# data[].attributes.body
#1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Application Activity #1 - Planning and Diversity-3 (1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alternative Application Activity - Motivation Breakthrough Video-1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Application Activity #3 PiagetVygotsky (2)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Memory Experiments

Here are some experiments and games to test your memory. Also, don't forget that there are some memory tricks and techniques at the end of this section!

On-line Short Term Memory Games

Grades K-12

Think you have a good memory? Then take this little Short Term Memory Test. Also, test your memory for pictures with this Short Term Memory Picture Game

On-line "Simon Says" Memory Games

Grades K-12

Simon says, "Play These Games!" to test your memory. Both SIMON games require that your browser is "JAVA-enabled."

Try Game 1 with and without sound. Do you do better with the sound on or with the sound off?

Face Memory Test

Grades K-12

How good is your memory for faces? Find out with the Face Memory Test.

There are two versions of the test:

Now You See It, Now You Don't

Grades K-6

Let's test short term memory. Get a tray or a large plate. (The kind of trays from the cafeteria work well). Put 10 to 20 objects on the tray, then cover them with a towel or cloth. Tell your subjects that you have a number of objects on the tray and that you want them to remember as many items as possible. Also tell them that they will have only one minute to view them. Then take off the cover from the tray and start timing one minute. After one minute, cover up the tray. Have your subjects write down all the items that they can remember. Could they remember all of the items? Are there any items that were forgotten by all the subjects? Teach your subjects some of the memory techniques (see below) and repeat the experiment.

Materials:

Tray or plate

10-20 small items (like an eraser, pencil, coin, marble, etc.)

Cloth or towel to cover the tray

Paper and pencils for your subjects to write down what they remember

What's Missing

Grades K-6

This experiment is a variation of the previous experiment to test short term memory. Get your tray and items and cloth ready again. This time have you subjects view the items for 1 minute. Then cover the tray again. Without the subjects seeing, REMOVE 1 item from the tray. Show the tray and remaining items to your subjects again. Ask them, "What is missing?". Can they guess what you removed?

Try it again giving the subjects more time to view all the items.

Try it with less time.

Try it with more objects on the tray.

Try it with fewer objects, but have your subject identify the missing object feeling the remaining objects without seeing them.

Try it again, but this time remove 3-4 objects.

Materials:

Tray or plate

10-20 small items (like an eraser, pencil, coin, marble, etc.)

Cloth or towel to cover the tray

Who's Missing

Grades K-6

Think you know your classmates? Let's see how good your memory for them really is. Have one student leave the room. While this student is out of the room, have another student hide. Then bring the first student back into the room. Can this student name the student who is missing?

Materials:

Classroom Mix-up

Grades K-6

This game is a bit like "Who's Missing". This time a few students or the whole class can test their memory at the same time. Tell everyone to take a good look around the classroom. Ask them to remember where objects are located in the room. Then send a few students out of the room while you change the location of various objects in the class. You could also do this while the students are at recess or lunch. When the students come back into the classroom, ask them to write down all of the things that have changed. Make sure you keep a list of all the things that you have changed!

Materials:

Everyday Memory

Grades 3-12

Go to the Exploratorium to see if you remember what this common everyday object really looks like. What can it be? What can it be?

This experiment is based on a study by Nickerson, R.S. and Adams, M.J. titled "Long-term memory for a common object," Cognitive Psychology, 11:297-307, 1979.

Eyewitness Game

Grades 3-12

Have you ever been an eyewitness to a crime? Is your memory of the crime the same as other people's recollection? Here is a way to explore eyewitness memory. Plan to have someone (a teacher or a student) come into your class. Let's call this person, "X". X should plan on doing several things in class such as:

Change the time on the clock

Take a book and put it in a bag

Erase the chalkboard

Close a window

Talk to someone

Before X comes into the room, have all of the students working or reading at their desks. When X comes into the room, most of the students will be curious about what he or she is doing. After X leaves the room, have the students write down all the things that happened. (You can do this immediately after X leaves or sometime later). Once everyone has finished writing, find out what everyone remembers and what they did not.

What details do they recall? What did X wear? How long was X in the room? What book did X take? Who did X talk to? What did X say? You may even ask some leading questions to influence memory. For example, if X was not wearing a hat, ask, "What color hat was X wearing?". Compare how everyone's memory was the same and different.

Materials:

False Memories

Grades 3-12

Sometimes your brain makes up its own memories. Try to "implant" a memory by asking people to remember the words on list 1. Wait about five minutes, then probe their memory by asking them which words on list 2 they remember.

List 1: read, pages, letters, school, study, reading, stories, sheets, cover, pen, pencil, magazine, paper, words

List 2: house, pencil, apple, shoe, book, flag, rock, train, ocean, hill, music, water, glass, school

Did they say that "book" was on list 1? Only pencil and school were on list 1.

Try these words:

List 1: sheets, pillow, mattress, blanket, comfortable, room, dream, lay, chair, rest, tired, night, dark, time

List 2: door, tree, eye, song, pillow, juice, orange, radio, rain, car, sleep, cat, dream, eat

Did they say that "sleep" was on list 1? Only pillow and dream were on list 1.

Make up your own lists and see if you can create a false memory.

Materials:

Concentration

Grades K-12

Have you played the "game of concentration?" Get a deck of playing cards (cards with pictures work well too). Get 15 matched pairs of cards...so a total of 30 cards. Mix up the 30 cards and then arrange them FACE DOWN in a 6 by 5 grid. Play starts by having one player turn over 2 cards. If the number or picture of the 2 cards is the same, the player picks up these 2 cards and turns over 2 more. If the 2 cards are not the same, the cards are turned back face down in the same place they were and it is the next player's turn. The object of the game is to remember where similar cards are located and to pick up as many pairs as possible. The winner of the game is the one who has the most cards at the end of the game. To make the game more difficult, use the whole deck of cards (26 matched pairs).

Materials:

On-line Brain Concentration Game and Sensory Concentration Game

Grades K-12

Test your memory with this on-line concentration game by locating the matching brains of different animals and matching the senses. These games require that your browser is "JAVA-enabled."
PLAY BRAIN CONCENTRATION PLAY SENSORY CONCENTRATION
The Memory Game

Grades 3-12

How good is your memory? I will present you with a table of 25 different objects. Look at them for 30 seconds, then close the object window to return to this page. Then write down all the objects that you can remember.

Here are the 25 objects.

How did you do? How many did you remember? Try some of the memory techniques (see below) and see if you do better.

Materials:

There's a Chunk

Grades 3-12

Does this chunking really work? Find out. Get a partner. Tell your partner that you are going to read some numbers and you want him or her to remember as many as possible. Don't tell your partner how many numbers or what range they will be in. Read these numbers in the following order at a rate of about 1 every second:

9 1 5 11 2 4 6 15 10 3 7 13 12 8 14

Immediately ask your partner to write down the numbers he or she remembers. Now tell your partner that you will read another set of numbers and you want him or her to remember them. Read these numbers in the following order at a rate of about 1 every second:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Immediately ask your partner to write down the numbers he or she remembers. Was the second time easier? Did your partner remember more numbers the second time? Both sets of numbers are exactly the same...it is just that the second one can really be "chunked" into 1...one series of numbers that is easy to remember.

More memory tricks and mnemonics from "Mind Tools"

A Trip to Memory Market

Grades K-6

Write a story about a trip to the grocery store. In the story include many food items (10-20 items) that you bought. Read your story to the class and see how many items they can remember. Use the memory tricks and tips (see below) to increase the number of items that can be remembered.

Materials:

Phone It!

Grades K-6

Look up a random phone number in the phone book. Take about one minute to memorize the phone number. Can you remember it 5 minutes later? 1 hour later? 6 hours later? The next day?

Materials:

Grocery Store

Grades K-6

Here is another grocery store game, called "Grocery Store" how original).

Get everyone together. The first player starts the grocery list by saying "I went to the grocery story and bought some ____." The player should fill in the blank with an item from the grocery store. For example, the player could say "I went to the grocery story and bought some apples." The next player must repeat the list and add a second item. For example, the second player can say, "I went to the grocery store and bought some apples and a bag of potato chips." The third player must create a list using apples, bag of chips and add a third item. The game continues until someone forgets one of the items.

Materials:

Now or Later - The "Recency/Primary" Effect

Grades 6-12

Here is a memory experiment that requires a group of subjects to test. Get 5 or more friends to serve as your experimental subjects. Tell them that you will read a list of 20 words and that their job is to remember as many of the words as possible. Read the following list of 20 words at a rate of 1 word every second. Ask your subjects to write down the words that they can remember immediately after you finish reading the list.

Here is the list of words:

cat apple ball tree square head house door box car king hammer milk fish book tape arrow flower key shoe

Now analyze the results of your memory study. You can collect the lists of words that your subjects wrote or you can just ask them which words that they remembered.

Find out if there was better recall of any particular words on your list.

Was there better recall of words that were read first or last?

To do this assign a "position" to each word that you read. So, "cat" was word #1, apple was word #2, ball was word #3,....,shoe was word #20. Calculate the percent of recall for each word. For example, if you had 10 subjects and 7 of them remembered the word "cat", then "cat" (word #1) had a percent recall of 70%. Calculate the percent of recall for each of the 20 words.

Now plot your results: the X-axis will be word position and the Y-axis will be % recall. Do you see a pattern? Does is look anything at all like this figure?:

The results of this kind of experiment usually result in a graph similar to this one. This kind of graph is called a "serial-position curve." Words read first and words read last are remembered better than words read in the middle of a list.

This type of experiment provides evidence that there are 2 types of memory processes. It is thought that memory is good for the words read last because they are still in short term memory - this is the recency effect. Memory is good for the words read first because they made it into long term memory - this is the primacy effect.

It is also possible that some words in the list were very easy to recall for other reasons. For example, if your teacher just dropped a hammer on his or her toe, then everyone may find that the word "hammer" was easy to remember. Or perhaps, the last name of someone in the group of subjects is "King", then everyone would remember the word "king".

You can try this experiment again with a slight twist. Ask a new set of subjects to remember the same set of words. However, immediately after you finish reading the list, DISTRACT your subjects by having them count backwards from 100 by threes (100, 97, 94, 91, etc) for about 15-30 seconds. Plot your serial position curve again. Do you see any changes? Usually, distraction causes people to forget the words at the end of the list. Did it happen to your subjects?

A Head for Numbers

Grades 1-12

Can you remember a long string of numbers? Try this game with a group of people. The first person says a one digit number; the next person says this first number and adds another number; the third person says the first and second numbers and adds a third number; the fourth person repeats the first three numbers and adds a fourth number. The game continues until someone forgets one of the numbers in the string. Of course, one person needs to be the recorder who keeps track of the numbers and stops the game when a number is forgotten.

Concrete Words, Abstract Words and Just Plain Nonsense

Grades 6-12

The ability to recall a word depends on how meaningful the word is to a person. Along with the meaningfulness of a word, the "concreteness" of a word is important for memory. Concreteness refers the ability of a word to form a mental image. A word with high concreteness is easy to "see"; a word with low concreteness (an "abstract" word) is difficult to visualize.

Here are three lists of words: concrete words, abstract words and nonsense words. See which list is easier to memorize. You could also read these lists to other people to see how many words from each list they remember.

Concrete Words

alligator - apple - arrow - baby - bird - book - butterfly - car - corn - flower - hammer - house - money - microscope - ocean - pencil - rock - shoes - table - window

Abstract Words

anger - belief - boredom - chance - concept - effort - fate - freedom - glory - happiness - honor - hope - idea - interest - knowledge - mercy - mood - moral - theory - truth

Nonsense Words

ator - botam - crov - difim - firap - glimoc - ricul- hilnim - jolib - kepwin - leptav - lumal - mib - natpem - peyrim - rispaw - stiwin - tubiv - vopec - yapib

The concrete words and abstract words were scored as having high and low concreteness, respectively, in a paper by A. Paivio, J.C. Yuille and S.A. Madigan, Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Monograph Suppl., vol. 76, no.1, part 2, pages 1-25, 1968.

Memory Methods and Techniques

After you learn some of these methods, try to memorize a list of words. See if you can remember the list the next day. How many can you remember the next week!

Technique 1: Visualize It! - Visualization

When you have an item to remember, "see" it in your mind. The more absurd you make the image the more likely you are to remember it. For example, if you go to the mall and park the car on the level C in space #5, you might imagine that there are 5 Cats waiting in your car for your return. The Cats is for the level "C"; the 5 of course is for the space #5.

Technique 2: Chain It! - Chaining

Chaining is a form of visualizing, but now you might have to remember several items in order. This time you must link the items together by thinking of images that connect them. While a grocery list does not necessarily have to be remembered in order (although it sometimes helps to find things faster), let's use it as an example: milk, bread, eggs, cheese, orange juice. Now, chain them with images:

A carton of milk pouring onto bread.

A sandwich (the bread) with raw eggs on it.

Eggs stuck in the holes of a Swiss cheese.

Pieces of cheese hanging from an orange tree.

TRY IT!

Here is a longer list of words to try:

shoe - piano - tree - pencil - bird - bus - book - dog - pizza - flower - basketball - door - TV - rabbit - spoon - eye - chair - house - computer - rock

You may find that bizarre and wild associations are easy to remember. Here is an example of chaining for the first three words (shoe - piano - tree) of this list.

Technique 3: Place It! - The Method of Loci

Location, Location, Location. Devised during the Roman Empire, the method of loci uses the chaining method with a twist. Now all the items to-be-remembered are linked to specific places in the order you would visit them. For example, you might think of the route you take to school:

Your room (you wake up)

Your kitchen (you have breakfast)

Front door of your house

Bus stop

Bus seat

Friend's house that you see from the bus

Gas Station that you see from the bus

Market that you see from the bus

School

Now you must link the items that you want remembered to each of these places. You have to remember the places first, of course, but this should be easy. Then chain each item to the places...remember, the more wild your idea the better. Using the grocery store example again: milk pouring on you in your room, bread that you can't get out of the toaster (kitchen), eggs splattered on your front door, etc.

Technique 4: Chunk It! - Chunking

Ever wonder why phone numbers are really one 3 digit number and one 4 digit number and NOT one 7 digit number. It's 999-9999, not 9999999. Or what about those social security numbers. It's 999-99-9999, not 999999999. They are a lot easy to remember in small chunks. Remembering things is easier when they are in pieces.

Technique 5: Acrostic It! - Those Catchy Phrases

An acrostic is a phrase that uses the first letter of a word to remember it. In neuroanatomy, one of the most familiar ones is:

On Old Olympus Towering Top A Famous Vocal German Viewed Some Hops.

