See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283201395

The relationship between self-efficacy and reading proficiency of first-year

students: An exploratory study

Article  in  Reading & Writing · April 2015

DOI: 10.4102/rw.v6i1.52

CITATIONS READS

26 1,178

1 author:

Naomi Boakye
University of Pretoria
22 PUBLICATIONS   161 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Discipline specific reading intervention View project

Teachers perceptions and learners reading strategies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Naomi Boakye on 26 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Page 1 of 9 Original Research

The relationship between self-efficacy and reading

proficiency of first-year students: An exploratory study
Author: Self-efficacy, which is the belief about one’s ability to perform a task successfully, has been
Naomi A.N.Y. Boakye1 widely acknowledged as important in learning. This affective factor, though not explicitly
Affiliation: evident, has been said to play an important role in academic performance. However, its role
1
Unit for Academic Literacy, in reading development has not been widely investigated. To determine the relationship
University of Pretoria, South between self-efficacy and reading proficiency, a study was conducted with first-year students
Africa
in a South African tertiary institution. Students’ self-efficacy levels were elicited through
Correspondence to: a questionnaire and their reading proficiency was obtained through the Test of Academic
Naomi Boakye Literacy levels (TALL), which essentially assesses reading proficiency. An analysis of variance
showed a robust relationship between reading self-efficacy and reading proficiency for this
Email:
cohort of students. Regression analysis conducted with other affective factors showed self-
naomi.boakye@up.ac.za
efficacy as the best predictor of students’ reading proficiency. Results are discussed as they
Postal address: relate to previous research and recommendations are made to include the development of
Private bag X20 Hatfield, self-efficacy in reading instruction.
Pretoria 0028, South Africa

Dates:
Received: 03 Apr. 2014
Accepted: 28 Nov. 2014 Introduction
Published: 10 Apr. 2015
It has been widely acknowledged that self-efficacy, which is the belief in one’s ability to
How to cite this article: successfully perform a task, plays an important role in learning (Amil 2000; Bandura 1986; Liem,
Boakye, N.A.N.Y., 2015, Lau & Nie 2008; Loo & Choy 2013; Pajares 2000; Schunk 1991; Williams & Takaku 2011). Pajares
‘The relationship between (2000) asserts that a learner’s self-efficacy influences his or her academic performance. Studies by
self-efficacy and reading
researchers such as Amil (2000), Hutchison-Green, Follman and Bodner (2008), Liem et al. (2008),
proficiency of first-year
students: An exploratory Jones, Paretti, Hein, and Knot (2010), Mizumoto (2012) and Usher and Pajares (2006), have also
study’, Reading & Writing shown a positive and significant correlation between self-efficacy and academic achievement. A
6(1), Art. #52, 9 pages. number of researchers (e.g. Margolis & McCabe 2004, 2006; Pajares 2006) have pointed out that
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/
without sufficiently high beliefs that they have the ability to succeed, many struggling leaners
rw.v6i1.52
will not put in the effort necessary to attain success in academic tasks.
Copyright:
© 2015. The Authors. Although various research studies have emphasised the role of self-efficacy in learning, its role
Licensee: AOSIS
OpenJournals. This work is
in relation to reading development has not been widely investigated. This could be due to the
licensed under the Creative fact that reading researchers and instructors are more concerned about the explicit, cognitive
Commons Attribution aspects of reading, such as the use of strategies for comprehension. Although the use of strategies
License. and other cognitive aspects of reading are acknowledged as important, other underlying factors
such as self-efficacy may be equally important in reading development. As learning is largely
dependent on reading, the relationship between self-efficacy and reading proficiency should be a
high point of focus in education. Yet this is not the case, as the influence of self-efficacy in reading
development has been largely ignored.

In order to shed more light on students’ reading self-efficacy, especially at tertiary level where
reading research is lacking, a study was undertaken with first year university students to examine
the relationship between reading self-efficacy and reading proficiency. The article reports on this
study and argues for the inclusion of self-efficacy development in reading instruction. First, the
concept of self-efficacy is clearly defined, followed by a discussion of its role in learning and the
role it may play in reading development. The study is then presented and recommendations are
made based on the findings.

Self-efficacy
Read online: Bandura (1997:3) defines self-efficacy as the ‘beliefs in one’s capabilities to organise and execute
Scan this QR the courses of action required to produce given attainments’. According to him, the level of self-
code with your
smart phone or efficacy will determine whether a task will be initiated and completed. A learner with high self-
mobile device efficacy will be motivated to put in more effort, persist longer and complete a given task. As a
to read online.
result, self-efficacy and motivation are perceived to have a bidirectional relationship. According

