Factor Focus: Self-Efficacy (Revisited)

The "Factor Focus" series is designed to review various noncognitive factors and their relevance to student success. We had previously written about Self-Efficacy in 2020. This post revisits the construct as part of our newly launched Factor Focus series.

Self-efficacy is one of the most frequently cited - and most frequently misunderstood - factors in conversations about student success. We often default to terms like confidence, motivation, or belief in oneself to explain why students persist or disengage. Yet anyone who has worked closely with students knows that these explanations are often incomplete.

We have all encountered students who appear confident but falter quickly when confronted with challenge. At the same time, we increasingly recognize students who doubt their abilities, hesitate to ask for help, or disengage not because they lack ability, but because they are unsure whether they are able to succeed. Understanding these dynamics requires moving beyond general notions of confidence and toward a more precise construct: Self-Efficacy.

Within the ISSAQ framework, Self-Efficacy plays a central role in improving student success. While a host of studies can show demonstrate its correlation with success, it's far from something like Organization, which lends itself to direct intervention with students. Rather, improving a student's Self-Efficacy requires more work on our side to understand how to best engage with a student. First, however, we must understand a little more about what Self-Efficacy is and how its formed.

What Is Self-Efficacy?

The ISSAQ model defines Self-Efficacy (SE) a student’s belief in their ability to successfully perform specific academic behaviors. This definition is rooted in Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory, which emphasizes the role of self-regulatory thought in determining behavior (Bandura, 1977, 1997).

Importantly, SE is not the same as confidence. As Bandura (1997) explained, confidence is a broad, nonspecific term that refers only to the strength of belief, not what that belief is about. A student can be very confident that they will fail. SE, by contrast, is task-specific and action-oriented: it reflects whether a student believes they can do a particular thing, such as succeed in a course, complete an assignment, or persist through difficulty.

This specificity is one reason SE is so powerful in predicting behavior. Research consistently shows that SE is more predictive of academic outcomes when it is tied to clearly defined tasks rather than global self-perceptions (Pajares, 1996; Zimmerman, 2000).

Admittedly, the issue of specificity creates some challenges in operationally defining SE for ISSAQ. On one hand, specificity is important, and it would be ideal to focus on explicit tasks related to college success (e.g., writing a paper, completing a group project, or studying a certain number of hours each week). However, doing so would require either (a) administering far too many survey items to adequately capture the breadth of relevant behaviors or (b) selecting only one or two key behaviors, thereby risking the omission of factors that may be central to some students’ success.

Ultimately, ISSAQ focuses its self-efficacy items on more general outcomes, such as finishing a degree or succeeding in college. While self-efficacy researchers might prefer more narrowly defined behaviors, this approach has demonstrated strong psychometric properties, predictive validity, and practical utility across institutional contexts.

Where Does Self-Efficacy Come From?

I have always said that SE is as much a consequence of previous experience as it is a predictor of future behavior. When dealing with a low-SE student, it is important to remember that SE is not an inherent trait; it develops through experience.

Bandura (1977) identified four primary sources of self-efficacy, all of which are highly relevant in higher education contexts. Understanding these sources is critical, as identifying why a student lacks SE allows us to respond more effectively:

• Mastery experiences are the most influential source. Students are more likely to believe they can succeed when they have succeeded in similar tasks in the past. Conversely, repeated failure - particularly early in college - can undermine SE, even among capable students. (This is one of the reasons why a positive and supportive first-year experience can be so impactful.)

• Vicarious experiences occur when students observe others like themselves succeeding. Seeing peers navigate college successfully can help students believe that success is attainable, particularly for students from traditionally underserved populations.

• Verbal persuasion includes encouragement, feedback, and coaching. When faculty and staff emphasize strategies, effort, and progress rather than fixed ability, they can strengthen students’ beliefs in their capacity to improve (Schunk & Pajares, 2005).

• Emotional and physiological states also matter. Anxiety, stress, and fear can be interpreted by students as evidence that they are incapable. Helping students manage stress and reframe challenges can prevent emotional arousal from undermining SE (Bandura, 1997).

How Does Self-Efficacy Impact Success?

The research has indeed supported Henry Ford's adage, "whether you believe you can or you believe you can't... you're right." SE influences nearly every stage of the learning process. Students with higher self-efficacy are more likely to set challenging goals, persist through difficulty, seek help when needed, and recover from setbacks (Bandura, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000).

Meta-analytic research has shown that SE is one of the strongest noncognitive predictors of academic performance and persistence, rivaling traditional indicators such as standardized test scores and high school GPA (Robbins et al., 2004; Richardson et al., 2012). SE also plays a central role in broader motivational frameworks. In the Theory of Planned Behavior, efficacy (perceived behavioral control) influences whether intentions translate into action (Ajzen, 1991). In Expectancy-Value Theory, expectancy beliefs - closely tied to SE - interact with perceived value to shape engagement and persistence (Wigfield et al., 2009).

Across these models, SE is best understood not as a single cause of success, but as a mediating factor - one that shapes how students respond to challenge, feedback, and opportunity.

How Can we foster Self-Efficacy?

