Organization of children's academic ability-related self-perceptions.

Abstract

The authors examined how certain ability-related academic self-perceptions are organized in the self-systems of 5th graders. One hundred ninety children completed questionnaires concerning their perceived ability, expectancies for the near future, expectancies for the distant future, and causal attributions to ability. Each of these 4 self-perceptions was assessed separately for math, reading, and general school. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that children differentiated their ability-related self-perceptions in ways that are not accounted for by current models of academic self-concept. That is, in addition to differentiating the 3 domains of math, reading, and general school, children also differentiated the 4 selfperceptions within academic domains. These findings both support and extend current theories of academic self-concept.Children's ability-related self-perceptions are important predictors of their task engagement and performance. For example, children who perceive themselves as highly competent are more likely to persist when they confront difficulties and are more likely to use the abilities and strategies they possess (Harter, 1990;Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992). However, ability-related self-perceptions encompass a wide range of constructs, such as self-concept, perceived ability, and performance expectancies. Although these constructs may be highly related, there are potentially important distinctions between them that are often ignored.The purpose of the present study was to examine how certain ability-related academic self-perceptions are organized in the self-systems of late elementary school children. Specifically, this study focused on the interrelationships among four ability-related self-perceptions in the academic domains of math, reading, and general school. The four self-perceptions were (a) expectancies for the near future (i.e., expectancies for their next report card), (b) expectancies for the distant future (i.e., during the next academic year), (c) perceived ability (i.e., perceived "smartness"), and (d) causal attributions to ability (i.e., success attributions to high ability and failure attributions to factors other than low ability).The present study was influenced by the work of Marsh and colleagues on the organization of academic self-concept

Short Notices

“…The findings are in agreement with other researchers who have shown gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy (Randhawa et al, 1993;Pajares and Miller, 1994;Skaalvik and Rankin, 1994). Such gender differences have been attributed, inter alia, to differential mathematics self-efficacy (Pajares and Miller, 1994;Randhawa et al, 1993), which is a good predictor of performance in mathematics (Eshel and Kurman, 1991;Simpson et al, 1996). Such gender differences have been attributed, inter alia, to differential mathematics self-efficacy (Pajares and Miller, 1994;Randhawa et al, 1993), which is a good predictor of performance in mathematics (Eshel and Kurman, 1991;Simpson et al, 1996).…”

The predictive power of socialization variables for thinking styles among adults in the workplace

“…Moreover, the reliability and validity of this assessment method are based on two additional grounds. First, the use of single-item rating scales for assessing psychological constructs is prevalent in the literature (e.g., Hawkins, 1987;Simpson, Licht, Wagner, & Stader, 1996). Second, according to self-consistency theory, people will make self-ratings that are compatible with their level of self-esteem (Felson, 1981;Wells & Sweeney, 1986).…”

Teaching Styles and Occupational Stress among Chinese University Faculty Members

“…First, in the literature, many studies have suggested a significant correspondence between self-reported abilities and measured abilities (e.g., Kelso, Holland, & Gottfredson, 1977;Lowman & Williams, 1987). Second, the use of single-item rating scales for assessing psychological constructs is prevalent in the literature (e.g., Simpson, Licht, Wagner, & Stader, 1996;Weinstein & Walberg, 1993).…”