics and that they are good at mathematics compared with oth ers their age. These two students may or may not express similar strength

25 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy 25 of certitude for accomplishing such tasks as correctly solving given equa tion problems or getting a grade better than a B+ in mathematics at the end of the term. Math self-concept reflects students' evaluations of their general competence in math, whereas math self-efficacy represents their judgments of what they could do with their competence for accomplish ing the specified math tasks. Depending on how students analyze and com pare the given achievement situation with previous ones involving simi lar tasks, their confidence for successfully performing each math task can be strengthened or weakened. On the same token, two students who feel equally efficacious that they can successfully perform the particular math tasks may or may not regard themselves as equally competent in math (Pajares, 1996). The relative emphasis on the past and the future is inevitably intertwined with how much specific aspects of the prospective situation should be taken into account in coming up with a final judgment. When the bases of judgments that are being called for are mostly experiences in the past, there is no compelling reason either for researchers to provide a detailed description of the current situation or for respondents to pay attention to those particulars. Schemas, by definition, are a constellation of commonalities extracted from many isolated experiences. Individuals' overall views of themselves in the area based on the past self-schema will not change much by the specifics of any single event (Markus, 1977). On the other hand, if students are to report their likelihood of success on some impending tasks that are yet to be performed, they need to consider all the available information regarding these tasks. Otherwise, their judgments cannot be accurate because their performance on these tasks could well be determined by the situational affordances and constraints. This difference of the past vs. future orientation between academic self-concept and self-efficacy logically their difference in temporal stability. extends itself to TEMPORAL STABILITY Self-schemata is "cognitive generalizations about the self" which, when well articulated, should demonstrate "cross-situational consistency" (Markus, 1977). Consistent with this claim, one of the features that Shavelson et al. (1976) identified as critical to the definition of self-concept is its stability. Shavelson and Bolus (1982) subsequently reported stability coefficients between 0.56 and 0.81 with general and subject-matter academic self-concepts assessed over a 4-month time lag. More important, these self concepts appeared more stable than the corresponding achievements. Marsh and Yeung (1998, Study 2) also reported that subject-specific as well as global

26 26 Bong and Skaalvik academic self-concepts that were assessed in two consecutive years demon strated high stability coefficients, mostly above Presumably because of its resistance to change, self-concept does not lend itself easily to short-term experimental manipulations. For example, Craven, Marsh, and Debus (1991) found that, although students' domain-specific academic self-concepts were improved somewhat by adaptive attributional feedback, these changes were only modest at best. All these attest to the relatively unchanging na ture of academic self-concept. There may be developmental differences in the stability of these perceptions such that younger students' self-concepts are more flexible, whereas older students' self-concepts are more firmly es tablished (Skaalvik and Hagtvet, 1990; Wigfield et al., 1997). As children grow older, their self-concepts also become more highly correlated with others' evaluation of their competence (Wigfield et al., 1997). It is interesting to note that stability of self-efficacy beliefs has rarely been investigated. Bandura (1997) stated that, once established, perception of self-efficacy is resilient to temporary failures. Nevertheless, he emphasized that it is fundamentally a context-specific construct that should not be viewed as one of the personality traits. Supporting this claim, Pajares and Graham (1999) reported that math self-concept demonstrated slightly higher stability than math self-efficacy when assessed with a 6-month interval. While math self-concept scores did not change significantly during this period, math self efficacy scores did. The authors noted that this might have been because of the more demanding nature of the second self-efficacy assessment items and that more research with measures of similar difficulty are needed. However, this exemplifies well the context-specific and malleable nature of academic self-efficacy judgments. Self-efficacy is a predictive construct that should be assessed before the target performance (Zimmerman, 1996) because these beliefs could change greatly upon receiving contextual information. In discussing the stability of self-concepts, Shavelson et al. (1976) noted that as one descends the self-concept hierarchy and assesses self-concepts in more specific situations, the self-concepts become less stable. Self-concepts at the apex of the hierarchy are more resistant to change, whereas self-concepts at lower levels are expected to vary considerably with situations. Self-efficacy is frequently measured at levels that correspond to the situation-specific lev els of the Shavelson hierarchy. As such, self-efficacy, as typically assessed, represents relatively malleable perceptions. Schunk and his colleagues re ported repeated successes in experimentally augmenting students' efficacy perceptions in a relatively short period of time and in areas where they were experiencing great difficulty (Schunk, 1982,1983,1984; Schunk et al., 1987; Schunk and Cox, 1986; Schunk and Hanson, 1985, 1989; Schunk and Swartz, 1993). These experiments are strong evidence of the dynamic nature of self-efficacy beliefs.

