One Theory Fits All? | W4 Q1 | Discussion

According to Linnenbrink-Garcia and Patall (2014), social cognitive theory is similar to all theories discussed in their chapter in that it considers the “interplay of behavior, the person, and the environment.” More specifically, social cognitive theory is related to Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory which explains individuals’ perceptions or beliefs of their abilities to complete a task or master material in academic settings.

Self-efficacy, as a self-regulated and self-reflective cognition, is said to impact a variety of achievement related and academic outcomes. For instance, self-efficacy is related to choice (i.e. career and coursework), persistence, self-regulatory practices, academic achievement, and positive/negative emotions (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patall, 2014). Additionally, self-efficacy is comprised of four components, that when used in synergy, have greater outcomes then when used alone (Chen & Usher, 2013). According to Bandura (1977), these four main components to self-efficacy are performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states.

As stated in the beginning of the chapter, social cognitive theory accounts for various dimensions that overlap with other theories of motivation. Based on the reading, it doesn’t seem that self-efficacy is unrelated to many outcomes. However, Linnenbrink & Patall (2014) argue that self-efficacy is different from outcome expectations (i.e. perception that a specific behavior leads to an outcome) and self-concept (i.e. cognitive evaluations of ability). Additionally, students feeling they can do the work of a scientist does not tell us much about a students’ science identity, nor does it tell us whether they find the skills they have acquired valuable.