http://www.rw.org.za doi:10.4102/rw.v6i1.52
 Page 2 of 9 Original Research

to reading researchers (e.g. Grabe & Stoller 2002; Guthrie & authentic evidence of one’s ability to succeed. According
Wigfield 2000) self-efficacy influences motivation, promotes to Bandura (1997) and Loo and Choy (2013), an important
strategy use and increases learner autonomy. Similarly, source of low self-efficacy is previous negative experiences
reading motivation promotes frequent reading, which in learning. Thus, students who have had a poor reading
contributes to the use of appropriate reading strategies and background and poor reading experiences will display low
high self-efficacy (Guthrie & Wigfield 2000). Appropriate self-efficacy.
and well-orchestrated strategy use in reading and learning
increases self-efficacy and motivation, and also contributes
Self-efficacy in learning
to a high level of comprehension in reading, which may
lead to better academic performance. Self-efficacy has been In the academic setting, many studies have shown a positive
perceived to emanate from several sources. and significant correlation between self-efficacy and academic
achievement. Vogt (2008) conducted a study involving
undergraduate engineering students and found that self-
Sources of self-efficacy efficacy is a strong predictor of academic achievement. Loo
Self-efficacy is said to develop from four main sources: and Choy (2013) found that self-efficacy sources correlated
mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion with maths achievement, and that mastery experience was
and emotional arousal (Bandura 1997; Usher & Pajares 2006): found to be the main predictor of academic achievement in
• Mastery experience refers to the judgement of competence maths. Louise and Mistele (2011) concluded from their study
based on one’s own previous attainment in a related task. that self-efficacy is a good predictor of achievement scores
As Bandura (1997:192) explains, success raises mastery in science and maths. Amil (2000) used ‘A’ level economics
expectations, whereas repeated failures lower them, students and found positive correlations between self-
particularly if the mishap occurs early in the course of the efficacy and academic performance. Liem et al. (2008) using
events. high school English scores found that self-efficacy predicted
• Vicarious experience refers to observations of someone learners’ English test scores. The influence of self-efficacy on
else’s attainment in a related task (Usher & Pajares 2006). general academic achievement as well as in specific subject
Bandura (1977) explains that, although this source of self- fields has been well-documented. However, research on self-
efficacy is weaker than mastery experience, in certain efficacy in reading is limited.
contexts, it may play a crucial role. For example, when
a learner is placed in an unfamiliar environment, seeing Self-efficacy in reading
others perform could raise his or her efficacy levels.
In relation to the definition of self-efficacy, reading self-
• Social persuasion is the feedback, judgements, and
appraisals from significant others about one’s participation efficacy could be defined as the beliefs students have in their
in a related task (Usher & Pajares 2006). Bandura (1997) ability to read successfully. The few studies conducted on
points out that this source of self-efficacy is not strong reading self-efficacy have documented positive correlations
enough to make a significant impact on efficacy beliefs between self-efficacy and reading achievement. Waleff
because it does not provide an authentic experiential (2010), using intermediate (Grades 4–6) learners in America,
base. However, in conjunction with other sources, such as found a positive correlation between students’ self-efficacy
mastery and vicarious experiences, it can have a greater for reading and reading achievement. He found that
impact. Bandura (1997:79) explains that ‘it is easier to students’ self-efficacy corresponded with their grade level
sustain a sense of efficacy, especially when struggling reading. In addition, Schunk and Rice (1991) found that
with difficulties, if significant others express faith in one’s using self-efficacy strategies such as providing students
capabilities than if they convey doubts’. with clear goals for reading tasks and giving feedback on
• Emotional arousal, which is the emotion or physical students’ progress in reading increased reading self-efficacy.
sensation (anxiety, fatigue, and composure) that one Templin’s (2011) study with English Second Language (ESL)
experiences whilst performing a particular task, could learners at the Trident University International (TUI) showed
also contribute to self-efficacy levels (Usher & Pajares that self-efficacy sources predicted students’ self-efficacy
2006). High emotional arousal such as anxiety can impede levels and their English Second Language (ESL) proficiency.
performance. A learning environment with less anxiety Mills, Pajares, and Herron (2007) also found that university
and stress is more likely to promote learning than one with students’ self-efficacy in French was positively related to
high anxiety and stress. their reading proficiency.

Quantitative and qualitative studies in several sources of self- In an earlier study, Shell, Murphy, and Bruning (1989)
efficacy have shown mastery experiences to have the greatest examined undergraduate students in an American university
influence on self-efficacy (Bandura 1997; Hutchison-Green et and found that self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs
al. 2008; Hutchison, Follman, Sumpter & Bodner 2006; Lent, jointly accounted for significant variance in students’ reading
Lopez, & Bieschke 1991; Lent, Lopez, Brown, & Gore 1996; achievement, with self-efficacy being the stronger predictor
Phan 2012; Usher & Pajares 2006). The explanation given in reading achievement and accounting for significant
by Bandura (1997) is that mastery experience is the most variance in writing.