27 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy 27 PREDICTIVE OUTCOMES Both academic self-concept and self-efficacy research underscore that the construct is important as a desirable outcome in itself as well as a poten tial mediator of academic motivation and performance. While recognizing the conceptual and methodological differences between the two constructs, Marsh et al. (1991) wrote, "both self-efficacy and self-concept responses are posited to reflect more than just an objective assessment of existing achieve ment levels... In this sense, self-efficacy and self-concept measures even after partialling out the effects of prior achievement are likely to con tribute to the prediction of subsequent behaviors that are dependent on active choice, motivation, and sustained effort" (p. 336). In accordance with this self-enhancement view, numerous studies have documented strong relations between measures of academic self-concept or academic self-efficacy and a variety of motivational and performance indi cators. Academic self-concept has been shown to relate systematically to teachers' ratings of level of engagement and persistence in classroom activ ities (Skaalvik and Rankin, 1996b; Skinner, Wellborn, and Connell, 1990), students' effort ratings (Skaalvik and Rankin, 1995), help-seeking behavior (Ames, 1983), course-selection (Marsh and Yeung, 1997b), intrinsic moti vation (Gottfried, 1990; Harter, 1982; Mac Iver, Stipek, and Daniels, 1991; Meece, Blumenfeld, and Hoyle, 1988; Skaalvik, 1997b, 1998; Skaalvik and Rankin, 1996b), and achievement (Marsh, 1992; Marsh et al., 1988; Marsh and Yeung, 1997a; Shavelson and Bolus, 1982; Skaalvik and Hagtvet, 1990; Skaalvik and Vals, 1999). Academic self-efficacy beliefs have been found to strongly relate to task choice (Bandura and Schunk, 1981; Pajares and Miller, 1995), career selec tion (Betz and Hackett, 1981,1983), persistence and performance (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, and Pastorelli, 1996; Lent, Brown, and Larkin, 1986; Multon et al., 1991; Pajares and Miller, 1994; Pajares et al., 1999; Pajares and Johnson, 1996; Schunk, 1981,1982, 1983,1984; Schunk and Cox, 1986; Schunk and Hanson, 1985, 1989; Schunk and Swartz, 1993), grade goals and academic aspirations (Bandura et al., 1996; Zimmerman et al., 1992; Zimmerman and Bandura, 1994), cognitive strategy use and self-regulation (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990; Wolters and Pintrich, 1998), perceived value (Bong, 2001b; Meece, Wigfield, and Eccles, 1990), mastery goal orientation (Bong, 2001a; Meece and Holt, 1993; Roeser, Midgley, and Urdan, 1996; Skaalvik, 1997b), and intrinsic interest and self-satisfactions (Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 1997, 1999). Although both theories emphasize the predictive and explanatory role of these self-judgments, academic self-concept and self-efficacy have tra ditionally been paired with slightly different sets of outcomes (Bong and

28 28 Bong and Skaalvik Clark, 1999). Favorite outcomes of academic self-concept research include course grades, standardized achievement test scores, intrinsic motivation, and anxiety. Self-efficacy investigations normally include measures of goal setting, persistence, effort expenditure, and specific task performance. More recent studies in both areas are less bound by these traditional outcomes. For example, Skaalvik (1997b, 1998) demonstrated that self-concept related positively to student goal setting. Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2000) showed that both self-concept and self-efficacy correlated positively with mastery and self-enhancing ego (performance-approach) goal orientation and nega tively with self-defeating ego (performance-avoid) goal orientation. Pajares and his colleagues (Pajares et al., 1999; Pajares and Kranzler, 1995; Pajares and Miller, 1994) demonstrated that self-efficacy is a significant predictor of anxiety. In general, self-concept better predicts affective reactions such as anxi ety, satisfaction, and self-esteem, whereas self-efficacy better predicts cogni tive processes and actual performance. Such relative superiority notwith standing, both constructs have been found useful for predicting similar outcomes. Because self-efficacy researchers have used both correlational and experimental designs, self-efficacy effects are more clearly established (see Pajares, 1997, for an overview). Self-concept researchers, primarily us ing survey designs and correlational analyses, are still debating the causal relations between self-concept and achievement (see Skaalvik, 1997a, for an overview). Nevertheless, academic self-concept and academic self-efficacy research shares the basic premise that the construct plays a significant role in enhancing students' intrinsic motivation, positive emotion, and performance. WHAT NOW? SOME DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The purpose of this article was to illuminate conceptually the similar ities and differences between academic self-concept and self-efficacy, the self-constructs known to wield critical influence on students' academic at tainment and psychological well-being in school. The two conceptualizations share important similarities such as their treatment of perceived competence as the most integral element in construct definition and assessment. Both self-beliefs use prior mastery experience, social comparison, and reflected appraisals as major information sources. Beliefs of academic self-concept and self-efficacy are also domain-specific and multidimensional such that students hold perceptions that are unique to each academic domain and reasonably differentiated across diverse areas. These two constructs predict subsequent motivation, emotion, and performance to varying degrees.