"What does this mean", you ask. Well, the first letters of each of these words in this little phrase stand for the first letters of each of the cranial nerves, in order:

Olfactory nerve (I), Optic nerve (II), Oculomotor nerve (III), Trochlear nerve (IV), Trigeminal nerve (V), Abducens nerve (VI), Facial nerve (VII), Vestibulocochlear (VIII), Glossopharyngeal nerve (IX), Vagus nerve (X), Spinal accessory nerve (XI), Hypoglossal nerve (XII).

Here's another one:

My Very Early Morning Jam Sandwich Usually Nauseates People

OR

My Very Excellent Mom Just Served Us Nine Pizzas

These two phrases represent the order of planets from the Sun:

Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto

One last one...do you know the order of colors in a rainbow? Just remember this person's name: Roy G. Biv

R=red; O=orange Y=yellow G=green B=blue; I=indigo V=violet

Learning

Simply "A-maze-ing"

Grades K-6

Let's see if we can demonstrate some fast learning.

Print out (or download) any of these mazes:

(Click on the maze, then "save" the big maze or just print it out). Get at least 3 copies of each maze. When you have the maze, have a friend keep track of the amount of time it takes you to complete the maze...go from "START" to "FINISH" on the maze. Record the amount of time it takes you. Then, do the SAME maze over again on a new copy of the same maze. Record the amount of time it takes you to complete it. Then do it a third time and even a fourth time if you want. Does it take you less time to complete the maze on the second, third and fourth time? I hope so...you are learning!! By the way, you could do this same experiment with a jigsaw puzzle.

Materials:

The Space Place

Grades 3-12

This experiment involves BOTH memory and learning. Get a small object like a ball, book, block or even a crumpled up piece of paper. Put a blindfold on your subject. Place the small object on the floor about 10 feet away from your subject, but don't tell your subject where it is. Tell your subject that he or she must find the object on the floor when you say "GO". When you do say "GO", start a stopwatch and measure the amount of time it takes your subject to find the object. Don't let your subject get too far away from the object and don't let your subject bump into anything dangerous, but let your subject find the object without too much help. Once your subject has found the object, stop the stopwatch and record the amount of time it took to find the object.

Repeat your experiment with the same subject. Bring your subject back to the exact same spot where you started and place the object in the exact same spot as it was the first time. Say, "GO" and start your stopwatch again. Did your subject take less time to find the object? You may want to repeat the test several more times and plot the amount of time it took to find the object for the different times you ran the test. Do you see a decrease in the amount of time to find the object in later tests? What would happen if you tested the same subject the next day?

Materials:

Small object (such as a ball or book)

A stopwatch or clock with a second hand

Pencil and paper to record times

Concentration Game - Learning

Grades 3-12

Have one person (the "setter") set up matched pairs of playing card like in the concentration game. Have this person "map" where each of the cards was located at the start of the game. Have another person (the player) play the concentration game as fast as he can. Time how long it takes the player to finish the game. Record the time. Have the setter, use the map and place the cards back in their original positions. So the cards will be in exactly the same locations for the second game. Have the player match the cards again and record the time. Reset the cards and play again. Play a few more times...does the time it takes to finish the game get shorter?

Materials:

Shape Up!

Grades 3-12

Have you ever wondered how they train animals to do tricks in the circus or on TV? One way that trainers teach animals to learn new things is through a method called shaping. This technique involves reinforcing each behavior that looks like the final act you want. In other words, the trainer gives the animal a treat each time the animal does something that looks like the final behavior.

Now it's your turn to shape a friend. First, get a collection of "treats"...these could be little candies or pennies or buttons. Without telling your friend the exact behavior you would like to see, just say that you will give him or her a treat when they do the right thing. The FINAL right thing may be to turn off a light or pick up a pencil or open a book.

Let's say the final behavior you are looking for is to have your friend turn off a light. Start giving treats when your friend gets up. Give another when your friend starts to walk. Give another one when your friend gets close to the light. Give another when your friend touches the light. Give another when your friend turns off the light. Do not give treats for behaviors that are not related to turning off the light.

You can shape almost any behavior as long as your friend is interested in getting the treat.

Motor Learning

Grades 3-12

Use this easy-to-build device to test motor learning. It's like the old "operation" game. Follow the diagram below to build the wire maze. Your wire maze must be a material that is electrically conductive. A coat hanger works as long as it does not have any paint on it. Attach a loop of a hanger to a wire, then attach the wire to the battery. Attach the battery (9 volt) to the buzzer (or light) using wire. Attach the buzzer to the wire maze using more wire.

Thread the loop of the metal hanger through the wire maze. Measure the time it takes to get from one end of the maze to the other. Also count the number of errors (buzzes) during each trial. Go through the maze several times and plot the amount of time and number of errors vs. the trial number on a graph.

Materials:

9 Volt battery

Buzzer or small DC powered light

Hanger (for the maze and the loop)

Wire (to create an electrical circuit)

Wood Holder (or other material to hold the maze)

Stopwatch

More Resources

Memory: A five-day unit lesson plan for high school psychology teachers from the Teachers of Psychology in Secondary Schools (American Psychological Association, 2013).

Copyright © 1996-2017, Eric H. Chudler All Rights Reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here are some experiments and games to test your memory. Also, don't forget that there are some memory tricks and techniques at the end of this section! Grades K-12 Think you have a good memory? Then take this little Short Term Memory Test.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UDL Guidelines are a tool used in the implementation of Universal Design for Learning, a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn. Learn more about the Universal Design for Learning framework from CAST. The UDL Guidelines can be used by educators, curriculum developers, researchers, parents, and anyone else who wants to implement the UDL framework in a learning environment. These guidelines offer a set of concrete suggestions that can be applied to any discipline or domain to ensure that all learners can access and participate in meaningful, challenging learning opportunities.

Reenvisioning the UDL Guidelines

Because the UDL Guidelines are meant to be informed by feedback from the field as well as new research, they have been updated several times in the past. We are in the process of updating the Guidelines once again in our UDL Rising to Equity initiative.

This update will focus specifically on addressing systemic barriers that result in inequitable learning opportunities and outcomes. CAST aims to develop a transparent, inclusive, and community-driven process. If you are interested in collaborating and staying updated on our progress, we invite you to complete a brief survey.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UDL Guidelines are a tool used in the implementation of Universal Design for Learning, a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn. Learn more about the Universal Design for Learning framework from CAST. The UDL Guidelines can be used by educators, curriculum developers, researchers, parents, and anyone else who wants to implement the UDL framework in a learning environment. These guidelines offer a set of concrete suggestions that can be applied to any discipline or domain to ensure that all learners can access and participate in meaningful, challenging learning opportunities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's more than a mailing list, it's a movement.

Your support and voice can help change the trajectory of generations of children and families.

Center for Youth Wellness is not a crisis center. Those experiencing urgent medical or psychiatric concerns should dial 911 or their local emergency agency for assistance. We are unable to respond to messages requesting referrals, treatment or clinical consultations from individuals who are not our patients.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ACE-Q Materials - Center for Youth Wellness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thank you for your interest in our ACE-Q materials and for your support in our mission to improve the health of children and adolescents exposed to Adverse Childhood Experiences. Please find the user guide and ACE-Q materials in English and Spanish below: ACE-Q User Guide ACE-Q CHILD ACE-Q TEEN ACE-Q TEEN (self-report) Materials in Spanish: ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory posits that an individual's development is influenced by a series of interconnected environmental systems, ranging from the immediate surroundings (e.g., family) to broad societal structures (e.g., culture).

These systems include the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem, each representing different levels of environmental influences on an individual's growth and behavior.

Background

American psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner was critical of previous theories of child development.

He argued that studies of children in unfamiliar laboratory environments with one other person, usually a stranger, were ecologically invalid (See Mary Ainsworth's 1970 experiment of the ' Strange Situation ').

Bronfenbrenner (1974) claimed most earlier studies were 'unidirectional,' meaning that the laboratory studies observed the influence of A on B (e.g., a stranger/mother with a child) rather than looking at the possible influence of the child on the stranger/mother, or any other third party's influence.

Bronfenbrenner maintained that these laboratory features of research are not characteristic of environments that children actually live and develop in.

Bronfenbrenner recognized multiple aspects of a developing child's life interact with and affects the child. His work looked beyond individual development, taking into account wider influencing factors and the context (or ecology) of development.

He proposed the 'Ecological Systems Theory' based on these dynamic interactions that the environments have on the developing child.

Bronfenbrenner's (1974) perspective has some resemblance to the works of Albert Bandura's social learning theory and Lev Vygotsky's sociocultural theory in which the environment is explicitly or implicitly considered as a crucial mechanism in development.

The Five Ecological Systems

Bronfenbrenner (1977) suggested that the child's environment is a nested arrangement of structures, each contained within the next. He organized them in order of how much of an impact they have on a child.

He named these structures the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and the chronosystem.

Because the five systems are interrelated, the influence of one system on a child's development depends on its relationship with the others.

The Microsystem

The microsystem is the ﬁrst level of Bronfenbrenner's theory and are the things that have direct contact with the child in their immediate environment, such as parents, siblings, teachers, and school peers.

Relationships in a microsystem are bi-directional, meaning other people can influence the child in their environment and change other people's beliefs and actions.

Furthermore, the child's reactions to individuals in their microsystem can influence how they treat them in return.

The interactions within microsystems are often very personal and are crucial for fostering and supporting the child's development.

If a child has a strong nurturing relationship with their parents, this is said to positively affect the child. Whereas distant and unaffectionate parents may hurt the child.

The Mesosystem

The mesosystem encompasses the interactions between the child's microsystems, such as the interactions between the child's parents and teachers or between school peers and siblings.

The mesosystem is where a person's individual microsystems do not function independently, but are interconnected and assert inﬂuence upon one another.

For instance, if a child's parents communicate with the child's teachers, this interaction may influence the child's development. Essentially, a mesosystem is a system of microsystems.

According to the ecological systems theory, if the child's parents and teachers get along and have a good relationship, this should have positive effects on the child's development, compared to negative effects on development if the teachers and parents do not get along.

The Exosystem

The exosystem is a component of the ecological systems theory developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner in the 1970s.

It incorporates other formal and informal social structures, which do not themselves contain the child but indirectly influence them as these social structures affect one of the microsystems.

Examples of exosystems include the neighborhood, parents' workplaces, parents' friends, and the mass media. These are environments in which the child is not involved and are external to their experience but nonetheless affect them anyway.

An instance of exosystems affecting the child's development could be if one of the parents had a dispute with their boss at work.

The parent may come home and have a short temper with the child as a result of something which happened in the workplace, which may result in a negative effect on development.

The Macrosystem

The macrosystem is a component of Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory that focuses on how cultural elements affect a child's development, such as socioeconomic status, wealth, poverty, and ethnicity.

Thus, the culture that individuals are immersed within may influence their beliefs and perceptions about events that transpire in life.

The macrosystem differs from the previous ecosystems as it does not refer to the specific environments of one developing child, but the already established society and culture in which the child is developing in.

This can also include the socioeconomic status, ethnicity, geographic location, and ideologies of the culture.

For example, a child living in a third-world country would experience a different development than a child living in a wealthier country.

The Chronosystem

The fifth and final level of Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory is known as the chronosystem.

This system consists of all the environmental changes that influence development over the lifetime, including major life transitions and historical events.

These can include normal life transitions, such as starting school, and non-normative life transitions, such as parents getting divorced or having to move to a new house.

The Bioecological Model

It is important to note that Bronfenbrenner (1994) later revised his theory and instead named it the 'Bioecological model'.

Bronfenbrenner became more concerned with the proximal development processes, meaning the enduring and persistent forms of interaction in the immediate environment.

His focus shifted from environmental influences to developmental processes individuals experience over time.

'...development takes place through the process of progressively more complex reciprocal interactions between an active, evolving biopsychological human organism and the persons, objects, and symbols in its immediate external environment.' (Bronfenbrenner, 1995).

Bronfenbrenner also suggested that to understand the effect of these proximal processes on development, we have to focus on the person, context, and developmental outcome, as these processes vary and affect people differently (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000).

Critical Evaluation

Bronfenbrenner's model quickly became very appealing and accepted as a useful framework for psychologists, sociologists, and teachers studying child development.

The Ecological Systems Theory provides a holistic approach that is inclusive of all the systems children and their families are involved in, accurately reflecting the dynamic nature of actual family relationships (Hayes & O'Toole, 2017).

Paat (2013) considers how Bronfenbrenner's theory is useful when it comes to the development of immigrant children. They suggest that immigrant children's experiences in the various ecological systems are likely to be shaped by their cultural differences. Understanding these children's ecology can aid in strengthening social work service delivery for these children.

A limitation of the Ecological Systems Theory is that there is limited research examining the mesosystems, mainly the interactions between neighborhoods and the family of the child (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Therefore, the extent to which these systems can shape child development is unclear.

Another limitation of Bronfenbrenner's theory is that it is difficult to empirically test the theory. The studies investigating the ecological systems may establish an effect, but they cannot establish whether the systems directly cause such effects.

Furthermore, this theory can lead to assumptions that those who do not have strong and positive ecological systems lack in development. Whilst this may be true in some cases, many people can still develop into well-rounded individuals without positive influences from their ecological systems.

For instance, it is not true to say that all people who grow up in poverty-stricken areas of the world will develop negatively. Similarly, if a child's teachers and parents do not get along, some children may not experience any negative effects if it does not concern them.

As a result, people need to avoid making broad assumptions about individuals using this theory.

Bronfenbrenner's Theory in the 21st Century

The world has greatly changed since this theory was introduced regarding technological developments.

The exosystem of a child could be expanded to consider influences from social media, video gaming, and other modern-day interactions within the ecological system.

This could suggest that the ecological systems are still valid but may expand over time to include new modern developments.

Kelly and Coughlan (2019) used constructivist grounded theory analysis to develop a theoretical framework for youth mental health recovery and found that there were many links to Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory in their own more recent theory.

Their theory suggested that the components of mental health recovery are embedded in the 'ecological context of influential relationships,' which fits in with Bronfenbrenner's theory that the ecological systems of the young person, such as peers, family, and school, all help mental health development.

Classroom Application

The Ecological Systems Theory has been used to link psychological and educational theory to early educational curriculums and practice. The developing child is at the center of the theory, and all that occurs within and between the five ecological systems are done to benefit the child in the classroom.

According to the theory, teachers and parents should maintain good communication with each other and work together to benefit the child to strengthen the development of the ecological systems in educational practice.

Teachers should also be understanding of the situations their student's families may be experiencing, including social and economic factors that are part of the various systems.

According to the theory, if parents and teachers have a good relationship, this should positively shape the child's development.