http://www.rw.org.za doi:10.4102/rw.v6i1.52
 Page 3 of 9 Original Research

In Asia, similar correlations were found. Mizumoto (2012)

found that students with high self-efficacy were active
Methodology
users of strategies, employed deep strategies and were The main focus of the study was on students’ self-efficacy
meta-cognitively superior to those without it. Those who in relation to their reading proficiency. The independent
had average self-efficacy used shallow strategies and those variable of students’ home language was included to gain a
with low self-efficacy were passive or non-users of reading better understanding of the students’ needs, for the purpose
strategies. Thus, he concludes that self-efficacy could of instruction. In addition, given the South African context
promote the use of reading strategies. where a number of students from certain language groups
are predominantly from low socio-economic status (SES)
In addition, learners’ low self-efficacy can be linked families, this aspect was necessary to give more insight, as
to low reading proficiency, which in turn has a strong reading proficiency at school level is associated with SES
relationship with low socio-economic status (SES) by virtue factors and inappropriate reading instruction (Taylor &
of SES providing or not providing adequate and rich reading Yu 2009; Pretorius 2002, 2007; Pretorius & Lephalala 2011;
experiences. According to Pretorius (2000, 2007) and Taylor Van Staden & Howie 2010). A two-way ANOVA test was
and Yu (2009) the majority of learners from low SES families performed on the dependent variable (reading proficiency
are likely to attend poorly resourced public schools, receive levels) and the independent variables of self-efficacy and
poor reading instruction, have negative reading experiences students’ home language.
and are thus likely to perform poorly in reading assessment.
Instrument
Given the relationship between self-efficacy and academic
A questionnaire consisting of a 5-point-likert scale (positive
achievement, and self-efficacy and reading performance
to negative) and the Test of Academic Literacy Levels (TALL)
documented by various researchers internationally, a study
were used as instruments for data collection. Whereas
was conducted on the relationship between self-efficacy and
students’ reading proficiency was determined by TALL, their
reading achievement at a South African university. The study
self-efficacy levels were determined by the questionnaire.
set out to determine if such a relationship can be confirmed
The TALL, a reliable test (Weideman 2006), which essentially
with tertiary students in an African context. In addition,
assesses reading proficiency, was used to determine students’
the results could be used in designing reading programmes
risk group. According to Weideman (2006) the TALL has
and arguing for the inclusion of self-efficacy development
shown a remarkable degree of reliability with an average
in reading instructional programmes. To the best of my
Cronbach alpha of .93 across three institutions, between 2004
knowledge, the relationship between self-efficacy and
and 2006. The TALL is a placement test intended to channel
reading achievement has not been extensively researched
students, if so required, into appropriate academic literacy
within the African context in order to persuade educators
support courses. It determines students’ risk of failure,
to seriously consider self-efficacy in reading instruction.
academically. The self-efficacy questions were extracted from
Besides, this kind of study is required in the African context,
a longer questionnaire comprising other affective factors
where a number of students come from poor social and
such as motivation, attitude and interest. The questions for
educational backgrounds, a factor that contributes to low
the questionnaire were compiled using questions from Grabe
self-efficacy levels. The findings of this study will indicate the
extent to which educators should incorporate this affective and Stoller (2002), Guthrie, Wigfield and Von Secker (2000),
factor in reading instruction. and other questions specific to the context. The questionnaire
on self-efficacy elicited responses on students’ beliefs in
their reading capabilities. In other words, it measured their
The study awareness of the challenges they face as readers and the
The aim of the study was to determine the relationship confidence they have in themselves to undertake reading
between reading self-efficacy and students’ reading tasks successfully. The longer questionnaire was first
proficiency. The following questions were used for the study: piloted, and questions that were not valid were removed.
• What is the relationship between reading self-efficacy and The reliability of the self-efficacy questions was 0.87, which
the reading proficiency of first- year university students? is acceptable. At the end of the questionnaire students had
• Is reading self-efficacy the best predictor of students’ to select their home language from the options: English,
reading proficiency? Afrikaans, Indigenous South African Language (ISAL) or
• What is the relationship between self-efficacy and the other (other languages outside South Africa).
home language of this cohort of first-year students?
Participants
The third question was included because a number of Two groups of first year students (‘low risk’ and ‘high risk’ as
Indigenous South African Language (ISAL) speakers attend determined by the TALL) participated in the study. The ‘high
poorly resourced public schools and are from impoverished risk’ group consisted of students who were deemed to be at
reading backgrounds, both at home and at school. As a extremely high risk or at high risk of failure, academically.
result, these students may be experiencing low self-efficacy Students in this ‘high risk’ group register for a compulsory
in reading and in learning. generic academic literacy module, whereas students in the