29 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy 29 There are also important differences. Some definitions of academic self concept include cognitive evaluations of capability along with affective re actions toward results of such evaluations. Self-efficacy theorists make clear distinction between these components and consider affective reactions as a separate construct that is mainly a consequence of self-efficacy perceptions. While competence evaluation in self-concept relies heavily on social com parison and hence tends to be normative, self-efficacy evaluation is primarily goal-referenced and most strongly affected by one's enactive experiences. Academic self-concept reflects an aggregated judgment or overall impres sion of one's competence in given academic domains. As such, self-concept beliefs tend to be past-oriented, stable over time, and resistant to change. Academic self-efficacy reflects a highly context-specific judgment of one's competence, although repeated successes or failures make these beliefs more durable. The dynamic and malleable nature of self-efficacy perceptions ren ders them more amenable to experimental procedures aiming at efficacy enhancement. Need to Separate Multiple Components of Academic Self-Concept Presently, the dominant view of academic self-concept is that it is a collection of a host of related perceptions: competence, self-worth, interest, enjoyment, and intentions, to name a few. It is conceivable that self-concept measures, which reflect this complexity, better predict outcomes that are jointly influenced and determined by these factors. Such outcomes tend to involve choice and performance measures at more general levels of speci ficity. Although this composite view toward academic self-concept may in deed mirror students' actual thought patterns in certazn situations, several researchers demonstrated the need as well as usefulness of separating out some of these components. Wigfield et al. (1997), for example, reported that even elementary school children were able to differentiate their perceived ability and interest within the same activity domains. Studies that distinguish between competence and task-value perceptions provide evidence that each predicts certain outcomes better than the other. Generally, perceived com petence predicts academic performance better, whereas task-value predicts choice behaviors better (e.g., Meece et al., 1990). Self-efficacy researchers have argued that self-efficacy is the most useful self-construct because it predicts subsequent motivation and performance better than the other constructs, including self-concept (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Pajares and Miller, 1994). One reason for its stronger predictive power owes to the fact that it purposefully avoids intermixing different components un der the rubric of self-efficacy. Instead, it concentrates on students' subjective

30 30 Bong and Skaalvik judgments of capability to perform given academic tasks successfully at des ignated levels (Schunk, 1991). Rather than assessing omnibus views of self that include perceived competence and affect, efficacy researchers study var ious self-processes (e.g., self-evaluation, self-satisfaction, affect) separately from self-efficacy within the cyclical phases of self-regulation (Zimmerman, 2000). For example, self-efficacy affects goal setting, which influences self evaluation and self-satisfaction/affect during the subsequent self-reflection phase, the results of which, in turn, influence intrinsic interest/value, outcome expectations, and subsequent self-efficacy. We believe that academic self-concept research would also benefit from separating perceived competence components from other elements and ex amining the specific contributions of each major constituent. This approach should generate specific guidelines for how these components are linked within the broader self-system and for when each of them is most useful for predictive and explanatory purposes. Self-Efficacy as an Active Precursor of Self-Concept The previous discussion on the separability of multiple self-concept components and the centrality of perceived competence among those com ponents bring to light yet another closely related set of issues. These issues include whether the perceived competence components of academic self concept are equivalent to self-efficacy judgments and, if so, how self-efficacy beliefs influence the development of self-concept. Lent et al. (1997) investigated whether self-concept subsumed self efficacy components by subjecting various measures of academic self concept and self-efficacy to confirmatory factor analysis. In that study, self-concept and self-efficacy formed correlated but separate factors. The researchers thus concluded that self-concept did not appear to subsume self-efficacy. However, they did not examine the relations of self-efficacy separately with different components of academic self-concept. Investiga tors that explicitly incorporated the distinction between cognitive and af fective/motivational components of self-concept reached an opposite con clusion. As discussed previously, Skaalvik and Rankin (1996a, 1996b) and Pietsch (1999) reported that academic self-concept responses could be sepa rated into two factors and that the perceived competence component loaded on the same factor with academic self-efficacy. This finding does not exempt us from resolving other conceptual sues discussed in this article such as normative vs. goal-referenced eval uation, content-specificity vs. context-specificity, and temporal stability vs. malleability. Nevertheless, consensus seems to exist is among researchers that