Likewise, the child must be active in their learning, both academically and socially. They must collaborate with their peers and participate in meaningful learning experiences to enable positive development (Evans, 2012).

Empirical Evidence

There are lots of studies that have investigated the effects of the school environment on students. Below are some examples:

Lippard, LA Paro, Rouse, and Crosby (2017) conducted a study to test Bronfenbrenner's theory. They investigated the teacher-child relationships through teacher reports and classroom observations.

They found that these relationships were significantly related to children's academic achievement and classroom behavior, suggesting that these relationships are important for children's development and supports the Ecological Systems Theory.

Wilson et al. (2002) found that creating a positive school environment, through a school ethos valuing diversity has a positive effect on students' relationships within the school. Incorporating this kind of school ethos influences those within the developing child's ecological systems.

Langford et al. (2014) found that whole-school approaches to the health curriculum can positively improve educational achievement and student well-being. Thus, the development of the students is being affected by the microsystems.

Frequently Asked Questions

References

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of childhood. Child development, 45 (1), 1-5.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American psychologist, 32 (7), 513.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings . Social development, 9 (1), 115-125.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualised: A bio-ecological model. Psychological Review, 10 (4), 568-586.

Hayes, N., O'Toole, L., & Halpenny, A. M. (2017). Introducing Bronfenbrenner: A guide for practitioners and students in early years education. Taylor & Francis.

Kelly, M., & Coughlan, B. (2019). A theory of youth mental health recovery from a parental perspective. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 24 (2), 161-169.

Langford, R., Bonell, C. P., Jones, H. E., Pouliou, T., Murphy, S. M., Waters, E., Komro, A. A., Gibbs, L. F., Magnus, D. & Campbell, R. (2014). The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well‐being of students and their academic achievement. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, (4).

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (2), 309.

Lippard, C. N., La Paro, K. M., Rouse, H. L., & Crosby, D. A. (2018, February). A closer look at teacher-child relationships and classroom emotional context in preschool. In Child & Youth Care Forum 47(1), 1-21.

Paat, Y. F. (2013). Working with immigrant children and their families: An application of Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23 (8), 954-966.

Rhodes, S. (2013). Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Theory [PDF]. Retrieved from http://uoit.blackboard.com

Wilson, P., Atkinson, M., Hornby, G., Thompson, M., Cooper, M., Hooper, C. M., & Southall, A. (2002). Young minds in our schools-a guide for teachers and others working in schools. Year: YoungMinds (Jan 2004).

Further Information
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of childhood. Child Development, 45.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory posits that an individual's development is influenced by a series of interconnected environmental systems, ranging from the immediate surroundings (e.g., family) to broad societal structures (e.g., culture). These systems include the Microsystem, Mesosystem, Exosystem, Macrosystem, and Chronosystem, each representing different levels of environmental influences on an individual's growth and behavior.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Robert J. Sternberg - Successful Intelligence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Key Takeaways

Lawrence Kohlberg formulated a theory asserting that individuals progress through six distinct stages of moral reasoning from infancy to adulthood.

He grouped these stages into three broad categories of moral reasoning, pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Each level is associated with increasingly complex stages of moral development.

Kohlberg suggested that people move through these stages in a fixed order and that moral understanding is linked to cognitive development.

Heinz Dilemma

Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) agreed with Piaget's (1932) theory of moral development in principle but wanted to develop his ideas further.

He used Piaget's storytelling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas. In each case, he presented a choice to be considered, for example, between the rights of some authority and the needs of some deserving individual unfairly treated.

After presenting people with various moral dilemmas, Kohlberg categorized their responses into different stages of moral reasoning.

Using children's responses to a series of moral dilemmas, Kohlberg established that the reasoning behind the decision was a greater indication of moral development than the actual answer.

One of the best-known of Kohlberg's (1958) stories concerns a man called Heinz who lived somewhere in Europe.

Heinz's wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might save her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist, and the Heinz tried desperately to buy some, but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug, and this was much more than the Heinz could afford.

Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He explained to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug cheaper or pay the rest of the money later.

The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make money from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke into the chemist's and stole the drug.

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:

1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug?

2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?

3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?

4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman dies?

By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions, Kohlberg hoped to discover how moral reasoning changed as people grew older.

The sample comprised 72 Chicago boys aged 10-16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20 years (Kohlberg, 1984).

Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas. Kohlberg was interested not in whether the boys judged the action right or wrong but in the reasons for the decision. He found that these reasons tended to change as the children got older.

Kohlberg identified three levels of moral reasoning: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Each level has two sub-stages.

People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages.

Preconventional
1. Avoiding Punishment

Moral reasoning is based on direct consequences.

Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is illegal, and he could be punished.

2. Self-Interest

Actions are seen in terms of rewards rather than moral value.

Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is illegal, and he could be punished.

Conventional
3. Good boy attitude

Good behavior is about living up to social expectations and roles.

Heinz should steal the drug because, as a good husband, he is expected to do whatever he can to save his wife.

4. Law & Order Morality

Moral reasoning considers societal laws.

Heinz should not steal the drug because he must uphold the law and maintain societal order.

Postconventional
5. Social Contract

Rules are seen as social agreements that can be changed when necessary.

Heinz should steal the drug because preserving human life is a more fundamental value than property rights.

6. Universal Principles

Moral reasoning is based on universal ethical principles and justice.

Heinz should consider non-violent civil disobedience or negotiation with the pharmacist. The decision reflects a conflict between property rights and the sanctity of human life.

Level 1 - Preconventional Morality

Preconventional morality is the first level of moral development, lasting until approximately age 8. During this level, children accept the authority (and moral code) of others.

Preconventional morality is when people follow rules because they don't want to get in trouble or they want to get a reward. This level of morality is mostly based on what authority figures like parents or teachers tell you to do rather than what you think is right or wrong.

Authority is outside the individual, and children often make moral decisions based on the physical consequences of actions.

For example, if an action leads to punishment, it must be bad; if it leads to a reward, it must be good.

So, people at this level don't have their own personal sense of right and wrong yet. They think that something is good if they get rewarded for it and bad if they get punished for it.

For example, if you get candy for behaving, you think you were good, but if you get a scolding for misbehaving, you think you were bad.

At the preconventional level, children don't have a personal code of morality. Instead, moral decisions are shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules.

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good to avoid being punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong.

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage, children recognize that there is not just one right view handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.

Level 2 - Conventional Morality

Conventional morality is the adolescent phase of moral development focused on societal norms and external expectations to discern right from wrong, often grounded in tradition, cultural practices, or established codes of conduct.

We internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models at the conventional level (most adolescents and adults).

Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the group's norms to which the person belongs.

A social system that stresses the responsibilities of relationships and social order is seen as desirable and must influence our view of right and wrong.

So, people who follow conventional morality believe that it's important to follow society's rules and expectations to maintain order and prevent problems.

For example, refusing to cheat on a test is a part of conventional morality because cheating can harm the academic system and create societal problems.

Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of others.

Stage 4. Law and Order Morality. The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society, so judgments concern obeying the rules to uphold the law and avoid guilt.

Level 3 - Postconventional Morality

Postconventional morality is the third level of moral development and is characterized by an individual's understanding of universal ethical principles.

Postconventional morality is when people decide based on what they think is right rather than just following the rules of society. This means that people at this level of morality have their own ethical principles and values and don't just do what society tells them to do.

At this level, people think about what is fair, what is just, and what values are important.

What is considered morally acceptable in any given situation is determined by what is the response most in keeping with these principles.

They also think about how their choices might affect others and try to make good decisions for everyone, not just themselves.

Values are abstract and ill-defined but might include: the preservation of life at all costs and the importance of human dignity. Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice.

According to Kohlberg, this level of moral reasoning is as far as most people get.

Only 10-15% are capable of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-conventional morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around them, and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals.

The issues are not always clear-cut. For example, in Heinz's dilemma, the protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing.

Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines, which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone. E.g., human rights, justice, and equality.

The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment.

Kohlberg doubted few people had reached this stage.

Problems with Kohlberg's Methods

1. The dilemmas are artificial (i.e., they lack ecological validity)

Most dilemmas are unfamiliar to most people (Rosen, 1980). For example, it is all very well in the Heinz dilemma, asking subjects whether Heinz should steal the drug to save his wife.

However, Kohlberg's subjects were aged between 10 and 16. They have never been married, and never been placed in a situation remotely like the one in the story.

How should they know whether Heinz should steal the drug?

2. The sample is biased

Kohlberg's (1969) theory suggested males more frequently progress beyond stage four in moral development, implying females lacked moral reasoning skills.

His research assistant, Carol Gilligan, disputed this, who argued that women's moral reasoning differed, not deficient.

She criticized Kohlberg's theory for focusing solely on upper-class white males, arguing women value interpersonal connections. For instance, women often oppose theft in the Heinz dilemma due to potential repercussions, such as separation from his wife if Heinz is imprisoned.

Gilligan (1982) conducted new studies interviewing both men and women, finding women more often emphasized care, relationships and context rather than abstract rules. Gilligan argued that Kohlberg's theory overlooked this relational "different voice" in morality.

According to Gilligan (1977), because Kohlberg's theory was based on an all-male sample, the stages reflect a male definition of morality (it's androcentric).

Men's morality is based on abstract principles of law and justice, while women's is based on principles of compassion and care.

Further, the gender bias issue raised by Gilligan is a reminder of the significant gender debate still present in psychology, which, when ignored, can greatly impact the results obtained through psychological research.

3. The dilemmas are hypothetical (i.e., they are not real)

Kohlberg's approach to studying moral reasoning relied heavily on his semi-structured moral judgment interview. Participants were presented with hypothetical moral dilemmas, and their justifications were analyzed to determine their stage of moral reasoning.

Some critiques of Kohlberg's method are that it lacks ecological validity, removes reasoning from real-life contexts, and defines morality narrowly in terms of justice reasoning.

Psychologists concur with Kohlberg's moral development theory, yet emphasize the difference between moral reasoning and behavior.

What we claim we'd do in a hypothetical situation often differs from our actions when faced with the actual circumstance. In essence, our actions might not align with our proclaimed values.

In a real situation, what course of action a person takes will have real consequences - and sometimes very unpleasant ones for themselves. Would subjects reason in the same way if they were placed in a real situation? We don't know.

The fact that Kohlberg's theory is heavily dependent on an individual's response to an artificial dilemma questions the validity of the results obtained through this research.

People may respond very differently to real-life situations that they find themselves in than they do to an artificial dilemma presented to them in the comfort of a research environment.

4. Poor research design

How Kohlberg carried out his research when constructing this theory may not have been the best way to test whether all children follow the same sequence of stage progression.

His research was cross-sectional, meaning that he interviewed children of different ages to see their moral development level.

A better way to see if all children follow the same order through the stages would be to conduct longitudinal research on the same children.

However, longitudinal research on Kohlberg's theory has since been carried out by Colby et al. (1983), who tested 58 male participants of Kohlberg's original study.

She tested them six times in 27 years and supported Kohlberg's original conclusion, which is that we all pass through the stages of moral development in the same order.

Contemporary research employs more diverse methods beyond Kohlberg's interview approach, such as narrative analysis, to study moral experience. These newer methods aim to understand moral reasoning and development within authentic contexts and experiences.

Tappan and colleagues (1996) promote a narrative approach that examines how individuals construct stories and identities around moral experiences. This draws from the sociocultural tradition of examining identity in context. Tappan argues narrative provides a more contextualized understanding of moral development.

Colby and Damon's (1992) empirical research uses in-depth life story interviews to study moral exemplars - people dedicated to moral causes. Instead of hypothetical dilemmas, they ask participants to describe real moral challenges and commitments. Their goal is to respect exemplars as co-investigators of moral meaning-making.

Walker and Pitts' (1995) studies use open-ended interviews asking people to discuss real-life moral dilemmas and reflect on the moral domain in their own words. This elicits more naturalistic conceptions of morality compared to Kohlberg's abstract decontextualized approach.

Problems with Kohlberg's Theory

1. Are there distinct stages of moral development?

Kohlberg claims there are, but the evidence does not always support this conclusion.

For example, a person who justified a decision based on principled reasoning in one situation (postconventional morality stage 5 or 6) would frequently fall back on conventional reasoning (stage 3 or 4) with another story.

In practice, it seems that reasoning about right and wrong depends more on the situation than on general rules. Moreover, individuals do not always progress through the stages, and Rest (1979) found that one in fourteen slipped backward.

The evidence for distinct stages of moral development looks very weak. Some would argue that behind the theory is a culturally biased belief in the superiority of American values over those of other cultures and societies.

Gilligan (1982) did not dismiss developmental psychology or morality. She acknowledged that children undergo moral development in stages and even praised Kohlberg's stage logic as "brilliant" (Jorgensen, 2006, p. 186). However, she preferred Erikson's model over the more rigid Piagetian stages.

While Gilligan supported Kohlberg's stage theory as rational, she expressed discomfort with its structural descriptions that lacked context.

She also raised concerns about the theory's universality, pointing out that it primarily reflected Western culture (Jorgensen, 2006, pp. 187-188).

Neo-Kohlbergian Schema Model

Rest and colleagues (199) have developed a theoretical model building on but moving beyond Kohlberg's stage-based approach to moral development. Their model outlines four components of moral behavior: moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral character.

For the moral judgment component, Rest et al. propose that individuals use moral schemas rather than progress through discrete stages of moral reasoning.

Schemas are generalized knowledge structures that help us interpret information and situations. An individual can have multiple schemas available to make sense of moral issues, rather than being constrained to a single developmental stage.

Some examples of moral schemas proposed by Rest and colleagues include:

Personal Interest Schema - focused on individual interests and preferences

Maintaining Norms Schema - emphasizes following rules and norms

Postconventional Schema - considers moral ideals and principles

Rather than viewing development as movement to higher reasoning stages, the neo-Kohlbergian approach sees moral growth as acquiring additional, more complex moral schemas. Lower schemas are not replaced, but higher order moral schemas become available to complement existing ones.

The schema concept attempts to address critiques of the stage model, such as its rigidity and lack of context sensitivity. Using schemas allows for greater flexibility and integration of social factors into moral reasoning.

2. Does moral judgment match moral behavior?

Kohlberg never claimed that there would be a one-to-one correspondence between thinking and acting (what we say and what we do), but he does suggest that the two are linked.

However, Bee (1994) suggests that we also need to take into account of:

a) habits that people have developed over time.

b) whether people see situations as demanding their participation.

c) the costs and benefits of behaving in a particular way.

d) competing motive such as peer pressure, self-interest and so on.

Overall, Bee points out that moral behavior is only partly a question of moral reasoning. It also has to do with social factors.

3. Is justice the most fundamental moral principle?

This is Kohlberg's view. However, Gilligan (1977) suggests that the principle of caring for others is equally important. Furthermore, Kohlberg claims that the moral reasoning of males has often been in advance of that of females.

Girls are often found to be at stage 3 in Kohlberg's system (good boy-nice girl orientation), whereas boys are more often found to be at stage 4 (Law and Order orientation). Gilligan (p. 484) replies:

"The very traits that have traditionally defined the goodness of women, their care for and sensitivity to the needs of others, are those that mark them out as deficient in moral development".

In other words, Gilligan claims that there is a sex bias in Kohlberg's theory. He neglects the feminine voice of compassion, love, and non-violence, which is associated with the socialization of girls.

Gilligan concluded that Kohlberg's theory did not account for the fact that women approach moral problems from an 'ethics of care', rather than an 'ethics of justice' perspective, which challenges some of the fundamental assumptions of Kohlberg's theory.

In contrast to Kohlberg's impersonal "ethics of justice", Gilligan proposed an alternative "ethics of care" grounded in compassion and responsiveness to needs within relationships (Gilligan, 1982).

Her care perspective highlights emotion, empathy and understanding over detached logic. Gilligan saw care and justice ethics as complementary moral orientations.

Walker et al. (1995) found everyday moral conflicts often revolve around relationships rather than justice; individuals describe relying more on intuition than moral reasoning in dilemmas. This raises questions about the centrality of reasoning in moral functioning.

4. Do people make rational moral decisions?

Kohlbeg's theory emphasizes rationality and logical decision-making at the expense of emotional and contextual factors in moral decision-making.

One significant criticism is that Kohlberg's emphasis on reason can create an image of the moral person as cold and detached from real-life situations.

Carol Gilligan critiqued Kohlberg's theory as overly rationalistic and not accounting for care-based morality commonly found in women. She argued for a "different voice" grounded in relationships and responsiveness to particular individuals.

The criticism suggests that by portraying moral reasoning as primarily cognitive and detached from emotional and situational factors, Kohlberg's theory oversimplifies real-life moral decision-making, which often involves emotions, social dynamics, cultural nuances, and practical constraints.

Critics contend that his model does not adequately capture the multifaceted nature of morality in the complexities of everyday life.

References

Bee, H. L. (1994). Lifespan development. HarperCollins College Publishers.

Blum, L. A. (1988). Gilligan and Kohlberg: Implications for moral theory. Ethics, 98(3), 472-491.

Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral judgment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 48 (1-2, Serial No. 200). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Day, J. M., & Tappan, M. B. (1996). The narrative approach to moral development: From the epistemic subject to dialogical selves. Human Development, 39(2), 67-82.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women's conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47(4), 481-517.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Harvard University Press.

Gilligan, C. (1995). Hearing the difference: Theorizing connection. Hypatia, 10(2), 120-127.

Jorgensen, G. (2006). Kohlberg and Gilligan: duet or duel?. Journal of Moral Education, 35(2), 179-196.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (Essays on Moral Development, Volume 2). Harper & Row

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. University of Minnesota Press.

Rosen, B. (1980). Moral dilemmas and their treatment. In, Moral development, moral education, and Kohlberg. B. Munsey (Ed). (1980), pp. 232-263. Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press.

Walker, L. J., Pitts, R. C., Hennig, K. H., & Matsuba, M. K. (1995). Reasoning about morality and real-life moral problems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lawrence Kohlberg formulated a theory asserting that individuals progress through six distinct stages of moral reasoning from infancy to adulthood. According to Kohlberg, these stages are grouped into three separate levels known as preconventional, conventional, and post-conventional morality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The process of speech and language development in infants and children is complex and interrelated. For normal communication to develop, there must be an integration of anatomy and physiology of the speech systems, neurological development, and interactions that encourage infants and children for communication attempts. Language development includes both receptive and expressive language. (Owens, 2012) There are four theories that explain most of speech and language development: behavioral, nativistic, semantic-cognitive, and social-pragmatic.

Behavioral Theory
The behavioral perspective states that language is a set of verbal behaviors learned through operant conditioning. Operant conditioning is a method of changing behavior so that a desired behavior is reinforced immediately after it occurs.B.F. Skinner is considered to be the father of the modern behavioral theory. This theory can be applied to many aspects of human learning including speech and language. The theory centers around the idea that children are conditioned by their environment and the reinforcement of their communication.

Behaviorists believe that language behaviors are learned by imitation, reinforcement, and copying adult language behaviors. They consider language to be determined not by experimentation or self-discovery, but by selective reinforcements from speech and language models, usually parents or other family members. Behaviorists focus on external forces that shape a child's language and see the child as a reactor to these forces. (Hulit, Howard, & Fahey, 2011)

Imitation and Practice
Two other concepts that are important for understanding the behaviorist ideas of speech and language development are imitation and practice. A young child will try to imitate sounds and words he hears his parents say the best he can. When a child says a word that sounds close to what the parents say, they accept and reinforce it. In other words, they begin shaping the word until the child can eventually say the word as well as the parents do.

An example of selective reinforcement:
A child says "mama" when his mother starts to pick him up. The mother is delighted to hear the child say this and gives the child a hug and kiss. The mother says "Mama, that's right, I'm Mama!" The mothers affectionate response makes it more likely that the child will say "mama" again. The mother's response to the child reinforced the behavior.

The nativistic theory is a biologically-based theory which states that language is innate, physiologically determined, and genetically transmitted. This means that a newborn baby is "pre-wired" for language acquisition and a linguistic mechanism is activated by exposure to language. (Hulit, Howard, & Fahey, 2011). This theory believes that language is universal and unique to only humans and that unless there are severe mental or physical limitations, or severe isolation and deprivation, humans will acquire language. The nativistic theory argues that caregivers do not teach children the understanding of language and do not usually provide feedback about the correctness of their utterances. (Pinker, 1984).

Language Acquisition Device
The main theorist associated with the nativist theory is Noam Chomsky. He came up with the idea of the language acquisition device (LAD). The LAD is a language organ that is hard-wired into our brains at birth. Once a child is exposed to language, the LAD activates. Click the button below to learn more about Chomskey's ideas.

Semantic-Cognitive Theory
The semantic-cognitive theory is a perspective of language development that emphasizes the interrelationship between language learning and cognition; that is, the meanings conveyed by a child's productions. Children demonstrate certain cognitive abilities as a corresponding language behavior emerges. (Bloom & Lahey, 1978). The semantic meaning that a person wants to communicate determines the words and word order (syntactic form) the person uses. For example, children know what they want to communicate (cognition) but do not always use the correct semantics or grammar. Also, children may not know the correct use of a word or understand that a word can have more than one meaning.

Social-Pragmatic Theory
The social-pragmatic theory considers communication as the basic function of language. This perspective is first seen in infant-caregiver interactions in which the caregiver responds to an infant's sounds and gestures.

The prerequisites for the social-pragmatic theory are:
1.) The infant must have a caregiver in close proximity to see, hear, or touch
2.) The caregiver must provide the infant with basic physical needs such as food, warmth, and exploring the environment
3.) The infant must develop an attachment to the caregiver
4.) The infant and caregiver must be able to attend to the same objects or actions simultaneously
5.) The infant and caregiver engage in turn-taking in both verbal and nonverbal behaviors (McLaughlin, 2006).

In ideal parent-child communication, all of the five prerequisites are met in most interactions. The social-pragmatic perspective emphasizes the importance of the communicative partner's role; the partner's interpretation of what is said defines the results of the speech act.

Behavioral Theory
For decades, clinicians have used a behavioral approach to study children's language by observing, describing, and counting specific language behaviors. This basic stimulus-response model first teacher children to imitate a sound and then reinforces the sound production with verbal praise (e.g. "Great job!"). The children's sounds are shaped into increasingly closer approximations of the target sound, and when they finally are able to produce the target sound correctly, the sound is practiced in a variety of word and sound combinations.

When children do not use certain language structures that are appropriate for their age, they most likely have not acquired them naturally and would need to improve in therapy. Helping children learn how to combine words, phrases, and sentences lets them convey messages to others. Instructing children about how to use language appropriately in different social situations and environments allows them to use appropriate pragmatics when communicating.

Semantic-Cognitive Theory
Clinicians use the semantic-cognitive theory by describing children's strategies for gaining new information. For example, the complexity of a sentence, the amount of information in the sentence, and the rate at which the sentence is said may significantly affect the way a child understands a sentence. A child with delayed or disordered language could benefit from a clinician who can adjust one or all of these variables. A clinician may be able to make a sentence simpler with less information for a child to process and slow down the rate of speech so that the child can better understand the message.

Social-Pragmatic Theory
them Caregivers can make language easier in many ways, including playing social games that are stimulating and exciting for infants (e.g. peekaboo), taking turns in activities where the caregivers speaks and expects the infant to respond in a similar way, and reading books with young children. Clinicians can assess and treat a child's language impairments from a social-communicative and contextual perspective. The goal of therapy is to maximize the child's ability to communicate.

Although not necessarily considered a theory of language acquisition, clinicians need to be aware of cultural and diversity perspectives. Regardless of the theory of language development that is followed, children mature and grow within the context of their caregivers, whether they are parents, family members, or other members of the community. These people provide an environment with communication for the maturing child that reflects the range of meanings, values, perceptions, and beliefs of the cultures they are a part of. The United States is considered multicultural, like many other countries. Multicultural refers to a society that is characterized by a diversity of cultures, languages, traditions, religions, and values, as well as socioeconomic classes, sexual orientations, and ability levels where, ideally, individuals are respected and valued for their contributions to the society as a whole. Speech-language pathologists and audiologists need to be able to understand and appreciate the cultural-linguistic diversity of client populations in order to better serve them. (Owens, 2012)

Cultural diversity is not determined by a person's origin or color of skin, but by many other factors including linguistic background, level of education, socioeconomic status, and religious beliefs. Any of these factors could influence speech and language development. Many children in America are come from families who have recently immigrated to America. These families often continue to speak their native language at home and in social environments. This typically causes children to develop the family's native language as their first language. However, many children may be exposed to both their native language and English and will learn to speak English with an accent.

There are approximately 1,000 languages in the world spoken by at least 10,000 people. (Crystal, 2010). Languages have a variety of forms and dialects that can vary in phonology, vocabulary, and grammar. Within a language, no dialect is better than another, however, standard dialect can be associated with higher education levels and is used in education environments. Standard dialects for one language can even vary from country to country. For example, America, England, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore all use English, but have very different dialects.

ASHA (1998) provided a statement about speech-language pathologists working in school settings who have different dialects than the community. "ASHA maintains that members may not discriminate against people who speak with a nonstandard dialect in educational programs, employment, or service delivery. However, clinicians must have the necessary diagnostic and clinical skills and be able to model required treatment targets. In addition, the clinician may not have limited English proficiency."

Regional Dilect Differences in the U.S.

Click the button below to hear America's dialects in action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Theories of Speech & Language Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The process of speech and language development in infants and children is complex and interrelated. For normal communication to develop, there must be an integration of anatomy and physiology of the speech systems, neurological development, and interactions that encourage infants and children for communication attempts. Language development includes both receptive and expressive language.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Take this two-minute quiz to find out which of the four parenting types you are: indulgent, hands-off, balanced, or strict. Plus get a few tried 'n' true tips for managing your time as a parent!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Erikson’s 8 Stages of Psychosocial Development Explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Self-efficacy is all about your belief in your own abilities as it pertains to dealing with various situations. Self-efficacy can play a big role in your life, impacting not only how you feel about yourself but also how successful you might be.

According to Albert Bandura, an influential social cognitive psychologist, self-efficacy is defined as:

The belief in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations.

Self-efficacy is a hot topic amongst psychologists and educators, and it can have a huge impact on just about everything from psychological states to motivation to behavior.

When it comes right down to it, our belief in our own ability to succeed plays a key role in how we think and how we feel. It also helps us establish our place in the world and can even determine what kind of goals we set and how we go about accomplishing those goals.

In this article, we will examine tools to measure self-efficacy as well as how self-efficacy affects children and academics.

Before you read on, we thought you might like to download our 3 Self-Compassion Exercises for free. These detailed, science-based exercises will not only help you increase your compassion and confidence but will also give you the tools to help your clients, students or employees show more kindness and compassion towards themselves.

How to Best Measure Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is critically important when it comes to protecting yourself against psychological stress.

While there are many tools for measuring self-efficacy, the SES or Self-Efficacy Survey is a good one to start with because it is based upon Bandura's socio-cognitive theory. (Self-Efficacy Survey: A new assessment tool, 2012, March 16).

The SES is designed to evaluate ten functional areas of life:

For the survey, 150 items were created with 15 items per number. Two expert judges examined each item for validity.

Unacceptable and irrelevant items were then removed, leaving 130 remaining items. The remaining questions were then included and used with 246 participants.

Once the internal consistency values were computed, 26 items were then removed, leaving 104. These 104 were then applied to 180 subjects.

Each question contains a six-point Likert scale with 1 representing a strong disagreement and 6 representing a strong agreement of each subject's perceived self-efficacy in different areas of life.

Intellectual (High intellectual means subject is satisfied with their intellectual performance and degree of difficulty.)

Family (High family means subject believes their family trusts them and offers them the social and emotional support needed.)

Educational (High educational means subject is satisfied with the education they are receiving.)

Professional (High personal means subject is satisfied with their professional position or professional capabilities by colleagues.)

Social (High social means one is satisfied with their social status and recognition.)

Religious (High religious means one is at peace with their divinity and faith.)

Erotic (High moral means one is satisfied with their intimate life.)

Moral (High moral means one is at peace with decisions in terms of good and evil.)

Life Standard (High life standard means satisfaction with personal well-being.)

Health (High health means one feels good physically and emotionally.)

The survey was administered to 426 undergraduate students with 49% female and 51% male, ages 25-55. The students resided in a university in Bucharest, Romania.

The first survey was administered to a sample of 246 students with the final pool of 104 remaining items administered to a sample of 180 participants.

Here you can access the full study of the Self-Efficacy Survey: a new assessment tool.

Self-efficacy plays a major role in how you approach goals, tasks, and challenges.

If you have a strong self-efficacy you:

Tend to view challenging problems as simply another task to be mastered.

Develop a much deeper interest in the activities you do participate in.

Tend to form a stronger sense of commitment to your activities and interests.

Might actually recover more quickly when it comes to disappointments and setbacks.

If you have a low self-efficacy you:

Might avoid challenging tasks.

May believe that difficult tasks or situations are beyond your control or capability.

Tend to focus on negative outcomes or personal failures more often.

Have a tendency to lose confidence quickly or lose faith in your personal abilities.

What Types of Assessment Tools are Available?

There are several types of assessments one can use to measure self-efficacy. One of these is the New General Self-Efficacy Scale by Chen, Gully, and Eden (2001).

This scale provides a measure of self-efficacy that serves as an improvement to the original self-efficacy scale of 17 items created by Sherer et al. in 1982. Although this scale is considerably shorter it is thought to have a higher construct validity that the General Self-efficacy Scale.

The eight-item measure scale assesses one's belief that they can achieve their goals, despite whatever difficulties they may encounter or have.

Researchers have used this measure with African-Americans living on a low income, European Americans who were homeless, Latin-American, first generation Latinx college students and college students as well as professionals in the U. S. and abroad.

Instructions

Using a five-point rating scale (see below) survey respondents showed how much they agreed or didn't agree by answering eight statements.

Researchers then calculated a score for each respondent by averaging their ratings.

Response Format
1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree.
Survey Questions

1. I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set for myself.

2. When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish them.

3. In general, I think that I can obtain outcomes that are important to me.

4. I believe I can succeed at almost any endeavor to which I set my mind.

5. I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges.

6. I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks.

7. Compared to other people, I can do most tasks very well.

8. Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well.

To calculate a score, one would take the average of all of the responses. A higher score indicates a greater self-efficacy.

The Strengths Self-Efficacy Scale (SSES) by Tsai, Chaichanasakul, Zhao, Flores & Lopez, (2014) is a questionnaire that measures someone's self-belief in their ability to build a sense of personal strength as they apply it to their day-to-day life.

The research has shown that SSES scores are moderately related to the idea of self-esteem and satisfaction of life and related in a lesser sense to social desirability.

The goal of this scale is to assess one's perceived efficacy by utilizing their personal strengths. This includes things like work and educational settings as well as things in daily life.

To score, one would simply add up all of the individual items scored. Higher scores reflect a strong degree of strengths in terms of self-efficacy.

Bandura's Instrument Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale is another good questionnaire designed to help one gain a better understanding of the kinds of things that may create difficulties for teachers in different school activities. The scale measures efficacy in influencing decision making, school resources, instructional efficacy, disciplinary efficacy, parental involvement, enlisting community involvement, as well as creating a positive school climate.

What Scale is Recommended for Adults?

Newark, Elsässer & Stieglitz (2012) published a great study for self-esteem and self-efficacy in adults with ADHD.

The purpose of this study was to examine therapeutic issues related to self-esteem in adults with ADHD.

43 adults were tested and matched with nonclinical samples in terms of age and gender.

Participants were assessed with self-ratings using the symptom checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale, and Dick's Resources Checklist.
The following research questions were being explored:

1. Are there significant differences between adults with ADHD and a healthy control group in matters of self-esteem and self-efficacy?

2. Are there significant differences between adults with ADHD and a healthy control group with respect to their resources?

3. Is there a significant relationship between the general psychological distress level and factors, such as self-esteem, self-efficacy, and resources?

4. Is there a significant relationship between self-esteem, self-efficacy, and resources?

The study showed that adults with ADHD tended to have lower self-esteem and self-efficacy when compared to a control group.

The study authors found some of the resources of adults with ADHD were reduced.

Those with ADHD seemed to possess very specific resources. The study will most likely have important implications when it comes to the treatment of adult ADHD. The findings suggest that specific treatment and therapy should include resources-oriented modules for enhancing self-esteem and self-efficacy while fostering strengths.

A Look at Scoring

Most scoring is done by either a Likert scale or by averaging a mean score. The Likert scale, developed by Likert (1932) measures one's attitudes by asking them to respond to a series of statements about a particular topic.

The participant answers the statements by determining the extent to which they agree or disagree.

Bandura's General Self-Efficacy Scale

The General Self-Efficacy Scale or GSES is designed for people ages 12 and up. It is used to assess perceived self-efficacy as it pertains to adaptation abilities and coping scales for both stressful events and daily activities.

Self-efficacy is more about someone's perceived capability or the kinds of resources they can muster rather than what they have.

According to Albert Bandura, there are four major sources of self-efficacy:

1. Mastery Experiences

Bandura believes that one of the most effective ways of developing a strong sense of efficacy is through the mastery of one's own experiences. The more you successfully perform a task the more your sense of self-efficacy strengthens. On the other hand, if you fail to deal with a task or a challenge, then that may undermine or even weaken self-efficacy.

2. Social Modeling

Social modeling or seeing other people successfully completing a task can also help build your own self-efficacy.

According to Bandura, seeing people similar to yourself successfully completing something causes you to believe in your abilities that much more.

3. Social Persuasion

Social persuasion also comes into play. Someone complimenting you or saying something positive or encouraging can help you overcome self-doubt so that you give a task your best effort.

4. Psychological Responses

Our moods, emotions and physical reactions and even our level of stress can affect how we feel about our ability to succeed. These types of psychological responses play a very important role in our self-belief.

For example, if you happen to become nervous before an important speaking event, you may not speak as well, which could affect your self-efficacy in the future.

Why It Matters

Believing that you have the ability to overcome obstacles is both a cause and a consequence of factors related to social issues or social mobility.

Boardman and Robert (2000) found that there was less self-efficacy associated with and related with living in poor neighborhoods while Bandura and colleagues (1996) found that having a high self-efficacy is actually a good predictor of academic success.

Roman and colleagues found that, amongst those Americans living on a low income in public housing developments, that self-efficacy actually predicts both better health and physical activity. (Roman et al., 2009).

Although there are many measures when it comes to self-efficacy, research suggests the new general measure scale tends to be more reliable as well as valid in comparison to others. (Scherbaum, Cohen-Charash, & Kern, 2006).

Children's Self-Efficacy Scale

Self-efficacy can also help a child develop a sense of mastery, which then reinforces a stronger sense of self-belief.

Children with high self-efficacy tend to work harder, feel more optimistic and experience less anxiety overall. A child with high self-efficacy also perseveres more.

A high sense of self-efficacy can help a child succeed academically and also give them a healthy sense of well-being.

Children with a high sense of self-efficacy have better motivation, greater resilience, lower vulnerability and a better ability to think productively when faced with a challenge.

The Self-efficacy questionnaire for children is a great overall questionnaire for measuring self-efficacy.

Academic Self-Efficacy Scale for Students (Zimmerman)

The Academic Self-Efficacy Scale for self-regulated learning is another wonderful tool for determining the relationship between academic performance, and self-efficacy.

Academic self-efficacy is mainly about a student's opinion about what they can or cannot do as opposed to individual resources.

Students with high self-efficacy tend to choose complex and challenging tasks while students with lower self-efficacy tend to avoid them.

Academic self-efficacy also involves self-regulated learning, which helps a student use their own resources to plan, control and analyze the execution of tasks, activities and the preparation of learning products. (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1995)

Students with high self-efficacy tend to get better grades and show greater persistence in both engineering and science courses when compared to students with lesser.

Moreover, students with high self-efficacy use more cognitive strategies that are useful when it comes to learning, organizing their time and regulating their own efforts.

The academic self-efficacy questionnaire provides evidence of both internal consistency and validity.

In a study done in Lima, Peru there was a positive and significant relationship between academic self-efficacy and academic performance in first-year university students in the city of Lima. (Alegre, 2014)

There was also a positive correlation between self-regulated learning and academic performance.

Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale

The Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale (CDSE) is a scale that is designed to gauge someone's self-belief that he or she can successfully navigate and make good career decisions.

The scale consists of five subscales that measure five Career Choice Competencies of John O. Crites' Theory of Career Maturity.

The scale is available in both a 50-item form and a 25-item short form and the scale is strongly linked to positive educational and career decisional outcomes.

Karen Taylor and Nancy Betz developed the CDSE and the intent of the scale is to measure the self-efficacy of career decision making to Bandura's theory of self-efficacy.

The short form was developed in 1996 from the best items of the original longer form, which was developed in 1983.

Self-Efficacy Scale for Exercise

The self-efficacy for exercise scale (SEE) is a self-reported scale that helps one gauge how they are feeling about their exercise habits. (Resnick & Jenkins, 2000).

The total score is calculated by summing up the responses to each question. The scale has a range of scores from 0-90. A higher number on the score represents a higher self-efficacy for exercise.

Self-efficacy beliefs are important, especially for older adults, according to the study. Age differences in perceived constraints or the perception that there are obstacles to achieving success matter, as one gets older.

If someone continues to believe that they can exercise, even while tired or being busy, it increases the likelihood that they will continue.

Another study was done by Neupert, Lachmanm & Whitbourne, (2009) where exercise self-efficacy and control beliefs, as well as effects on exercise behavior after exercise, was measured for older adults.

This particular study involved using the Strong for Life (SFL) treatment program, which consisted of using a 35-minute videotaped program of 10 different exercise routines.

Elastic bands were also used for resistance training. Resistance levels were measured at the onset of the study, and at three and six-month intervals.

The study results revealed some evidence of a link amongst changes in resistance and changes in exercise beliefs.

As a result, it was surmised that seeking to identify and overcome barriers to participation in exercise will is a very important way to improve the quality of life for older adults especially.

Other Recommended Surveys and Questionnaires (Incl. PDF)

There are many wonderful self-efficacy questionnaires to examine.
Parental Self-Efficacy
This is a questionnaire that is designed to help one gain a better understanding of the kinds of things that make it challenging for parents to influence their children's school activities.

The questionnaire measures efficacy to influence school activities.

The 8-page survey includes questions such as:

1. How much can you do to make your children see school as valuable?

2. How much can you do to help your children get good grades in school?

3. How much can you do to help your children keep physically fit?

4. How much can you do to prevent your children from getting in with the wrong crowds of friends?

5. How much can you do to prevent your children from becoming involved in drugs or alcohol?

6. How much can you do to influence what is taught in your children's school?

7. How well can you keep tough problems from getting you down?

8. How well can you overcome discouragement when nothing you try seems to work?

Self-efficacy can also be a great indicator for something like innovation, which is desperately needed in today's world.

Work done by Al-Jalahma, D. R. (n.d.) in the paper " Developing an Innovation Self-Efficacy Survey," provides a wonderful overview of how something like self-efficacy plays a role in innovation.

Innovation self-efficacy refers to one's belief in his or her ability to accomplish tasks that may be necessary for innovation.

Innovation is critical for our environment and social prosperity. As a culture, we rely on industry, university, and government employees to help develop, modify and implement innovative ideas, according to Al-Jalahma, D. R. (n.d.).

Having a high degree of self-efficacy helps innovators navigate through complex problems and overcome setbacks that typically occur.

Research has shown that self-efficacy serves as an influence on the pursuit of and persistence in challenging work.

The researchers work is in the early stages, but very hopeful.

The research includes:

1. Literature review of self-efficacy and tasks associated with innovation in multiple fields such as engineering, psychology, business, design, education, and organizational management.

2. Interviews and survey data about task-related indicators of innovation from practitioners to academics.

3. Using research to develop a preliminary model of innovation self-efficacy, clustering and mapping indicators into schemata.

4. Piloting a set of survey items based on this model.

According to the research, some indicators of innovation self-efficacy include:

Exploration, observation, and awareness in terms of paying attention to what is going on around you.

Learning to adopt other viewpoints.

Making connections and processing information.

Showing creativity and having unique ideas.

Testing ideas for validity, feasibility, and desirability.

Showing persistence.

Setting goals and choosing how to proceed.

Crafting and sharing information through written and oral means.

Translating ideas into visualizations.

Using self-efficacy to explore the concept of innovation opens up a whole new field of possibility.

Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales

The Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales, by Albert Bandura, reiterates that there is not one all-purpose measure for perceived self-efficacy.

In the end, we cannot be all things all of the time. That would require a mastery of every aspect and realm of human life.

People will always differ in the areas in which they cultivate self-efficacy. For example, someone may have a high level of self-efficacy in the business world, but a low one in something like parenting.

The measure of self-efficacy is not a global trait but one that is related to distinct functions.

According to Bandura (1997), even though self-efficacy beliefs are multifaceted, social cognitive theory identifies many conditions under which they may co-vary - even across different domains of functioning.

According to the research, there are similar sub-skills and some interdomain relation in terms of perceived efficacy.

These include generic type skills such as:

1. Skills for diagnosing task demands.

2. Skills for constructing and evaluating alternative courses of action.

3. Skills for setting proximal goals to guide one's efforts.

4. Skills for creating self-incentives to sustain engagement in taxing activities.

5. Skills for managing stress and debilitating intrusive thoughts.

Co-development of self-efficacy skills can also occur. Similar levels of self-efficacy can be seen in students in various academic subjects like language or mathematics. Even though these may be dissimilar academic subjects the student may still have a high level of self-efficacy in both.

Achieving a powerful mastery of experiences can lead to transformation and personal change, as self-efficacy beliefs are manifested across diverse realms of functioning.

The Self-Efficacy Scale Construction and Validation

The theory of self-efficacy tells us that things like psychotherapy and behavioral changes both operate through a common mechanism, the change or alteration of someone's individual expectations as it relates to both personal mastery and success.

According to Bandura (1997), there are two types of expectancies that exert a powerful influence on behavior:

1. Expectancies related to outcome or the belief that a behavior will lead to a certain outcome.

2. Self-efficiency expectancy or the belief that you can successfully perform the behavior in question.

According to Bandura, expectations of self-efficacy are a very powerful determinate of behavioral changes because one's expectations determine the initial decision to perform the behavior in the first place. As a result, one expends effort and overcomes adversity.

Construct Validity

The idea of construct validity is all about how we define how well a test or experiment measures up to its claims.

It also refers to whether or not the operational definition of a variable accurately reflects the true theoretical meaning of a concept.

Construct validity is utilized mainly by social sciences, psychology, and education. There are many examples of construct validity. Let's say someone is measuring the human brain in terms of intelligence, level of emotion, proficiency, and ability.

While these concepts are abstract and theoretical, they have been observed in practice.

One example might be a doctor testing the effectiveness of a certain painkiller when prescribing it to someone with chronic back pain.

The doctor might ask the subjects to rate their pain level on a scale from one - ten, where ten is a condition of extreme pain and one no pain.

This measure of pain is subjective. Construct validity could be used to test whether the doctor was measuring pain and not something like numbness or anxiety or other similar factors.

With a proper construct validity defined we can then examine construct ability, or a measure of how well the test might measure the construct.

This allows the researcher to perform a systematic analysis of how well designed the research actually is.

The idea of construct validity is extremely valuable in social sciences, especially when there is a lot of subjectivity in experiments. Many units of measurement are subjective, even measurable ones such as IQ.

Most researchers test the construct validity before the main research. This might involve something like a pilot study or even some kind of pre-test in an educational study where researchers get test results from two distinct groups, one with the construct and one without.

Another option is an intervention study, where a group with low scores in the construct might be tested then taught the construct and tested again. If there is a substantial difference between the pre- and post tests they might then be analyzed with a simple statistical test to prove a good construct validity.

In the end, researchers are only human. As hard as they try they may still give cues that influence the test subjects.

Humans give clues in many ways beyond speech, including things like body language or subconsciously smiling when the subject gives the correct answer.

This can lower construct validity. To reduce this, researchers should have minimal interaction with test subjects.

A Take Home Message

The value of any psychological theory is judged not only by its predictive or explanatory power but also in its operational power and its power to effect change.

Knowing how to build a sense of self-efficacy and understanding how it works, provides a wonderful platform to think differently and enhance your self-belief.

Bandura said it beautifully:

Perceived self-efficacy is embedded in a broader theory of human agency that specifies the sources of self-efficacy beliefs and identifies the processes through which they produce their diverse effects.

(Bandura, 1997, 2001).
Human behavior is continually changing and manifesting according to different contexts. Self-efficacy assessments can identify different patterns as well as strengths and limitations.

All of this can lead to enhanced perception and increased self-efficacy.

Recommended Reading:

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don't forget to download our 3 Self Compassion Exercises for free.

If you wish to learn more, our Science of Self Acceptance Masterclass© is an innovative, comprehensive training template for practitioners that contains all the materials you'll need to help your clients accept themselves, treat themselves with more compassion and see themselves as worthy individuals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Measuring Self-Efficacy with Scales and Questionnaires

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Self-efficacy is all about your belief in your own abilities as it pertains to dealing with various situations. Self-efficacy can play a big role in your life, impacting not only how you feel about yourself but also how successful you might be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1.3 Self-efficacy Theory

Self-efficacy theory (SET) is a subset of Bandura's (1986 ) social cognitive theory. According to this approach, the two key determinants of behavior are perceived self-efficacy and outcome expectancies. The latter construct refers to the perceived positive and negative consequences of performing the behavior. See Schwarzer and Fuchs ( 1996) for a version of this model that incorporates risk perceptions and behavioral intention, as well as components of the action phase of behavior change. No meta-analysis of SET has been published, though there is substantial evidence for the predictive validity of self-efficacy (Schwarzer and Fuchs 1996).

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767038729

The Agentic Worldview of Self-Efficacy Theory

Self-efficacy theory emphasizes the importance of the individual and the individual's perceptions of his/her personal capabilities as key determinants of successful outcomes. Self-efficacy theory, and the broader social cognitive theory in which self-efficacy is encompassed, therefore clearly endorses a democratic ideal that suggests that all individuals are competent and capable of being successful, provided they have the opportunities and self-efficacy necessary to pursue their goals. Self-efficacy theory explicitly focuses on how individuals and communities can be empowered with a sense of agency that will facilitate goal attainment. This is important as self-efficacy theory does not presume that individuals who are currently successful are inherently better than those who are not as successful. Rather, self-efficacy theory would suggest that individuals who are currently struggling may not have been provided with opportunities to obtain mastery experiences or modeling necessary to develop high levels of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy theory therefore suggests that it is the responsibility of the government and society to provide everyone with sufficient opportunities to engage in mastery experiences, receive positive social persuasion, and witness positively reinforcing models that will engender a strong sense of self-efficacy.

It is worth noting, however, that self-efficacy theory does not suggest that positive self-efficacy beliefs are the only causes of important outcomes. Rather, as previously discussed, self-efficacy theory is rooted in a theory of triadic reciprocal determinism in which there is a constant interplay between personal factors (i.e., self-efficacy beliefs), behavior, and environmental factors. Self-efficacy theory emphasizes the relative importance of personal factors, but acknowledges that behavioral and environmental factors have profound effects on outcomes. This theory of triadic reciprocal determinism therefore further reinforces the idea that if the effects of the environment are consistent (i.e., an even playing field for all), then self-efficacy beliefs will take on an even greater role in determining human behavior, and ultimately shaping outcomes.

It is also important to note that self-efficacy theory does not advocate a Pollyannaish world view in which positive expectancies for the future are the sole determinant of future outcomes. There has been a recent backlash against positive thinking among many members of the popular press. Books such as Barbara Ehrenreich's Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America have argued that an excessive emphasis on and belief in the benefits of positive thinking has had a detrimental effect on the lives of many individuals and the society as a whole. There is much to be said about identifying the potential pitfalls of naïvely optimistic worldviews or self-help programs that suggest that positive thinking provides almost magical benefits. However, it is important for researchers, clinicians, and the public to recognize the distinction between these less scientific theories of positive thinking and empirically based theories such as self-efficacy. Self-efficacy beliefs are in no way proposed to be a panacea for all of the ills of the world nor are self-efficacy beliefs proposed to be the only psychological factor that may determine important life outcomes. Rather, self-efficacy theory proposes a more measured worldview in which opportunities to experience or witness success may promote positive evaluations of one's capacities to succeed in the future which in turn increases the likelihood of subsequent positive outcomes.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123750006003128

A. Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive theory, the cognitive formulation of social learning theory that has been best articulated by Bandura [ 24, 25], explains human behavior in terms of a three-way, dynamic, reciprocal model in which personal factors, environmental influences, and behavior continually interact. Social cognitive theory synthesizes concepts and processes from cognitive, behavioristic, and emotional models of behavior change, so it can be readily applied to nutritional intervention for disease prevention and management. A basic premise is that people learn not only through their own experiences, but also by observing the actions of others and the results of those actions [14]. Key constructs of social cognitive theory that are relevant to nutritional intervention include observational learning, reinforcement, self-control, and self-efficacy [7].

Principles of behavior modification, which have often been used to promote dietary change, are derived from social cognitive theory. Some elements of behavioral dietary interventions based on social cognitive theory constructs of self-control, reinforcement, and self-efficacy include goalsetting, self-monitoring and behavioral contracting [7, 15].

Self-efficacy, or a person's confidence in his or her ability to take action and to persist in that action despite obstacles or challenges, seems to be especially important for influencing health behavior and dietary change efforts [25]. Health providers can make deliberate efforts to increase patients' self-efficacy using three types of strategies: (1) setting small, incremental, and achievable goals; (2) using formalized behavioral contracting to establish goals and specify rewards; and (3) monitoring and reinforcement, including patient self-monitoring by keeping records [14]. In group nutrition programs, it is possible to easily incorporate activities such as cooking demonstrations, problem-solving discussions, and self-monitoring that are rooted in social cognitive theory.

The key social cognitive theory construct of reciprocal determinism means that a person can be both an agent for change and a responder to change. Thus, changes in the environment, the examples of role models, and reinforcements can be used to promote healthier behavior.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780121931551500088

Summary

Bandura's social cognitive theory of human functioning emphasizes the critical role of self-beliefs in human cognition, motivation, and behavior. Social cognitive theory gives prominence to a self-system that enables individuals to exercise a measure of control over their thoughts, feelings, and actions. In putting forth this view, Bandura reinvigorated the nearly abandoned focus on the self in the study of human processes that William James initiated nearly a century earlier. Social cognitive theory is an agentic and empowering psychological perspective in which individuals are proactive and self-regulating rather than reactive and controlled either by environmental or biological forces. Instead, the beliefs that people have about themselves are key elements in their exercise of control and of personal, cultural, and social achievement. It is because of their beliefs about their own capabilities - their self-efficacy beliefs - that people are able to exercise the self-influence required to contribute to the types of persons they become and their achievements.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080448947006205

Social cognitive theory

Social cognitive theory (SCT) is one of the most frequently applied theories of health behavior ( Baranowski et al., 2002). SCT posits a reciprocal deterministic relationship between the individual, his or her environment, and behavior; all three elements dynamically and reciprocally interact with and upon one another to form the basis for behavior, as well as potential interventions to change behaviors (Bandura, 1977a, 1986, 2001). Social cognitive theory has often been called a bridge between behavioral and cognitive learning theories, because it focuses on the interaction between internal factors such as thinking and symbolic processing (e.g., attention, memory, motivation) and external determinants (e.g., rewards and punishments) in determining behavior.

A central tenet of social cognitive theory is the concept of self-efficacy - individuals' belief in their capability to perform a behavior (Bandura, 1977b). Behaviors are determined by the interaction of outcome expectations (the extent to which people believe their behavior will lead to certain outcomes) and efficacy expectations (the extent to which they believe they can bring about the particular outcome) (Bandura, 1977b, 1997). For example, individuals may hold the outcome expectation that if they consistently use condoms, they will significantly reduce risk of becoming HIV-infected; however, they must also hold the efficacy expectation that they are incapable of such consistent behavioral practice. Behavior change would necessitate bringing outcome and efficacy expectations in alignment with one another. SCT emphasizes predictors of health behaviors, such as motivation and self-efficacy, perception of barriers to and benefits of behavior, perception of control over outcome, and personal sources of behavioral control (self-regulation) (Bandura, 1977a, 1977b). Another important tenet with respect to behavioral and learning is SCT's emphasis that individuals learn from one another via observation, imitation and modeling; effective models evoke trust, admiration and respect from the observer, and they do not appear to represent a level of behavior that observers are unable to visualize attaining for themselves. Thus, a change in efficacy expectations through vicarious experience may be effected by encouraging an individual to believe something akin to the following: "if she can do it, so can I". SCT has been critiqued for being too comprehensive in its formulation, making for difficulty in operationalizing and evaluating the theory in its entirety (Munro Baranowski et al., 2007). Moreover, some researchers using SCT as a theoretical basis have been criticized for using only one or two concepts from the theory to explain behavioral outcomes ( et al., 2002).

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012374235300008X

6.3.3 Social Cognitive Theory

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) proposes that the environment, behavior, and personal and cognitive factors all interact as determinants of each other [5,14]. According to this theory, human functioning is described in terms of a number of basic capabilities: symbolizing capability, forethought capability, vicarious capability (ability to learn through observation/imitation/modeling others' behaviors and attitude), self-regulatory capability, and self-reflective capability.

The key concepts of SCT can be grouped into five major categories: (1) psychological determinants of behavior (outcome expectations, self-efficacy, and collective efficacy), (2) observational learning, (3) environmental determinants of behavior (incentive motivation, facilitation), (4) self-regulation, and (5) moral disengagement [5].

An important concept in SCT is self-efficacy, which represents a person's belief in their capacity to perform a given behavior when faced with a variety of challenges [53]. According to SCT, self-efficacy may be developed in four ways: (1) personal experience of success, (2) social modeling (showing the person that others like themselves can perform/acquire a certain behavior, as well as the small steps taken by them), (3) improving physical and emotional states, and (4) verbal persuasion (encouragement by others to boost confidence) [5].

Another key concept is observational learning, which implies learning to perform new behaviors by exposure to interpersonal or media displays of that same behavior [5]. In this regard, peer modeling is a particularly relevant method for influencing behavior, because imitation occurs more frequently when observers perceive the models as similar to themselves [5].

Finally, according to SCT, self-regulation may be achieved in six different ways: (1) self-monitoring and systematic observation of one's own behavior, (2) goal setting, (3) feedback on the quality of performance and how it might be improved, (4) self-reward, (5) self-instruction, and (6) social support from people who encourage a person's efforts to exert self-control [5]. Social support, on the other hand, may be categorized into four types of supportive behaviors [5]: (1) emotional support, involving the provision of empathy, love, trust, and caring; (2) instrumental support, involving the provision of aid, resources, and services that directly assist a person in need; (3) informational support, meaning the provision of advice, suggestions, and information that a person can use to address problems; and (4) appraisal support or the provision of information that is useful for self-evaluation purposes (e.g., constructive feedback) [5].

Therefore, it seems logical that new technologies such as social media are particularly well suited for the application of SCT. Indeed, social media may serve as a source of modeling, verbal persuasion, feedback, and encouragement, as well as may contribute to address other aspects of SCT.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128092699000062

1 Bridging Social Cognitive Theory and Expectancy-Value Theory

Social cognitive theory and expectancy-value theory are two theories that address the development of human motivation. They share many similarities in their constructs and explanations. In addition, the two theories complement one another by each addressing certain processes in more depth than the other theory does.

When comparing the two theories, Bandura (1997) contrasted social cognitive theory's construct of self-efficacy with expectancy-value theory's construct of expectations for success. According to his interpretation, efficacy expectations refer to people's perceptions of their own abilities, whereas expectations for success in expectancy-value theory refer to people's beliefs regarding the effectiveness of particular actions (outcome expectancies). With regards to the latter type of belief, people might believe that certain actions will lead to success in a domain (outcome expectancy) but not necessarily consider themselves as being capable of that action. However, Wigfield and Eccles (2000) contested this interpretation. They viewed expectation for success as similar to self-efficacy.

The difference between self-efficacy and expectations for success lies in their respective time frames. Self-efficacy refers to a person's beliefs about her or his current ability in a particular domain (e.g., "I am good a math"). In contrast, expectations for success refer to how well one anticipates doing in a domain in the future (e.g., "I expect to do well at math"). This may be a distinction without a practical difference. Eccles and her colleagues have found in their own research that measures of the two constructs are highly correlated. Moreover, factor analyses have indicated that ability beliefs (i.e., self-efficacy) and expectations for success consistently load together (see Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Nonetheless, Wigfield and Eccles (2000, p. 74) maintained that ability beliefs and expectations for success are "theoretically distinct" even though they "do not appear to be empirically distinguishable, at least as we have measured them." If no empirical distinction has been found, however, it begs the question of whether there is discriminative validity between current ability beliefs and expected outcomes for success (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Miller & Pollock, 1995). The fundamental similarity is that both theoretical models emphasize people's ability beliefs (either concurrent or expected). Further, if studies eventually find that the time frame (current vs. future ability expectations) matters in some meaningful way, this dimension could be incorporated as a moderator in an integrated theoretical model.

As I have previously argued, theoretical review papers typically highlight the differences between theories rather than seek to bridge potential similarities. As an exception to this general practice, Hyde and Durik (2005) underscored the similarities and potential areas for overlap between social cognitive theory and expectancy-value theory. The authors noted that both theories emphasize the importance of socialization, the role of individuals' beliefs and choices in guiding their actions, and the impact of competence-related beliefs. They viewed the differences between expectancy-value theory and social cognitive theory as "subtle" matters of emphasis. In this regard, Hyde and Durik observed that the two theories "slightly differ" in how they characterize task value: Competence-related beliefs (expectations for success) and task value beliefs are independent processes that are both emphasized in expectancy-value theory, whereas competence-related beliefs (self-efficacy) receives much more emphasis in social cognitive theory. Although Bandura's research during the last two decades has focused primarily on the role of self-efficacy (e.g., see Bandura, 1997, 2001), social cognitive theory incorporates task value into its model. The theory explicitly addresses the impacts of incentives and judgmental processes. Bandura (1986, 1997) postulated that motivation is affected by self-incentives (similar to intrinsic value in expectancy-value theory), perceived disincentives (similar to cost in expectancy-value theory), personal standards (similar to attainment value in expectancy-value theory), and valuation of the activity (similar to utility value in expectancy-value theory). These different components are articulated somewhat differently in the two theoretical models, but that does not necessarily preclude formulating a synthesis. Indeed, when reviewing her own theory, Eccles has noted certain parts of the model that may need revising (e.g., see Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).

The theoretical relationship between ability beliefs and task value may be similar in expectancy-value theory and social cognitive theory. As mentioned in the earlier summary of expectancy-value theory, research has found that competence-related beliefs tend to shape people's values (see Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). However, it was also noted previously that task value tends to be a stronger predictor of sustained motivation (e.g., achievement-related choices) than do competence-related beliefs. Both theories highlight ways that competence-related beliefs and task values underlie people's motivation to pursue certain behaviors over others. Thus the causal relationship between ability expectations and values needs to be explored more fully in both theories; it is possible that there are multiple ways in which they may be related (e.g., the dual-pathway model in gender schema theory).

Besides highlighting similarities, Hyde and Durik (2005) suggested ways that social cognitive theory and expectancy-value theory might complement one another. First, the authors considered a relative strength of expectancy-value theory is its emphasis on both competence beliefs and task value. They saw social cognitive theory as focusing primarily on competence beliefs and paying little attention to values. (As I noted before, however, I find both theories acknowledge the impact of ability beliefs and task values-albeit configured in somewhat different ways in their respective models.) Second, Hyde and Durik considered it a relative strength of social cognitive theory that it identifies a fuller set of the processes linking socializers' beliefs and actions to children's development. Both theories include the role of socialization in their models, but social cognitive theory takes into account some of the specific parameters that influence when and how socialization agents affect children. For example, social cognitive theory addresses how characteristics about the socialization agents (e.g., salience, prevalence, functional value) and observer attributes (e.g., cognitive capabilities, expectations, preferences) guide the extent that children pay attention to particular models. Hyde and Durik (2005, p. 378) suggest "adding processes such as these to the expectancy-value framework should be helpful."

In summary, I have reviewed a few ways that theory bridging involving social cognitive theory and expectancy-value theory might proceed. The two theories both address the influence of ability expectations and interests on children's motivation and behavior. The two theories may also complement one another with one theory addressing certain processes in more detail than the other theory.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123864918000098

2 Agentic Perspective

Social cognitive theory is rooted in an agentic perspective. People are self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting, and self-regulating, not just reactive organisms shaped and shepherded by external events. Human adaptation and change are rooted in social systems. Therefore, personal agency operates within a broad network of sociostructural influences. In these agentic transactions, people are producers as well as products of social systems. Sociostructural and personal determinants are treated as co-factors within a unified causal structure rather than as rival conceptions of human behavior.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767013401

Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive theory is one of the most commonly used behavior change theories. The central premise of social cognitive theory is reciprocal determinism, which is the interaction of person, environment, and behavior. Person, environment, and behavior continuously interact. A person's behavior is shaped by observing the people around them and their perceptions of the environment. A person's behavior is influenced by their capabilities or knowledge, positive and negative reinforcements, self-control (e.g., setting and meeting goals), perceived outcomes of performing behaviors and the values placed on those outcomes, and self-efficacy (i.e., confidence in overcoming barriers). Thus, a person that does not know how to engage in the behavior, does not value the outcomes associated with engaging in the behavior, or is not confident that they will be able to overcome barriers is likely not to engage in the behavior. Fortunately, all of these factors can potentially be modified by healthcare providers. Healthcare providers can provide education on how to perform the behavior, teach skills in self-control (e.g., goal-setting and self-monitoring), influence perceptions about the behavior (e.g., encouraging positive reinforcement), and build confidence in overcoming barriers (e.g., increasing self-efficacy).

Self-efficacy has consistently been shown to influence behaviors in stroke survivors. Social cognitive theory outlines four ways to improve self-efficacy: (1) mastery experiences, (2) vicarious experiences (i.e., social modeling), (3) social persuasion, and (4) states of emotions and physiology. Healthcare providers can provide mastery experiences by encouraging patients to practice the behavior, ensuring that the patient has small successes in engaging in the behavior (i.e., start simple and progress in difficulty), and providing feedback on progress. Healthcare providers can facilitate vicarious experiences by encouraging patients to attend support groups, having them interact with other patients (e.g., group education), and describing success stories of patients engaging in the behavior. Social persuasion and states of emotions can both be addressed by providing education, for example, providing pamphlets on the benefits of exercising or medications, teaching the differences between fatigue felt after exercise and fatigue caused by the stroke, and addressing feelings of depression and/or anxiety. Table 20.1 provides details on implementing behavior strategies consistent with social cognitive theory.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323553810000202

Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive theory (SCT) serves to integrate behavioral and cognitive explanations for human behavior. Central to SCT is the notion that humans do not passively respond to past or current environmental influences but possess the ability to foresee the consequences of our actions. The cognitive outcome expectancies we form allow us to appraise potential consequences of engaging in any given behavior, and thus determine which behaviors we will engage in. Actions we expect will result in positive outcomes are readily adopted, while those that we believe will result in negative outcomes are avoided. This forethought allows us to predict events, set goals, and play an active role in achieving such goals. According to Bandura, self-efficacy is the key factor underlying the human agency central to SCT. Intention to act and a desired outcome are not sufficient to enact behavior; rather individuals must possess self-regulatory mechanisms that allow them to exert control over their behavior. Specifically, regardless of what other factors may affect behavior, unless someone believes they have the ability to perform a behavior or change their circumstances, they will not attempt to do so.

When examining the role of self-efficacy in drinking, researchers have most often studied the role of an individual's belief in their ability to resist drinking (refusal self-efficacy). Refusal self-efficacy is an important predictor of drinking and intention to drink alcohol in children and adolescents. Longitudinal designs have been used to predict teenagers' alcohol and drug use from cognitive and social variables, including refusal self-efficacy. Regardless of whether the participants had experience with alcohol use, refusal self-efficacy was predictive of alcohol use 9 months later. Research by Hasking and Oei has confirmed that in addition to demonstrated salience in clinical and adolescent samples, drinking refusal self-efficacy can discriminate problem and nonproblem drinkers and high- and low-risk drinkers in community samples.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123983367000668

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Self-efficacy theory (SET) is a subset of Bandura's (1986 ) social cognitive theory. According to this approach, the two key determinants of behavior are perceived self-efficacy and outcome expectancies. The latter construct refers to the perceived positive and negative consequences of performing the behavior.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Self-Efficacy Theory of Motivation is a way to explain motivation.

Why do some team members work hard while others do the minimum they think they can get away with? Studies have shown that self-efficacy is a strong predictor of high-performance.

What is Self-Efficacy?

Self-Efficacy is the belief that you are capable of achieving a specific goal or performing a particular task.

But if your boss asked you to pilot a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, then you probably wouldn't feel confident at all.

Self-Efficacy Theory of Motivation

The higher your self-efficacy, the more you will believe you are capable of achieving a task or goal. Conversely, the lower your-self-efficacy, the less you will believe you are capable of performing a task.

Why is this important to motivation? Well, because people are less likely to give a task their full effort if their self-efficacy is low for that task. Another way to look at this is why would you give it your maximum effort if you don't believe you can succeed at it?

Background

Albert Bandura developed the Self-Efficacy Theory of Motivation. Bandura, born 1925, is a Canadian psychologist who described self-efficacy in detail in his 1997 book, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control.

How We Determine Our Self-Efficacy

1. Experience

Experience refers to your past experience of completing similar tasks. This is the most important factor in self-efficacy.

2. Vicarious Experience

You can develop self-efficacy vicariously by watching other people perform a task.

If you watch someone similar to you perform a task and succeed at that task, then your self-efficacy will increase. Conversely, if you watch someone similar to you perform a task and fail, this can negatively affect your self-efficacy.

3. Social Persuasion

You can increase your self-efficacy if others give you encouragement that you can perform a task. Likewise, your self-efficacy will decrease if you receive discouraging or disparaging remarks about your ability to perform a task.

4. Physiological Feedback

For example, if you are due to perform a presentation to a large crowd of people, you might experience butterflies in your stomach.

How do you interpret this feeling? If you interpret this feeling as being excited to get on stage, this will increase your self-efficacy. If you experience these butterflies as stage-fright or anxiety, this will decrease your self-efficacy for this and similar tasks.

In general, the more at ease you are with a particular type of task, the higher your self-efficacy will be.

Using the Self-Efficacy Theory of Motivation

To make use of the Self-Efficacy Theory of Motivation, we need ways to build our self-efficacy. There are four ways in which you can build self-efficacy.

1. Master Tasks

To begin increasing your self-efficacy for a particular task, start by setting realistic but challenging goals based on where you are right now. When you succeed with that goal, build on it by setting a slightly more challenging goal.

Over time these accomplishments will grow to build you a high self-efficacy for this type of task.

Here is an example from the workplace. Suppose you are terrified of public speaking. You could begin building your self-efficacy by merely attending a public speaking meeting in a safe environment outside the workplace, such as Toastmasters.

If you experience a setback at any point, reset your goal based on where you are now and repeat the process. Resetting your goals and then continuing to progress after experiencing a setback will help you build resilience.

2. Model Behavior

Find role models to observe who have high self-efficacy in the area or skill where you are looking to build self-efficacy.

These role models can be a powerful motivating force especially if they have also built their self-efficacy from a similar position as yours is now.

If you can't find or don't want to find role models from the workplace, then the Internet is a great place to seek out role models.

3. Social Persuasion

These are people who will work directly with you to build your self-efficacy step by step. As they have themselves "been there and done that," they can help lead you to high self-efficacy more quickly than you could achieve under your own initiative.

4. Improve Your Emotional State

We all interpret our past experiences and the physical sensations coming from our bodies. Sometimes we can misinterpret this information.

Suppose we get nervous before giving a presentation. This feeling is perfectly natural. But suppose we believe that we're bad at performing presentations. The feeling is so strong it affects our performance in our presentation. This is obviously bad.

Because of our poor performance in our last presentation, we further believe in our minds that we're no good at presentations. Thus we get even more nervous the next time we have to do one.

But it's not that we are actually bad at presentations, just that we have interpreted the signals wrong. If we could learn over time to interpret these signals positively, we could improve our self-efficacy around doing presentations significantly.

One way to do this is by changing the limiting the beliefs we have.

Disadvantages

Most people can benefit from increasing their self-efficacy around tasks necessary to their jobs at which they are not confident or competent. However, sometimes having a high self-efficacy has disadvantages.

In fact, very high levels of self-efficacy can result in:

Overconfidence in your ability.

Reduced performance. You believe in your abilities so much you don't put in the necessary effort level.

Conclusion

The Self-Efficacy Theory of Motivation is a way to explain motivation. Studies have shown that self-efficacy is a strong predictor of high-performance. By increasing our self-efficacy, or that of our teams, we can raise our confidence and performance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Self-Efficacy Theory of Motivation - Team Management Training

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Self-Efficacy Theory of Motivation is a way to explain motivation. Studies have shown that self-efficacy is a strong predictor of high-performance. Self-Efficacy is the belief that you are capable of achieving a specific goal or performing a specific task.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Skinner’s Operant Conditioning: Rewards & Punishments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teresa Amabile - Creativity and Motivation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Daniel Goleman Introduces Emotional Intelligence | Big Think

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We probably all know people, either at work or in our personal lives, who are really good listeners. No matter what kind of situation we're in, they always seem to know just what to say - and how to say it - so that we're not offended or upset. They're caring and considerate, and even if we don't find a solution to our problem, we usually leave feeling more hopeful and optimistic.

Read on to learn more about Emotional Intelligence.

See the transcript of this video below.
Video Transcript
When you think about an effective leader, what characteristics come to mind? Chances are, you picture someone who listens to their team. They stay cool under pressure, know when to trust their intuition, and they never let their emotions get the best of them. People like this have a high degree of emotional intelligence.

Emotional intelligence - or EI - is the ability to recognize your emotions, understand them, and see how they affect those around you. Having high emotional intelligence also means you understand other people's emotions. This allows you to manage your relationships better, and avoid potential conflicts. There are five elements that define emotional intelligence.

The first is self-awareness. When you're self-aware, you know how you're feeling all of the time, and you understand how those feelings are affecting the people around you.

The second characteristic is self-regulation. This is the ability to control your emotions and actions. You can develop self-regulation by living your values, and by holding yourself accountable when you make a mistake.

The next element of emotional intelligence is motivation. Highly motivated people put off short-term rewards for long-term success.

The fourth element is empathy. This is when you have the ability to identify with other people, and understand their wants, needs and viewpoints.

Finally, having good social skills is also critically important. This helps you work positively with other people, and manage conflict effectively.

Having high emotional intelligence is crucial in today's workplace. If you can build and maintain strong relationships, then you can work happily and productively with the people around you. It's also one of the key attributes of being an effective leader.

We probably also know people who are masters at managing their emotions. They don't get angry in stressful situations. Instead, they have the ability to look at a problem and calmly find a solution. They're excellent decision makers, and they know when to trust their intuition. Regardless of their strengths, however, they're usually willing to look at themselves honestly. They take criticism well, and they know when to use it to improve their performance.

People like this have a high degree of emotional intelligence. They know themselves very well, and they're also able to sense the emotional needs of others.

Would you like to be more like this?

As more and more people accept that emotional intelligence is just as important to professional success as technical ability, organizations are increasingly using it when they hire and promote.

For example, one large cosmetics company recently revised their hiring process for salespeople to choose candidates based on their emotional intelligence. The result? People hired with the new system have sold, on average, $91,000 more than salespeople selected under the old system. There has also been significantly lower staff turnover among the group chosen for their emotional intelligence.

So, what exactly is emotional intelligence, and what can you do to improve yours?

What Is Emotional Intelligence?

We all have different personalities, different wants and needs, and different ways of showing our emotions. Navigating through this all takes tact and cleverness - especially if we hope to succeed in life. This is where emotional intelligence becomes important.

Emotional intelligence is the ability to recognize your emotions, understand what they're telling you, and realize how your emotions affect people around you. It also involves your perception of others: when you understand how they feel, this allows you to manage relationships more effectively.

People with high emotional intelligence are usually successful in most things they do. Why? Because they're the ones that others want on their team. When people with high emotional intelligence send an email, it gets answered. When they need help, they get it. Because they make others feel good, they go through life much more easily than people who are easily angered or upset.

Characteristics of Emotional Intelligence

In his book titled "Emotional Intelligence - Why It Can Matter More Than IQ" 1995, Daniel Goleman, an American psychologist, developed a framework of five elements that define emotional intelligence:

1. Self-Awareness - People with high emotional intelligence are usually very self-aware. They understand their emotions, and because of this, they don't let their feelings rule them. They're confident - because they trust their intuition and don't let their emotions get out of control.

They're also willing to take an honest look at themselves. They know their strengths and weaknesses, and they work on these areas so they can perform better. Many people believe that this self-awareness is the most important part of emotional intelligence.

2. Self-Regulation - This is the ability to control emotions and impulses. People who self-regulate typically don't allow themselves to become too angry or jealous, and they don't make impulsive, careless decisions. They think before they act. Characteristics of self-regulation are thoughtfulness, comfort with change, integrity, and the ability to say no.

3. Motivation - People with a high degree of emotional intelligence are usually motivated. They're willing to defer immediate results for long-term success. They're highly productive, love a challenge, and are very effective in whatever they do.

4. Empathy - This is perhaps the second-most important element of emotional intelligence. Empathy is the ability to identify with and understand the wants, needs, and viewpoints of those around you. People with empathy are good at recognizing the feelings of others, even when those feelings may not be obvious. As a result, empathetic people are usually excellent at managing relationships, listening, and relating to others. They avoid stereotyping and judging too quickly, and they live their lives in a very open, honest way.

5. Social Skills - It's usually easy to talk to and like people with good social skills, another sign of high emotional intelligence. Those with strong social skills are typically team players. Rather than focus on their own success first, they help others develop and shine. They can manage disputes, are excellent communicators, and are masters at building and maintaining relationships.

As you've probably determined, emotional intelligence can be a key to success in your life - especially in your career. The ability to manage people and relationships is very important in all leaders, so developing and using your emotional intelligence can be a good way to show others the leader inside of you.

How to Improve Your Emotional Intelligence

The good news is that emotional intelligence can be learned and developed. As well as working on your skills in the five areas above, use these strategies:

Observe how you react to people. Do you rush to judgment before you know all of the facts? Do you stereotype? Look honestly at how you think and interact with other people. Try to put yourself in their place, and be more open and accepting of their perspectives and needs.

Look at your work environment. Do you seek attention for your accomplishments? Humility can be a wonderful quality, and it doesn't mean that you're shy or lack self-confidence. When you practice humility, you say that you know what you did, and you can be quietly confident about it. Give others a chance to shine - put the focus on them, and don't worry too much about getting praise for yourself.

Do a self-evaluation. Try out our emotional intelligence quiz. What are your weaknesses? Are you willing to accept that you're not perfect and that you could work on some areas to make yourself a better person? Have the courage to look at yourself honestly - it can change your life.

Examine how you react to stressful situations. Do you become upset every time there's a delay or something doesn't happen the way you want? Do you blame others or become angry at them, even when it's not their fault? The ability to stay calm and in control in difficult situations is highly valued - in the business world and outside it. Keep your emotions under control when things go wrong.

Take responsibility for your actions. If you hurt someone's feelings, apologize directly - don't ignore what you did or avoid the person. People are usually more willing to forgive and forget if you make an honest attempt to make things right.

Examine how your actions will affect others - before you take those actions. If your decision will impact others, put yourself in their place. How will they feel if you do this? Would you want that experience? If you must take the action, how can you help others deal with the effects?

See our article on Emotional Intelligence in Leadership for specific tips related to a leadership role.

Key Points

Although "regular" intelligence is important to success in life, emotional intelligence is key to relating well to others and achieving your goals. Many people believe that it is at least as important as regular intelligence, and many companies now use emotional intelligence testing to hire new staff.

Emotional intelligence is an awareness of your actions and feelings - and how they affect those around you. It also means that you value others, listen to their wants and needs, and are able to empathize or identify with them on many different levels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emotional Intelligence: Developing Strong "People Skills"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We probably all know people, either at work or in our personal lives, who are really good listeners. No matter what kind of situation we're in, they always seem to know just what to say - and how to say it - so that we're not offended or upset.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SEL 101: What are the core competencies and key settings?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English Language Learners: Culture, Equity and Language

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Valentina Gonzalez with ELL students.

A new school year is almost here, and a new group of students will soon arrive-including many English language learners (ELLs) at varying ages and levels of language acquisition. As educators well know, kids and teens who are learning English as a second or additional language and new content at the same time need extra support.

During my 20-plus years in teaching, I refined four powerful instructional strategies that help give ELL students the tools they need to succeed in school-and as lifelong learners. They are designed to be woven into daily instruction across content areas from pre-K to 12th grade.

Make input comprehensible

Let's say you went to China and sat in a classroom listening to a teacher speak Mandarin all day. You don't know Mandarin. Would you be able to follow along?

The way we deliver information is key to how students receive it. We could stand in front of students all day long and lecture, or use PowerPoint, and be completely ineffective. In order to make content comprehensible, we use techniques that allow listeners to access the language. There are many ways to do this with students.

Using gestures while lecturing or reading a book, repetition, and paraphrasing are a few examples. At the beginning level of proficiency, ELLs benefit from measured speech, which helps them make distinctions between words. Using clear, explicit language when speaking is also important, while adding extra fluff or figurative language can hinder comprehension.

Total physical response (TPR), developed by James Asher, professor emeritus of psychology at San José State University, teaches language by incorporating physical movement. This simple yet powerful instructional strategy effectively boosts vocabulary development. Adding movement to critical vocabulary also helps students internalize meaning.

For instance, if the word producer is important for students to grasp, the teacher might write the word, have students repeat it multiple times, provide a short definition, and ask them to work in groups to come up with a physical movement to represent the term. The use of multiple modalities (kinesthetic, visual, and verbal) lifts the level of comprehension and recall. The word tree might be accompanied by a gesture using arms and fingers to demonstrate what a tree looks like.

Model for your students

If we truly want our students to hit the target, we have to show them what the target is. Model what we expect. Often, when educators feel the pressure of too much curriculum to cover, modeling drops off the lesson plan. But it's essential to a successful outcome.

One way to model is to think aloud, a strategy that works across content areas and supports all learners. This is practiced most frequently in the English language arts setting when teachers model during a read-aloud. In math, we can demonstrate how to problem-solve or read a word problem. In science, we can model how to write a hypothesis or begin an experiment. We model how to select an appropriate book in the library or how to help a friend who has a problem.

Modeling is especially important for ELLs: learning language and content simultaneously, these students are bombarded with information all day. Helping them concentrate on what's important gives them a learning focus and helps them feel successful.

For instance, the teacher might say while holding a book, "I notice that this book has pictures, and each picture has writing beneath it. I also see that there is a time line in this book as well as a few graphs and charts. I'm beginning to think that this book is going to teach me something. The text structure tells me that it may be a nonfiction book."

When modeling, be clear and explicit with instructions. Breaking down activities or assignments into steps is essential. Here's an example for elementary students who are in the process of writing about a picture: "Step one: Look at the picture. Step two: Think. What else can I say that I haven't written about? Step three: Try to add more words."

Provide students with attainable steps. Using a gradual release model of teaching- show them, help them, let them do it themselves -allows all students to feel independent and successful.

During the "show them" phase, the teacher models while thinking aloud about the process taking place and records it on an anchor chart-a poster that highlights strategies students can refer to later if they need support. The "help them" phase, which should be repeated multiple times, is carried out with partners or in groups: students work together and lean on one another while learning. During the final phase, students work on their own but refer to the anchor charts and to the teacher if they need assistance. Throughout, the educator is there to facilitate, formatively assess, and offer feedback.

English language learners working
together in a small group.

Use visuals

Mountains of research have shown that visuals aid comprehension and promote recall. When we show vibrant pictures, sketches, and real items (realia) to students learning new vocabulary, they are more apt to comprehend, store, and recall it when they need it.

Have you ever walked into a classroom on the first day of school and the walls are filled with posters and charts? You might think, "Wow, this environment is perfect for learning to begin."

On the contrary, a classroom with empty walls on the first day may support some learners better, especially ELLs. Why? When we create anchor charts with students, involving them in the process, they are more likely to internalize the information.

When I was a first-year teacher, I prepared my entire room before school started. I soon learned that my pre-filled walls were often ineffective unless kids interacted with them meaningfully. Now, my walls grow with the children. That doesn't mean that everything has to be created in the presence of or by students. It means that if we have something on our walls, we need to tell our students why it's there and how it's relevant. Otherwise, why put it up? The way we use and display word walls can transform our students' vocabulary comprehension.

The first classroom word wall I created was also organized alphabetically. Now, I organize them thematically or according to a teaching unit, and they are structured like graphic organizers or concept maps. Students interact with them and help create the words.

For instance, if I were teaching a unit about energy, my word wall might be titled "Forms of Energy." Beneath that, I would create columns. As we learn, students are encouraged to draw and/or label types of energy-heat, sound, light, etc.-and place them in the correct column.

Hallmarks of ELL Education

If you walk into a classroom that is highly supportive of ELLs, you might see desks in groups or flexible arrangements, allowing students to work together, rather than studying in isolation at desks arranged in rows. Looking around, you will notice anchor charts that have been made by teachers and students, rather than bought in a store. This room is immersed in language that is supported by visual scaffolds.

Close your eyes...and listen. A place that nurtures ELL students encourages risk-taking and allows students to feel safe to ask, answer, and discuss questions with classmates. You won't hear the teacher praising a quiet class-rather, teachers praise discussion and collaboration. There's an understanding that the goal is teaching students to think creatively, rather than to recall and regurgitate answers.

Make output comprehensible

English language learners need to practice the new language in a low-stress environment. Speaking and writing in English in a safe space is critical for their progress.

Output can be categorized in two groups: speaking and writing. One way to maximize speaking is to create opportunities for students to work in cooperative groups. These offer smaller settings where students can problem-solve and think critically while interacting with a heterogeneous mix of peers.

Various cooperative grouping structures include "think-pair-share" and "inside/outside circle." In the think-pair-share method of student interaction, the teacher asks a question and allows students time to think about it, then students pair up and share their answers. In the inside/outside circle method, a discussion technique introduced by educational researcher and author Spencer Kagan, students position themselves in two concentric circles. The teacher poses a question, allowing for think time. In pairs, students from each circle share answers. Upon a signal, one circle rotates, and students share with new partners. Both of these cooperative grouping structures provide students with a low-stress opportunity to express themselves.

Some students also benefit from sentence stems, which are prompts to start a sentence that the student must complete, and word banks, lists of words, during cooperative groups. Word banks are especially helpful to students who are learning and writing with new, content-specific vocabulary. Paragraph frames, which are skeleton outlines supplying sentence stems and transition words, also support those at beginning and intermediate language levels.

It's vital that ELLs have opportunities to practice oral and written language in all content areas. Writing and speaking in math, science, and social studies differs from writing and speaking in language arts. The domain-specific vocabulary needed to write about a science experiment, for example, and the structure of that type of writing are unique.

These have proven to be my tried-and-true teaching strategies. What are yours? Let me know in the comments section online: slj.com/Teaching_ELLs.

Valentina Gonzalez (@ValentinaESL) is a professional development specialist for elementary ESL in Katy, TX. Visit her blog.

The ESL/ELL Teacher's Survival Guide: Ready-to-Use Strategies, Tool, and Activities for Teaching English Language Learners of all Levels by Larry Ferlazzo and Katie Hull-Sypenieski (Jossey-Bass, 2012)

Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: the SIOP Model by Janna Echevaria, MaryEllen Vogt and Deborah Short (Christopher-Gordon, 2000)

Reading to Learn for ELs: Motivation Practices and Comprehension Strategies for Informational Texts by Ana M. Taboada Barber, ed. Nell K. Duke (Heinemann, 2016)

Research-based Strategies for English Language Learners: How to Reach Goals and Meet Standards, K-8 by Denise M. Rea, Sandra P. Mercuri (Heinemann, 2006)

Supporting English Learners in the Reading Workshop by Lindsey Moses (Heinemann, 2015)

7 Steps to a Language-Rich Interactive Classroom by John Seidlitz and Bill. Perryman (canter, 2010)

Colorin Colorado his website provides a wealth of resources including articles, activities, and advice for educators of ELLs.

The Teaching Channel is a great place to find videos of real teachers and students working in classrooms using various instructional techniques.

Common Lit offers free instructional materials. Teachers can create classes and assign adapted texts to their students.

CultofPedagogy.com Librarian and educator Jennifer Gonzalez offers research-based, easy-to-read information for teachers.

Newsela provides highly engaging, adapted reading materials in all content areas as well as a means to track student progress.

larryferlazzo.edublogs.org Author and high school teacher Larry Ferlazzo's blog is a wealth of ELL resources.

EmpoweringElls.com Tan Huynh, a high school ESL teacher working abroad, shared strategies.

Twitter ELL Eduheros to follow

@emilyfranESL ESL teacher Emily Francis

@Larryferlazzo Blogger, author, and educator Larry Ferlazzo

@MsSalvac ESL consultant and author Carol Salva

ELL educator Tan Huynh

@Toppel_ELD Elementary English language development specialist Katie Toppel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Four Surefire Techniques for Engaging English Language Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Valentina Gonzalez with ELL students. A new school year is almost here, and a new group of students will soon arrive-including many English language learners (ELLs) at varying ages and levels of language acquisition. As educators well know, kids and teens who are learning English as a second or additional language and new content at the same time need extra support.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over 400 languages are spoken by students who are English Language Learners nationwide. English Language Learners comprise 10 percent of the student population enrolled in U.S. K-12 schools-the fastest-growing group of students in our nation's schools. These students bring a rich cultural diversity to our student populations and communities, but with a language barrier to participation and access in the education system, ELL students are also disproportionately underserved.

Unfortunately, these demographic changes haven't seen parallel changes in the way schools perceive and educate ELL students. Many educators are underprepared to meet the linguistic and academic needs of ELLs, and many lack the cultural competence to deal with this diverse group of students. At the same time, current school resources are inadequate for providing the training and support ELL educators and students need.

Want to be an advocate for language-minority students? This National Education Association guide offers strategies, resources, and step-by-step instructions for navigating the real-life issues educators encounter every day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English Language Learners - NEA EdJustice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over 400 languages are spoken by students who are English Language Learners nationwide. English Language Learners comprise 10 percent of the student population enrolled in U.S. K-12 schools-the fastest-growing group of students in our nation's schools.