Because SE is rooted in experience, it is inherently malleable. But impacting a student's SE requires an intentional, often longitudinal interaction - typically through an engagement like coaching or counseling - that can provide structure and support throughout a student's various experiences and their reactions to them.

Institutions can strengthen SE by creating conditions that allow students to experience success, interpret feedback productively, and see clear, attainable pathways forward. Importantly, these efforts are most effective when they are embedded across academic and co-curricular environments rather than isolated within a single course or program.

Structured Mastery Opportunities. Designing coursework and co-curricular experiences that allow for early, achievable successes can help students build efficacy before encountering more complex challenges. Scaffolded assignments, low-stakes assessments, and early feedback give students opportunities to experience progress and competence while minimizing the risk of early failure. Over time, these mastery experiences help students internalize the belief that effort and strategy lead to improvement.

Avoid filtering experiences. Conversely, those experiences that are meant to "filter out" students can be detrimental to low-SE students, particularly those from traditionally underserved populations. Once, I encountered a professor who gave students the course final on the very first day. While her goal of assessing where students were, identifying curricular needs, etc. was certainly admirable, she failed to consider how taking a test that you had not studied for nor received any instruction about could be discouraging for some students.

While a college student myself, a professor told me that - back in the days when scheduling was done on physical paper - they would hand out drop slips with everyone's first exam. The not-so-subtle suggestion was, "maybe this isn't for you." Although designed as a test of perseverance, or perhaps as some sort of "wake up call," I shudder to think how many students, perhaps overcoming challenges to enroll and possibly doubting their ability to succeed, were fatally discouraged by this tactic.

Feedback Focused on Strategies and Growth. Feedback that emphasizes effective strategies, effort, and improvement - rather than innate ability - helps students attribute success to controllable factors (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). For example, highlighting how a student’s revision improved clarity or organization reinforces the idea that change is possible through action. This approach not only improves performance on a single task but strengthens students’ confidence in their ability to succeed in future academic challenges.

Modeling and Peer Support. Peer mentoring, tutoring, and collaborative learning environments provide students with vicarious experiences that normalize struggle and demonstrate pathways to success. When students observe peers using effective strategies, asking questions, and recovering from setbacks, they are more likely to believe they can do the same. These experiences are particularly impactful for students who may not see themselves represented in traditional academic success narratives.

Stress Management and Emotional Support. Helping students recognize and manage stress reduces the likelihood that anxiety will be interpreted as inability. Teaching coping strategies - such as breaking tasks into manageable steps or reframing stress as a normal part of learning - can help students remain engaged during challenging moments. When institutions acknowledge the emotional dimensions of learning, they help protect SE in demanding academic environments (Chemers et al., 2001).

What Can Faculty Can Do to Foster Self-Efficacy? Faculty play a critical role in shaping students’ efficacy beliefs, often through small, everyday instructional choices. How expectations are communicated, how feedback is framed, and how challenge is discussed all influence whether students view difficulty as a signal to persist or withdraw:

• Provide Clear Expectations and Examples. Providing clear expectations and concrete examples of successful work helps students understand what success looks like and reduces uncertainty. Annotated exemplars or brief discussions of what distinguishes strong work from weaker submissions can make expectations more transparent and attainable.

• Offer Formative Feedback that Emphasizes Improvement. Formative feedback that focuses on revision and improvement helps students see learning as a process rather than a judgment. Pointing out specific strategies that worked - or that could be adjusted - reinforces the idea that performance is shaped by choices and effort, not fixed ability.

• Encourage Goal-Setting and Self-Monitoring. Encouraging students to set short-term, achievable goals and reflect on their progress can strengthen self-efficacy by making improvement visible. Simple practices such as asking students to identify one area for growth on an upcoming assignment can help them take ownership of their learning.

• Normalize Struggle as Part of Learning. Explicitly acknowledging that struggle is a normal part of learning can reduce the stigma students associate with difficulty. Faculty who share examples of common challenges - or their own learning experiences - help students reinterpret setbacks as expected and manageable rather than as evidence of failure.

• Create Opportunities for Collaboration and Peer Learning. Collaborative activities such as peer review, group problem-solving, or study teams allow students to learn from one another while building confidence in their contributions. These environments also provide social reinforcement, helping students feel supported as they develop new skills and strategies.

Conclusion

Self-Efficacy is not about making students feel confident for confidence’s sake. It is about helping students believe that their actions matter and that success is within reach if they engage strategically and persist. In these ways, SE is the natural product of effective work to support a growth mindset.

Within ISSAQ, SE helps explain why students with similar ability and preparation can experience college so differently. By measuring and supporting SE intentionally, institutions can move beyond surface explanations of motivation and toward more precise, humane, and effective approaches to student success.

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

• Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.55

• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

• Margolis, H., & McCabe, P. P. (2006). Improving self-efficacy and motivation: What to do, what to say. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(4), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512060410040401

• Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543

• Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838

• Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261

• Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2005). Competence perceptions and academic functioning. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 85–104). Guilford Press.

• Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751–796. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321456

• Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2009). Expectancy-value theory. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 55–75). Routledge.

• Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016

• Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2