31 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy 31 it is the perceived competence component of the constructs that best pre dicts performance and that, within the same domain, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between academic self-concept and self-efficacy. We suggest that academic self-efficacy beliefs provide one cognitive basis for developing academic self-concept. Self-concept, as viewed in this article and by others in the field (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Bong and Clark, 1999; Pajares, 1996), represents a constellation of competence and value perceptions that are swayed mainly by overall impressions. Self-concept judgments do not easily take into account contextual particularities such as the scope and levels of specific tasks within a single domain or the chang ing circumstances under which one has to perform (Bandura, 1986). Instead, competence perceptions in academic self-concept reflect an abstraction of numerous experiences within a given domain (Markus, 1977). Therefore, academic self-concept in its very initial stage is expected to exhibit high cross-situational variability because of the lack of experience, which makes such generalization difficult. It is possible that self-concept during this early stage of development is indistinguishable from self-efficacy judgments. As students acquire more enactive and vicarious experiences as well as feedback from significant others, their competence perceptions toward the task or domain gradually become more stable. After repeated exposures to achievement situations with the same or similar tasks, they develop an aggre gated sense of their own academic capability on the basis of salient success or failure experiences. Depending on whether this cognitive generalization reflects favorably or unfavorably on oneself, it gives rise to positive or neg ative affective reactions. Perceptions of capability thus inevitably influence how students feel about themselves in a domain, how much they like or enjoy the particular domain, and even how important they believe that par ticular academic domain is (e.g., Harter, 1998; Zimmerman, 2000). Students' self-efficacy judgments toward particular tasks or domains now may or may not be equal to the perceived competence component of self-concept. Per ceived self-efficacy in typical achievement situations will correlate strongly with academic self-concept in that area. Relations between efficacy beliefs and self-concept will become weaker as given tasks or situations involve more distinctive elements. Under these latter circumstances, self-efficacy will demonstrate particularly superior utility to self-concept in predicting intentions, motivation, and performance. Educational Implications Perhaps the most fundamental similarity between theories and re search of academic self-concept and self-efficacy, which this article has not

32 32 Bong and Skaalvik addressed, is their underlying motive of studying the self. No one can deny that the ultimate goal of both self-concept and self-efficacy research is to help students function and adapt better when academic demands are imposed. Researchers try to do so by understanding students' perceptions of them selves in academic contexts and using this information to predict important outcomes. Studies from both camps have demonstrated that positive percepts of self generate many desirable outcomes. Strong self-efficacy and positive self concept lead students to set challenging yet attainable academic goals for themselves, feel less anxious in achievement settings, enjoy their academic work more, persist longer on difficult tasks, and, overall, feel better about themselves as a person and as a student. Though it is far from sufficient, research in both areas has answered "why" many questions on the "what" and of academic motivation. Investigators examined issues such as what is the nature of academic self-concept and self-efficacy, why students form different self-evaluations, or why learners express different levels of con fidence when their past achievement histories are similar. To some extent, researchers also analyzed the process of "how," such as how academic self concept and self-efficacy beliefs are created and how they affect subsequent motivation, learning, and performance. Some questions consistent with the original aim of both self-theories but which still need considerably more research are How can we, as re searchers and practitioners, change students' self-perceptions to a positive direction? How can we strengthen their self-confidence toward difficult and previously unsuccessful academic tasks? How can we make students gener alize their heightened self-regards in given areas to other achievement and performance contexts? Most importantly, how can we help students form ac curate yet optimistic self-perceptions and, at the same time, help them avoid their low academic self-perceptions to negatively affect their self-worth? Many experiments now exist on how to raise or alter students' academic self-efficacy beliefs by implementing a variety of instructional procedures. Schunk and his colleagues have been particularly instrumental in offering specific strategies that could, with a little bit of mindfulness, be easily incor porated in classroom instruction. Teachers can, among other things, provide students with proximal rather than distal goals (Schunk, 1983), combine pro cess goals with progress feedback (Schunk and Swartz, 1993), employ peers who share similar attributes to their students as teaching and learning models (Schunk and Hanson, 1985; Schunk, Hanson, and Cox, 1987), furnish effort attributional feedback for students' progress (Schunk and Cox, 1986), and prompt students to self-evaluate (Schunk and Ertmer, 1999). These methods are all known to enhance students' perceptions of self-efficacy and ensuing performance.

