Bandura (1977) argues that conceptualising confidence from a social learning theory perspective impacts on how one chooses to examine the role of self-efficacy in behaviour processes. In his view, people’s self-efficacy beliefs are greater predictors of their behaviour than their actual capabilities, because these “self-perceptions help determine what individuals do with the knowledge and skills they have” (Pajares, 2003, p. 140). According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy not only affects choice to initiate behaviour, but also perseverance:
People fear and tend to avoid threatening situations they believe exceed their coping skills, whereas they get involved in activities and behave assuredly when they judge themselves capable of handling situations that would otherwise be intimidating. Not only can perceived self-efficacy have directive influence on choice of activities and settings, but, through expectations of eventual success, it can affect coping efforts once they are initiated. Efficacy expectations determine how much effort people will expend and how long they will persist in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences. The stronger the perceived self-efficacy, the more active the efforts. (p. 193-194)
94
The notion that confidence affects and predicts behaviour is widespread in educational research, theory, and policy. In Europe, curricular reforms have emphasised the concept of self, “implying confidence in oneself to be a fundamental competency. As such, self- confidence is invoked as an important psychological construct both in understanding human behaviour and in engendering well-being” (Maclellan, 2014, p. 60). Educators are interested in students’ self-confidence due to its impact on behaviour — a facet of engagement — and subsequently students’ health and happiness, present and future.
Because of the perceived connection between behaviour and outcomes, engaging students in the learning process is a valuable and desirable aspiration of educators. According to Fredricks et al. (2004), “several studies have demonstrated a positive correlation between behavioural engagement and achievement-related outcomes (e.g., standardised tests, grades) for elementary, middle, and high school students” (p. 70). In Guthrie and Wigfield’s (2000) review of the impact of instruction on engagement and academic performance, they argue the level of student engagement in classroom instruction is the primary factor that affects outcomes. The strength of the correlation varies across studies, however, due to the variety of measures used to assess achievement (Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 70). Despite the variance in measuring student success/achievement/learning, behavioural engagement does positively correlate with outcomes of those measures (Fredricks et al., 2004).
Alongside behaviour, emotional engagement is also thought to influence students’ “willingness to do the work” and subsequently their achievement (Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 60). Less research, however, exists on emotional engagement and achievement — as compared to behavioural engagement and achievement. Available studies, according to Fredricks et al. (2004), do show a “correlation between achievement and a combined measure of emotional and behavioral engagement” (p. 70). Due to the variety of ways both achievement and engagement are measured, the empirical research may not be entirely clear on exactly how or how much student engagement impacts achievement.
In literacy and English education research, it has been argued that effective adolescent literacy instruction must first address self-efficacy and (behavioural) engagement (Alvermann, 2002; Sulkunen, 2013), as students’ self-perceptions of their competencies in
95
reading and writing affect their behaviour. The cyclical relationships among confidence, behaviour, emotional engagement, and achievement are also noted. For example, those students who read more improve their skills and performance in reading, which improves self-perception of reading competency, leading to more enjoyment in reading and more reading (Curwood, 2013).
Figure 4.1: Author’s depiction of the cyclical relationship among behaviour, confidence and reading competency
While much of the literature emphasises the role that confidence has on predicting behaviour (and outcomes), some argue (e.g. Maclellan, 2014) that enabling students to accurately understand or assess their actual abilities is more critical than building their confidence: if one is either over-confident or under-confident, one’s subsequent actions or inactions can lead to poor outcomes. Accordingly, the teacher should focus more on enabling students to accurately “appraise” their abilities, so they can recognise when they are capable and when they need help (Maclellan, 2014, p. 65). While the importance of realistic appraisals is acknowledged, this study is focused on the impact of using the Bridge21 model on students’ engagement and confidence in English; it was beyond the scope of thesis Ph.D. research to “objectively” measure students’ literacy skills and compare them to students’ beliefs about their abilities.
For many educators or policymakers, the interest in studying, assessing, and/or improving attitudes (confidence and behavioural/emotional engagement) is critical, due to their links to achievement – which are often measured by standardised tests. While the author accepts the value in the power of confidence and engagement to improve achievement as measured
96
by tests, she also believes improving students’ confidence and engagement in English are worthy goals in and of themselves.
Accordingly, the following research questions were developed:
RQ1: How and why does the Bridge21 approach to teaching new literacies impact students’ engagement and confidence in English?
RQ2: How and why does the Bridge21 approach to teaching new literacies impact students’ attitudes toward learning English with technology?
RQ3: How do teachers adapt or struggle to adapt the Bridge21 approach to teaching new literacies in their classrooms and what do they believe about the approach?