http://www.rw.org.za doi:10.4102/rw.v6i1.52
 Page 4 of 9 Original Research

‘low risk’ group, who are deemed to be at low or negligible

risk of failure, register for a language-related module,
Findings
usually academic reading or academic writing. The number As indicated in Table 1, students who spoke English and
of students who answered the questionnaire on self-efficacy Afrikaans as a home language were in the majority in the
from the two groups was 1816 in total. There were 659 ‘low risk’ group. In total these students were 779, which
students in the ‘low risk’ group and 1009 in the ‘high risk’ is 77% of the students in the ‘low risk’ group. The ISAL
group. There were 148 students in the borderline group, but students were in the majority in the ‘high risk’ group with
these students had to rewrite the test to be placed in either the a total of 412, which is 63% of the population in the ‘high
‘high or low risk’ group. They were therefore not included in risk’ group. The distribution of students’ home language and
the discussion. their reading proficiency as determined by the TALL is given
in Table 1.
Procedure/data collection
The questionnaire was administered to all first-year students Research question 1
in the Unit for Academic Literacy registered for either Research question 1 relates to the relationship between
the compulsory academic literacy module or the elective reading self-efficacy and reading proficiency of this cohort
academic reading module. The two modules were chosen in of first-year university students. As shown in Table 2, the
order to involve both ‘high and low risk’ students. Students mean figures and standard deviations for self-efficacy and
in the ‘high risk’ group answered the questionnaire during students’ reading proficiency indicate a relationship between
one class period in the last lecture week of the first semester. the two. Students in the ‘high risk’ group who are perceived
Students who were not in class on the day were excluded. to have poor reading proficiency indicated low self-efficacy
Students in the ‘low risk’ group answered the questionnaire (M 2.44 and 2.38), according to questionnaire responses.
at the end of their first semester examination in the academic On the other hand, students in the ‘low risk’ group who
reading module. As participation was voluntary some are perceived to have relatively better reading proficiency,
students chose not to participate. indicated relatively higher self-efficacy (M 2.09 and 1.75),
according to the questionnaire responses.
Data analyses
Descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s coefficients were As shown in Table 2, mean figures decreased from 2.44 to
obtained for the self-efficacy questions. Cronbach’s alpha 1.75, as proficiency levels increased. This means that self-
was 0.87, which was considered adequate for reliability. An efficacy aligned with students’ reading proficiency: the lower
ANOVA test was conducted to determine the relationship their reported self-efficacy, the poorer their performance in
between the variables (i.e., students’ reading self-efficacy and the TALL and vice versa.
their reading proficiency as determined by the TALL).
The ANOVA analysis showed a statistically significant
In addition, a cumulative logit (regression) analysis was relationship between literacy groups and students’ self-
performed using the responses to the full questionnaire on efficacy (F(4) = 8.84; P<.0001). Students who were deemed
motivation, attitude, interest and self-efficacy on one hand, by the TALL as having ‘negligible risk’ showed highly
and students’ performance in the TALL on the other, to favourable levels of self-efficacy. On the other hand,
determine the extent to which self-efficacy predicts students students who were deemed to be at ‘high risk’ of failure
reading ability amongst other affective factors. academically, according to the TALL, indicated a lower

TABLE 1: Distribution of students’ reading proficiency levels in relation to their home language.
Variable High risk Low risk
Reading proficiency levels/ groups (TALL) Extremely high risk High risk Border-line Low risk Negligible risk Total
Home language
English 18 36 9 298 125 486
Afrikaans 29 75 35 308 48 495
ISAL 140 272 85 137 16 650
Other 33 56 19 63 14 185
Total 220 439 148 806 203 185
TALL, Test of Academic Literacy levels.

TABLE 2: Means and Standard Deviations for students’ self-efficacy levels in relation to their reading proficiency.
Variable High risk Low risk
Reading proficiency levels/ groups Extremely high risk High risk Low risk Negligible risk
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Self-efficacy levels 2.44 0.77 2.38 0.72 2.09 0.69 1.75 0.57
M, mean; SD, standard deviation

http://www.rw.org.za doi:10.4102/rw.v6i1.52
 Page 5 of 9 Original Research

level of self-efficacy. The ‘extremely high risk’ students cognitive reading instruction in order to achieve maximum
reported the lowest levels of self-efficacy, and were followed results in developing students’ reading proficiency.
by those who were deemed to be at ‘high risk’. Finally, students
deemed to have ‘negligible risk’ of failure indicated the highest There was an interaction amongst the three factors of home
self-efficacy amongst this cohort of students. Table 3 shows language, reading proficiency and self-efficacy levels at
the hierarchical progression. The Scheffe test for multiple (F(12) = 1.77; p = 0.0473). In other words, the relationship
progression shows the differences between the groups. between students’ self-efficacy levels and their reading
proficiency was determined by their home language. Students
Regarding the research question as to whether there is a who spoke ISAL as a home language were mostly in the ‘high
relationship between self-efficacy and reading proficiency, risk’ group. This group indicated lower self-efficacy levels
the ANOVA test showed a robust relationship (p<.0001) compared to the ‘low risk’ group. Although on the whole
between the two variables. Self-efficacy corresponded either the ‘high risk’ group responded negatively to questions on
positively or negatively with reading proficiency. Responses self-efficacy, English and Afrikaans home language speakers
from the questionnaire aligned with students’ performance who were placed in this group according to the TALL, were
in the TALL as shown in Table 3. less negative in their responses than the ISAL speakers. It is
interesting to note that amongst ‘negligible risk’ students,
The means with similar letters are not statistically different. the ISAL speakers were the most positive in their responses
Thus ‘extremely high risk’ and ‘high risk’ students were not to self-efficacy, compared to their Afrikaans and English
statistically different from each other, which is shown by the counterparts. The interactions relating to students’ responses
same letter, A. However, both ‘extremely high risk’ and ‘high to their self-efficacy levels are shown in Figure 1.
risk’ students were statistically different from the ‘low risk’
students, as shown in the different letter, C. The ‘low risk’ Research question 3
students were also statistically different from the ‘negligible
risk’ students as shown in a different letter, D. Thus students’ Research question 3 relates to the relationship between self-
performance in the TALL aligned with their reported self- efficacy and the home language of this cohort of first-year
efficacy levels. students. Table 4 shows that students who spoke English and
Afrikaans as home language indicated relatively better self-
The data analyses show that there is a significant relationship efficacy (English M, 1.99; Afrikaans M, 2.18) than the ISAL
between students’ self-efficacy levels and their reading. home language students (M, 2.28).
Students who reported low self-efficacy beliefs were also
poor readers or had low reading ability, as indicated by Whereas the English home language group indicated the
the TALL. Thus, as much as these students were poor or highest self-efficacy levels, concomitant with their good
struggling readers, they also had low self-efficacy levels. performance in the TALL and indicative of better reading
proficiency, the ISAL home language speakers reported

Research question 2 relatively lower self-efficacy levels, which also aligned with
their poor performance in the TALL (cf. Table 1).
Research question 2: Is reading self-efficacy the best predictor
of students’ reading proficiency? In addition to the ANOVA Most of the ISAL home language speakers were in the
test, self-efficacy was also placed in a pool with other ‘high risk’ group and reported low self-efficacy levels. Self-
affective factors (i.e. attitude, motivation and interest) in a efficacy, therefore, has a direct relationship with students’
regression analysis to determine how best it predicts reading reading proficiency and an indirect relationship through
proficiency. Self-efficacy emerged as the strongest predictor home language. This seems to be a ‘double-edged sword’
of students’ reading proficiency at a statistical significance of (low self-efficacy; poor reading proficiency) and calls for
p<0.0001. In other words, the analysis showed that students’ serious consideration of the relationship between students’
self-efficacy strongly indicated their proficiency levels in self-efficacy and their reading proficiency when improving
reading. When students’ self-efficacy beliefs are high, their students’ reading proficiency, especially the ISAL group.
reading proficiency is also high. This relationship points to the
need to improve students’ self-efficacy concomitantly with
Discussion
Students who were deemed to have negligible risk had
TABLE 3: Scheffe groupings and mean scores for literacy levels in relation to
self-efficacy.
high self-efficacy, which confirms the positive relationship
Scheffe grouping Means and Self-efficacy levels Literacy level
between self-efficacy and reading proficiency. ISAL home
N
- A 2.43 Low 220 Extremely high Risk
language students who are deemed to be at extremely high
- A 2.37 Low 439  High Risk risk or at high risk of failure academically, as indicated
B C 2.19 Low 218 Borderline by the TALL, were consistently negative in the rating of
- C 2.09 High 806  Low Risk  their reading self-efficacy. Thus reading instruction for
- D 1.75 Highest 203 Negligible Risk such students should also focus on improving their self-
Note: Means with the same letter are not significantly different. efficacy.

http://www.rw.org.za doi:10.4102/rw.v6i1.52
 Page 6 of 9 Original Research

3 Afrikaans

English

Other
2.5
ISAL

2
Self-efficacy

1.5

0.5

0
Ex High R High R Bdline Low R Neg R
Literacy levels

FIGURE 1: Interaction between literacy levels and students’ home language in relation to their self-efficacy.

TABLE 4: Means and standard deviations for students’ self-efficacy levels in relation to their home language.
Home language groups English Afrikaans ISAL Other
Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD
Self-efficacy levels 1.99 0.67 2.18 0.74 2.28 0.72 2.25 77
M, mean; SD, standard deviation

Explicit strategy instruction is said to improve self-efficacy significant. Worthy of note is the significant interaction
(Pajares 2006), and therefore explicit instruction of various between home language, proficiency or literacy levels
reading strategies (both processing and monitoring strategies) and self-efficacy. ISAL home language students who were
should be provided to these students on a continuous basis. deemed to have negligible risk and are therefore proficient
Self-efficacy, which is the affective variant of metacognition readers, indicated high self-efficacy (the highest of all the
(monitoring strategies), is known to be crucial for success groups), whereas ISAL students identified as being at
in academic reading at tertiary level (Mills et al. 2007). extremely high risk indicated the lowest self-efficacy of all
Thus instruction on metacognition should be undertaken the home language groups. Also, English home language
concurrently with the improvement of self-efficacy levels. students indicated high levels of self-efficacy. What needs to
be pointed out here is that it is not the home language per se
A robust relationship exists between self-efficacy and the that influences students’ self-efficacy and reading proficiency,
reading proficiency of this cohort of students. The relation, but there seems to be a combination of factors that include
determined by ANOVA tests on the responses to the self- SES, educational background, reading experience, and other
efficacy questionnaire, showed that self-efficacy has both a socio-cultural factors associated with certain home language
direct relationship and an indirect relationship with reading groups that influence reading proficiency. Given the low
proficiency. In addition, regression analysis showed self- self-efficacy and poor reading proficiency of the majority
efficacy as the strongest predictor of students’ reading of ISAL students, these students would need instruction
proficiency amongst other affective factors. that adequately and directly addresses their affective needs,
whilst developing their cognitive reading abilities. As Pajares
Self-efficacy seems to occupy a significant role in determining (2006) and Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) point out, self-
reading proficiency and thus should not be ignored efficacy enhancement is an important component of reading
in programmes aimed at improving students’ reading motivation.
proficiency. It is suggested that, at both school and tertiary
levels, there should be a focus on addressing strategy use Various techniques, such as learning goal orientation,
and self-efficacy levels in order to improve both cognitive feedback on progress, explicit strategy instruction, building
and affective dimensions involved in reading development. mastery experience, using discipline-specific texts, and
providing praise and rewards have been shown to improve
Another important factor that emerged from the survey self-efficacy. According to Guthrie and Klauda (2013)
was the relationship between students’ self-efficacy and assuring students of success increases their self-efficacy. One
their home language. The relationship between students’ way to do this is to provide competence support in the form
home language and their self-efficacy levels was statistically of providing feedback on progress.

http://www.rw.org.za doi:10.4102/rw.v6i1.52
 Page 7 of 9 Original Research

Feedback on progress should be frequent and positive. proficiency as shown in their reading performance in the
Positive does not mean grading students highly when they TALL. Using the ANOVA test a robust relationship was
do not deserve it, but rather that comments and suggestions found between self-efficacy and reading proficiency directly,
should be encouraging and specific (Dörnyei 2001). In and indirectly through the students’ home language. ISAL
addition, an educator can emphasise learning goals by students reported low self-efficacy levels, whereas English
encouraging learners to focus on learning, understanding and and Afrikaans home language groups reported higher self-
achievement instead of focusing solely on grades (Guthrie & efficacy levels. Also, ‘high risk’ students reported low self-
Wigfield 2000; Margolis & McCabe 2004). efficacy and ‘low risk’ students reported high self-efficacy
levels. Given the important role that self-efficacy plays
Using discipline-specific texts also provides opportunities in reading and in learning in general, it is recommended
for self-efficacy improvement (Guthrie & Klauda 2013). that reading instruction programmes should include the
Although generic texts have their place in reading instruction, development of self-efficacy by focusing on learning goals,
using discipline-specific texts, especially at tertiary level will providing feedback on progress, developing explicit strategy
provide background knowledge and relevance that will give instruction, giving praise and rewards and using discipline-
students confidence of success. specific texts where possible.

Explicit strategy instruction also increases self-efficacy. The results suggest that self-efficacy exerts a potentially
Furthermore, students can only be confident about their important affective influence on students’ reading
capabilities when they are given clear directions and guidance proficiency. Consideration of this possible influence is
necessary for the creation of effective reading instruction.
on the task they are required to perform (Graham & Macaro
However, although self-efficacy relates to reading
2008; Guthrie & Wigfield 2000). According to Mizumoto and
proficiency, Shell et al. (1989) point out that self-efficacy beliefs
Takeuchi (2009), teaching students strategies may increase
by themselves cannot directly cause reading achievement.
their self-efficacy.
Further research is therefore needed to investigate how
self-efficacy beliefs affect the cognitive processes that are
Moreover, positive mastery experience, which refers to one’s
causally related to reading achievement. As a start to this
judgement of competence or one’s own previous attainment
investigation, Schunk and Swartz (1993) have reported from
in a related task (Usher & Pajares 2006) should be encouraged.
their studies that self-efficacy is associated with the use of
According to Bandura (1977:193) ‘successes raise mastery
specific reading strategies. Earlier researchers have pointed
expectations; repeated failures lower them’. out that self-efficacy, presumably, may exert its influence by
affecting motivation (Bandura 1986; Schunk 1991). There is
Finally, praise and rewards may seem ordinary and simple, a need to investigate how self-efficacy relates to measures
but according to researchers such as Dörnyei (2001) and of motivation and how the motivational measures affect,
Kumaravadivelu (2003), they provide opportunities for and are themselves affected by the strategies used during
students to receive acknowledgement of success, which reading.
increase self-efficacy. In an interview with first- year
students after a reading intervention programme in 2011,
a number of the students reported on how motivating
Acknowledgements
and confidence-building praises and rewards were to Competing interests
them (Boakye 2012). This was especially true of the ‘high The author declares that she has had no financial or personal
risk’ students who reported that ‘it makes you feel that relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced her
you are good, especially in front of other students, and in writing this article.
you put in more effort’ (Boakye 2012:215). Although pre-
school learners are usually given stars for achievement,
this practice is not carried on in the senior grades. The
References
suggestion is for educators to include this practice, even Amil, M.B.M., 2000, ‘Self-efficacy and academic performance in economics in the
junior college’, Unpublished Thesis, Nanyang Technical University, Singapore.
if it is only acknowledging achievement and praising
Bandura, A., 1977, ‘Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change’,
the student in the presence of other students. If tertiary Psychological Review 84(2), 191–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
students found the technique beneficial, learners in school 295X.84.2.191

would definitely benefit from it. However, since the ‘low’ Bandura, A., 1986, Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
risk group was not as enthusiastic as the ‘high risk’ group, Bandura, A., 1997, Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, W. H. Freeman and Company,
it should be noted that not all students may perceive it New York.
positively. Nevertheless praise and rewards may assist in Boakye, N.A., 2012, ‘A socio-affective approach to improving students’ reading
comprehension abilities’, PhD thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
building the confidence and self-efficacy of low achievers.
Dörnyei, Z., 2001, Motivational strategies in the language classroom, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667343

Conclusion Grabe, W. & Stoller, F., 2002, Teaching and researching reading, Pearson Education,
London.
The article has reported on the relationship between first- Graham, S. & Macaro, E., 2008, ‘Strategy instruction in listening for lower-intermediate
learners of French’, Language Learning 58(4), 747-783. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
year tertiary students’ self-efficacy levels and their reading j.1467-99222008.00478.x

http://www.rw.org.za doi:10.4102/rw.v6i1.52
 Page 8 of 9 Original Research

Guthrie, J.T. & Wigfield, A., 2000, ‘Engagement and motivation in reading’, in M.L. Pajares, F., 2000, ‘Self-efficacy beliefs and current directions in self-efficacy research’,
Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr (eds.), The handbook of reading viewed n.d., from http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/effchapter.html
research, vol. 3, pp. 403–420, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.
Pajares, F., 2006, ‘Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implications for
Guthrie, J.T. & Klauda, S.L., 2013, Handbook of individual differences in reading, teachers and partners’, in F. Pajares & T. Urden (eds.), Self-efficacious beliefs of
Routledge Publishers, New York. adolescents, pp. 339–367, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich.
Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A. & Von Secker, C., 2000, ‘Effects of integrated instruction on Phan, H.P., 2012, ‘Relations between informational sources, self-efficacy and academic
motivation and strategy use in reading’, Journal of Educational Psychology 92, achievement: A developmental approach’, Educational Psychology 32(1), 81–105.
331–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.331 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.625612
Hutchison, M.A., Follman, D.K. Sumpter, M. & Bodner, G.M., 2006, ‘Factors influencing Pretorius, E.J., 2000, ‘Inference generation in the reading of expository texts by
the self-efficacy beliefs of first-year Engineering students’, Journal of Engineering university students’, PhD thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.
Education 95(1), 39–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00876.x
Pretorius, E.J. 2002, ‘Reading ability and academic performance in South Africa: Are
Hutchison-Green, M.A., Follman, D.K. & Bodner, G.M., 2008, ‘Providing a voice: we fiddling while Rome is burning?’, Language Matters 33, 91–103. http://dx.doi.
Qualitative investigation of the impact of a first-year Engineering experience on org/10.1080/10228190208566183
students’ efficacy’, Journal of Engineering Education 97(2), 177–190.
Pretorius, E.J. 2007, ‘Looking into the seeds of time: Developing academic literacy in
Jones, B.D., Paretti, M.C., Hein, S.F. & Knot, T.W., 2010, ‘An analysis of motivation high poverty schools’, Ensovoort 11(2), 105–125.
constructs with first-year engineering students: Relationships among expectancies,
values, achievement and career plans’, Journal of Engineering Education 99(4), Pretorius, E.J. & Lephalala, M., 2011, ‘Reading comprehension in high-poverty schools:
319–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01066.x How should it be taught and how well does it work?’, Per Linguam 27(2), 1–24.
Kumaravadivelu, B., 2003, Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching, Schunk, D.H., 1991, ‘Self-efficacy and academic motivation’, Educational Psychologist
Yale University Press, New Haven. 26, 207–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_2
Lent, R.W., Lopez, F.G. & Bieschke, K.J., 1991, ‘Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources and Schunk, D.H. & Rice, J.M., 1991, ‘Learning goals and progress feedback during reading
relation to science-based career choice’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 38(4), comprehension instruction’, Journal of Reading Behaviour 23, 351–364.
424–430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.38.4.424
Schunk, D.H. & Swartz, C.W., 1993, ‘Goals and progress feedback: Efforts on self-
Lent, R.W., Lopez, F.G., Brown, S.D. & Gore, P.A., 1996, ‘Latent structure of the sources efficacy and writing achievement’, Contemporary Educational Psychology 18,
of mathematics self-efficacy’, Journal of Vocational Behaviour 49(3), 292–308. 337–354.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.0045
Shell, D.F, Murphy, C.C & Bruning, R.H., 1989, ‘Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
Liem, A.D., Lau, S. & Nie, Y., 2008, ‘The role of self-efficacy, task value and achievement mechanisms in reading and writing achievement’, Journal of Education Psychology
goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship and 8(1), 91–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.1.91
achievement outcome’, Contemporary Educational Psychology 33, 486–512.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.08.001 Taylor, S. & Yu, D., 2009, ‘Socio-economic status and educational achievement:
Does education provide a stepping stone out of poverty in South Africa?’,
Loo, C.W. & Choy, J.L.F., 2013, ‘Sources of self-efficacy influencing academic Transformation Audit, 66–75.
performance of engineering students’, American Journal of Educational Research
1(3), 86–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.12691/education-1-3-4 Templin, S.A., 2011, ‘Examining the effects of self-efficacy sources on English as a
Second Language (ESL): Self-efficacy beliefs and ESL proficiency’, PhD thesis,
Louis, R.A. & Mistele, J.M., 2011, ‘The differences in scores and self-efficacy by Trident University International (TUI), NY. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
student gender in Mathematics and Science’, International Journal of Science and Theses. Database. (UMI No. 3327832).
and Mathematics Education, viewed 05 March 2014, from http://link.springer.
com/search?query=Louis+%26+Mistele+2011&search-within=Journal&facet- Usher, E.L. & Pajares, F., 2006, ‘Sources of academic and self-regulatory efficacy beliefs
publication-title=International+Journal+of+Science+and+Mathematics of entering Middle School students’, Contemporary Educational Psychology 31(2),
125–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.03.002
Margolis, H. & McCabe, P., 2004, ‘Self-efficacy: A key to improving the motivation
of struggling learners’, The Clearing House 77(6), 241–249. http://dx.doi. Van Staden, S. & Howie, S., 2010, ‘South African teacher profiles and emerging teacher
org/10.3200/TCHS.77.6.241-249 factors: The picture painted by PIRLS 2006’, Reading and Writing 1(1), 47–60.
Margolis, H. & McCabe, P., 2006, ‘Improving self-efficacy and motivation: What to do, Vogt, C.M., 2008, ‘Faculty as a critical juncture in student retention and performance
what to say’, Intervention in School and Clinic 41(4), 218-227. http://dx.doi.org/10 in engineering programs’, Journal of Engineering Education 97(1), 27–36. http://
.1177/10534512060410040401 dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00951.x
Mills, N.A., Pajares, F. & Herron, C., 2007, ‘Self-efficacy of college intermediate French Waleff, M.L., 2010, ‘The relationship between mastery orientation goals, student self-
students: Relation to achievement and motivation’, Language learning 57(3), efficacy for reading achievement in intermediate level learners in a rural district’,
417–442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00421.x PhD thesis, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses. Database number (3427217).
Mizumoto, A., 2012, ‘Exploring the effects of self-efficacy on vocabulary learning
strategies’, Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 3(4), 423–437. Weideman, A., 2006, ‘Assessing academic literacy: A task-based approach’, Language
Matters 37(1), 81–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10228190608566253
Mizumoto, A. & Takeuchi, O., 2009, ‘Examining the effectiveness of explicit instruction
of vocabulary learning strategies with Japanese EFL university students’, Language Williams, J.D. & Takaku, S., 2011, ‘Help seeking, self-efficacy, and writing performance
Teaching Research 13(4), 425–449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168809341511 among college students’, Journal of writing research 3(1), 1–18.

Appendix starts on the next page →

http://www.rw.org.za doi:10.4102/rw.v6i1.52
 Page 9 of 9 Original Research

Appendix
Questionnaire on self-efficacy.
Beliefs about reading ability /Reading self-efficacy

Strongly agree

Uncertain

disagree

disagree
Strongly
Agree
23. I think I read well and with understanding 1 2 3 4 5 V23
24. I read slowly so I have problems with 1 2 3 4 5 V24
understanding
25. I have difficulty in completing the reading 1 2 3 4 5 V25
assignments given to me
26. I read slowly so it makes me tired 1 2 3 4 5 V26
and bored
27. I have difficulty in understanding words 1 2 3 4 5 V27
(50% or more) in my reading assignments
28. I have to translate what I read into my 1 2 3 4 5 V28
home language before I really understand
29. I have difficulty in understanding idiomatic 1 2 3 4 5 V29
Language
30. I have difficulty in understanding the 1 2 3 4 5 V30
texts I have to read at university
31. I have difficulty in extracting the main 1 2 3 4 5 V31
points in what I read.
32. I find it difficult to summarise a text in my 1 2 3 4 5 V32
own words
Personal information
68. TALL performance Ext high risk High risk Borderline Low risk Negligible risk V68
69. Home language Eng Afr SA African Other V69
Student number
Thank you for filling in the questionnaire.

http://www.rw.org.za doi:10.4102/rw.v6i1.52

View publication stats