33 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy 33 Most self-concept investigators studied de facto relationships between academic self-concept and achievement without attempting to manipulate students' self-perceptions. Therefore, researchers have less experience in working to bolster students' academic self-concept. This is reflected in the lack of experimental evidence in academic self-concept literature (Bong and Clark, 1999). As a result, we have only limited experience in how to success fully bring about change in students' overall views of themselves. Normative ability comparison, for example, is probably the most well documented cog nitive process that is proven to exercise crucial influence on academic self concept formation. Evidence shows that having peers of lower perceived ability augments one's self-concept in the area (Coleman and Fults, 1982). However, artificially manipulating students' class membership is utterly un desirable, if not impossible. We cannot sacrifice the self-concepts of relatively low-achieving students in an attempt to provide more favorable comparison frames to other students. Reflected appraisal from significant others is an other known antecedent of self-concept (Rosenberg, 1979). However, being praised for work by the teacher is sometimes taken to indicate that the stu dent lacks ability compared with others. Hence, praising students' work may have unpredictable effects and is not a guaranteed way of stimulating their self-concept. The important question for self-concept enhancement, therefore, has to be not how we change students' self-images directly but, rather, how we can make students less preoccupied with normative ability comparisons in school. Recent work in the areas of achievement goal orientations demon strated that students' personal goal adoption is greatly influenced by what their schools, teachers, and parents appear to value (Ames and Archer, 1987, 1988; Midgley, Anderman, and Hicks, 1995; Roeser et al., 1996). Norma tive comparison concerns are greater in the environments that emphasize being better than others and whose evaluation standards are comparative (Anderman and Midgley, 1997). Although investigators of goal orientation did not examine the impact of perceived social psychological environments on academic self-concept, they did report negative effects of normative em phasis on percepts of self-efficacy. Similar psychological mechanisms may be at work with how students feel about themselves. The problem with improving students' academic self-concept, especially if it has to be achieved in a relatively short period of time, also owes to the more stable characteristics of self-concept. Changing one's academic self-concept may require considerably more time and effort compared with strengthening one's self-efficacy. It is relatively easier to enhance students' efficacy perceptions toward specific academic tasks, as Schunk's series of ex periments demonstrated. Heightened self-efficacy, in turn, is associated with higher goal setting, more effort and persistence, more effective strategy use,

34 34 Bong and Skaalvik and better performance at those tasks. Again, this experience is evaluated through self-reflection and affects self-reaction and subsequent motivation in future learning episodes (Zimmerman, 2000). Therefore, teachers might be better off investing in (1) fortifying students' efficacy perceptions, espe cially when the primary goal is to improve their immediate future perfor mance, (2) creating environments that reduce students' preoccupation with ability comparisons, and (3) reducing the impact of academic self-concept on students' self-worth. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Allan Wigfield and Barry Zimmerman for their helpful com ments on an earlier version of this article. We also thank Herb Marsh for his suggestion to prepare this article. REFERENCES Ames, R. (1983). Help-seeking and achievement orientation: Perspectives from attribution the ory. In: DePaulo, B., Nadler, A., and Fisher, J. (eds.), New Directions in Helping, Academic Press, New York, pp Ames, C., and Archer, J. (1987). Mother's belief about the role of ability and effort in school learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 79: Ames, C., and Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strate gies and motivation processes. J. Educ. Psychol. 80: Anderman, E. M., and Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived academic competence, and grades across the transition to middle-level schools. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 22: Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy. In: Flavell, J. H., and Ross, L. D. (eds.). Cognitive Social Development: Frontiers and Possible Futures, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., and Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Dev. 67: Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., and Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76: Bandura, A., and Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 41: Betz, N. E., and Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expecta tions to perceived career options in college women and men. J. Couns. Psychol. 28: Betz, N. E and Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. J. Vocat. Behav. 23: Bong, M. (1997). Generality of academic self-efficacy judgments: Evidence of hierarchical re lations. J. Educ. Psychol. 89:

35 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy 35 Bong, M. (1998). Tests of the internal/external frames of reference model with subject-specific academic self-efficacy and frame-specific academic self-concepts. J. Educ. Psychol. 90: Bong, M. (1999). Personal factors affecting the generality of academic self-efficacy judgments: Gender, ethnicity, and relative expertise. J. Exp. Educ. 67: Bong, M. (2001a). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement goals. J. Educ. Psychol. 93: Bong, M. (2001b). Role of self-efficacy and task-value in predicting college students' course performance and future enrollment intentions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 26: Bong, M. (2002). Predictive utility of subject-, task-, and problem-specific self-efficacy judg ments for immediate and delayed academic performances. J. Exp. Educ. 70: Bong, M., and Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in aca demic motivation research. Educ. Psychol. 34: Bong, M and Hocevar, D. (2002). Measuring self-efficacy: Multitrait-multimethod comparison of scaling procedures. Appl. Meas. Educ. 15: Byrne, B. M. (1984). The general/academic self-concept nomological network: A review of construct validation research. Rev. Educ. Res. 54: 427^156. Byrne, B. M. (1996). Measuring Self-Concept Across the Life Span: Issues and Instrumentation. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Byrne, B. M., and Shavelson, R. J. (1986). On the structure of adolescent self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol. 78: Byrne, B. M., and Worth Gavin, D. A. (1996). The Shavelson model revisited: Testing for structure of academic self-concept across pre-, early, and late adolescents. J. Educ. Psychol. 88: Chapman, J. W., and Tunmer, W. E. (1995). Development of young children's reading self concepts: An examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 87: Coleman, J. M., and Fults, B. A. (1982). Self-concept and the gifted classroom: The role of social comparisons. Gifted Child Q. 26(3): Covington, M. V. (1984a). The motive for self-worth. In: Ames, R., and Ames, C., (eds.), Research on Motivation in Education. Vol. 1: Student Motivation, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp Covington, M. V. (1984b). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and implications. Elem. Sch. J. 85: Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the Grade: A Self-Worth Perspective on Motivation and School Reform, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., and Debus, R. L. (1991). Effects of internally focused feedback and attributional feedback on enhancement of academic self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol. 83: Eccles, J. S., and Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents' achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 3: Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., and Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In: Damon, W. (Series ed.) and Eisenberg, N. (Vol. ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol. 3: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (5th Ed.), Wiley, New York, pp Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7: Gottfried, A. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. J. Educ. Psychol. 82: Hansford, B. C., and Hattie, J. A. (1982). The relationship between self and achieve ment/performance measures. Rev. Educ. Res. 52: Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Dev. 53: Harter, S. (1990) Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-span perspective. In: Sternberg, R. J., and Kolligian, J. (eds.), Competence Considered, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, pp

36 36 Bong and Skaalvik Harter, S. (1998). The development of self-representations. In: Damon, W. (Series ed.) and Eisenberg, N. (Vol. ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol. 3: Social, Emotional and Personality Development (5th Ed.), Wiley, New York, pp Harter, S., and Mayberry, W. (1984). Self-Worth as a Function of the Discrepancy Between One's Aspirations and One's Perceived Competence: William James Revisited, University of Denver, Denver, CO. Harter, S., and Pike, R. (1984). The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social accep tance for young children. Child Dev. 55: Joo, Y. J., Bong, M., and Choi, H. J. (2000). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and Internet self-efficacy in Web-based instruction. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 48(2): Lau, I. C., Yeung, A. S., Jin, P., and Low, R. (1999). Toward a hierarchical, multidimensional English self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol. 91: Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., and Larkin, K. C. (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of academic performance and perceived career options. J. Couns. Psychol. 33: Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D and Gore, P. A., Jr. (1997). Discriminant and predictive validity of academic self-concept, academic self-efficacy, and mathematics-specific self-efficacy. J. Couns. Psychol. 44: Ma, X., and Kishor, N. (1997). Attitude toward self, social factors, and achievement in mathe matics: A meta-analytic view. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 9: Mac Iver, D., Stipek, D and Daniels, D. (1991). Explaining within semester changes in student effort in junior high school and senior high school courses. J. Educ. Psychol. 83: Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 35: Markus, H., and Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. Am. Psychol. 41: Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. Am. Educ. Res. J. 23: Marsh, H. W. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol. 79: Marsh, H. W. (1990a). Causal ordering of academic self-concept and academic achievement: A multiwave, longitudinal panel analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 82: Marsh, H. W. (1990b). Influences of internal and external frames of reference on the formation of math and English self-concepts. J. Educ. Psychol. 82: Marsh, H. W. (1990c). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson model. J. Educ. Psychol. 82: Marsh, H. W. (1990d). A multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2: Marsh, H. W. (1992). Content specificity of relations between academic achievement and aca demic self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol. 84: Marsh, H. W. (1993). Academic self-concept: Theory, measurement, and research. In: Suls, J. (ed.). Psychological Perspectives on the Self (Vol. 4), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp Marsh, H. W. (1999a). Academic - Self Description Questionnaire I: ASDQ I, University of Western Sydney, Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation Research Centre, Macarthur, Australia. Marsh, H. W. - (1999b). Self Description Questionnaire II: SDQ II, University of Western Sydney, Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation Research Centre, Macarthur, Australia. Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., and Shavelson, R. J. (1988). A multifaceted academic self-concept: Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 80: Marsh, H. W and Shavelson, R. J. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educ. Psychol. 20: Marsh, H. W., Walker, R., and Debus, R. (1991). Subject-specific components of academic self-concept and self-efficacy. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 16:

37 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy 37 Marsh, H. W., and Yeung, A. S. (1997a). Causal effects of academic self-concept on aca demic achievement: Structural equation models of longitudinal data. J. Educ. Psychol. 89: Marsh, H. W and Yeung, A. S. (1997b). Coursework selection: Relations to academic self concept and achievement. Am. Educ. Res. J. 34: Marsh, H. W., and Yeung, A. S. (1998). Top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal models: The direction of causality in multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept models. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75: Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., and Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students' goal orientations and cog nitive engagement in classroom activities. J. Educ. Psychol. 80: Meece, J. L and Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students' achievement goals. J. Educ. Psychol 85: Meece, J. L Wigfield, A., and Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on young adolescents' course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics. J. Educ. Psychol. 82: Midgley, C., Anderman, E and Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. J. Early Adolesc. 15: Mischel, W. (1977). On the future of personality measurement. Am. Psychol. 32: Multon.K. D.. Brown, S. D., and Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. J. Couns. Psychol. 38: Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Rev. Educ. Res. 66: Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In: Maehr, M and Pintrich, P. R. (eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 10), JAI Press, New York, pp Pajares, F., and Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics per formance of entering middle school students. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 24: Pajares, F., and Johnson, M. J. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in the writing of high school students: A path analysis. Psychol. Sch. 33: Pajares, F., and Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathe matical problem-solving. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 20: 426^43. Pajares, F., and Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathemat ical problem solving: A path analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 86: Pajares, F., and Miller, M. D. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics performances: The need for specificity of assessment. J. Couns. Psychol. 42: Pajares, F., Miller, M. D., and Johnson, M. J. (1999). Gender differences in writing self-beliefs of elementary school students. J. Educ. Psychol. 91: Piers, E. V., and Harris, D. B. (1964). Age and other correlates of self-concept in children. J. Educ. Psychol. 55: Pietsch, J. (1999). Self-Efficacy, self-concept and Academic Achievement: An Empirical Com parison of Self-Efficacy and Self-Concept, and the Relative Predictive Utility of These Self Perceptions Within Academic Contexts. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Pintrich, P. R., and De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. J. Educ. Psychol. 82:33^10. Randhawa, B. S., Beamer, J. E., and Lundberg, I. (1993). Role of mathematics self-efficacy in the structural model of mathematics achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 85: Rayner, S. G., and Devi, U. (2001). Self-esteem and self-perceptions in the classroom: Valu ing circle time? In: Riding, R. J., and Rayner, S. G. (eds.), International Perspectives on Individual Differences. Vol. 2: Self Perception, Ablex, Westport, CO, pp Renick, M. J., and Harter, S. (1989). Impact of social comparisons on the developing self perceptions of learning disabled students. J. Educ. Psychol. 81: Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., and Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents' psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. J. Educ. Psychol. 88:408^122.

38 38 Bong and Skaalvik Rogers, C. M., Smith, M. D., and Coleman, J. M. (1978). Social comparison in the classroom: The relationship between academic achievement and self-concept. J. Educ. Psychol. 70: Rosenberg, M. (1968). Psychological selectivity in self-esteem formation. In: Gordon, C., and Gergen, K. J. (eds.), The Self in Social Interaction, Wiley, New York, pp Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self, Basic Books, New York. Scheirer, M. A., and Kraut, R. E. (1979). Increasing educational achievement via self concept change. Rev. Educ. Res. 49: Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children's achievement: A self efficacy analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 73: Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children's perceived self efficacy and achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 74: Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects on self efficacy and achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 75: Schunk, D. H. (1984). Sequential attributional feedback and children's achievement behaviors. J. Educ. Psychol. 76: Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educ. Psychol. 26: Schunk, D. H., and Cox, P. (1986). Strategy training and attributional feedback with learning disabled students. J. Educ. Psychol. 78: Schunk, D. H., and Ertmer, R A. (1999). Self-regulatory processes during computer skill acqui sition: Goal and self-evaluative influences. /. Educ. Psychol. 91: Schunk, D. H., and Hanson, A. R. (1985). Peer models: Influence on children's self-efficacy and achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 77: Schunk, D. H and Hanson, A. R. (1989). Self-modeling and children's cognitive skill learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 81: Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., and Cox, P. (1987). Peer-model attributes and children's achieve ment behaviors. J. Educ. Psychol. 79: Schunk, D. H., and Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 18: Schunk, D. H., and Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educ. Psychol. 32: Shavelson, R. J., and Bolus, R. (1982). Self-concept: The interplay of theory and methods. J. Educ. Psychol. 74: Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., and Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Rev. Educ. Res. 46: 407^41. Shell, D. E, Murphy, C. C., and Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 81: Shell, D. E, Colvin, C., and Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome ex pectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement level differences. J. Educ. Psychol. 87: Silon, E. L., and Harter, S. (1985). Assessment of perceived competence, motivational orien tation, and anxiety in segregated and mainstreamed educable mentally retarded children. J. Educ. Psychol. 77: Skaalvik, E. M. (1997a). Issues in research on self-concept. In: Maehr, M., and Pintrich, P. R. (eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 10), JAI Press, New York, pp Skaalvik, E. M. (1997b). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego-orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. J. Educ. Psychol. 89: Skaalvik, E. M. (1998). Self-Enhancing and Self-Defeating Ego-Goals: Relations with Task and Avoidance Goals, Achievement, and Self-Perceptions, Paper presented at the annual meet ing of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Skaalvik, E. M., and Hagtvet, K. A. (1990). Academic achievement and self-concept: An anal ysis of causal predominance in a developmental perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58:

39 Self-Concept vs. Self-Efficacy 39 Skaalvik, E. M., and Rankin, R. J. (1990). Math, verbal, and general academic self-concept: The internal/external frame of reference model and gender differences in self-concept structure. J. Educ. Psychol 82: Skaalvik, E. M., and Rankin, R. J. (1992). Math and verbal achievement and self-concepts: Testing the Internal/External Frame of Reference Model. J. Early Adolesc. 12: Skaalvik, E. M., and Rankin, R. J. (1995). A test of the Internal/External Frame of Reference Model at different levels of math and verbal self-perception. Am. Educ. Res. J. 32: Skaalvik, E. M., and Rankin, R. J. (1996a). Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy: Conceptual Analysis, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Skaalvik, E. M., and Rankin, R. J. (1996b). Studies of Academic Self-Concept Using a Norwe gian Modification of the SDQ, Paper presented at the XXVI International Congress of Psychology, Montreal, Canada. Skaalvik, E. M., and Skaalvik, S. (2000). Math and Verbal Achievement. Motivation, Anxiety, and Study Behavior: A Study of Relations in a Developmental Perspective, Paper presented at the 7th Workshop on Achievement and Task Motivation, Leuven, Belgium. Skaalvik, E. M., and Skaalvik, S. (2002). Internal and external frames of reference for academic self-concept. Educ. Psychol. 37: Skaalvik, E. M., and Vals, H. (1999). Achievement and Self-Concept in Mathematics and Ver bal Arts: A Study of Relations, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J., and Connell, J. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and whether I've got it: A process model of perceived control and children's engagement and achievement in school. J. Educ. Psychol. 82: Stipek, D. J. (1993). Motivation to Learn: From Theory to Practice, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Sullivan, H. S. (1947). Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry: The First William Alanson White Memorial Lectures, William Alanson White Psychiatric Foundation, Washington, DC. Tanzer, N. K. (1996). Interest and Competence as Components of Academic Self-Concepts for the Self Description Questionnaire I, Paper presented at the XXVI International Congress of Psychology, Montreal, Canada. Tennen, H., and Herzberger, S. (1987). Depression, self-esteem, and the absence of self protective attributional biases. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52: Vispoel, W. P. (1995). Self-concept in artistic domains: An extension of the Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) model. J. Educ. Psychol. 87: Wigfield, A., and Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25: Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D. A., and Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions dur ing early adolescence: Changes in children's domain-specific self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Dev. Psychol. 27: Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J. A., Freedman-Doan, C., et al. (1997). Change in children's competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. J. Educ. Psychol. 89: Wigfield, A., and Karpathian, M. (1991). Who am I and what can I do? Children's self-concepts and motivation in achievement situations. Educ. Psychol. 26: Wolters, C. A., and Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instr. Sci. 26: Yeung, A. S., Chui, H. S., Lau, I. C., Mclnerney, D. M., Russell-Bowie, D., and Suliman, R. (2000). Where is the hierarchy of academic self-concept? J. Educ. Psychol 92: Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In: Bandura, A. (ed.). Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp Zimmerman, B. J. (1996). Misconceptions, Problems, and Dimensions in Measuring Self Efficacy, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

40 40 Bong and Skaalvik Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In: Boekaerts, M Pintrich, P. R., and Zeidner, M. (eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation, JAI. Press, New York, pp Zimmerman, B. J., and Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. Am. Educ. Res. J. 31: Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., and Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. Am. Educ. Res. J. 29: Zimmerman, B. J., and Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process goals to outcome goals. J. Educ. Psychol. 89: Zimmerman, B. J., and Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. J. Educ. Psychol. 91: