Vol 16 No 7 - July 2017

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:1694-2493
e-ISSN:1694-2116IJLTER.ORG
Vol.16 No.7

PUBLISHER
London Consulting Ltd
District of Flacq
Republic of Mauritius
www.ijlter.org
Chief Editor
Dr. Antonio Silva Sprock, Universidad Central de
Venezuela, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Editorial Board
Prof. Cecilia Junio Sabio
Prof. Judith Serah K. Achoka
Prof. Mojeed Kolawole Akinsola
Dr Jonathan Glazzard
Dr Marius Costel Esi
Dr Katarzyna Peoples
Dr Christopher David Thompson
Dr Arif Sikander
Dr Jelena Zascerinska
Dr Gabor Kiss
Dr Trish Julie Rooney
Dr Esteban Vázquez-Cano
Dr Barry Chametzky
Dr Giorgio Poletti
Dr Chi Man Tsui
Dr Alexander Franco
Dr Habil Beata Stachowiak
Dr Afsaneh Sharif
Dr Ronel Callaghan
Dr Haim Shaked
Dr Edith Uzoma Umeh
Dr Amel Thafer Alshehry
Dr Gail Dianna Caruth
Dr Menelaos Emmanouel Sarris
Dr Anabelie Villa Valdez
Dr Özcan Özyurt
Assistant Professor Dr Selma Kara
Associate Professor Dr Habila Elisha Zuya
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
Educational Research
The International Journal of Learning, Teaching
and Educational Research is an open-access
journal which has been established for the dis-
semination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
field of education, learning and teaching. IJLTER
welcomes research articles from academics, ed-
ucators, teachers, trainers and other practition-
ers on all aspects of education to publish high
quality peer-reviewed papers. Papers for publi-
cation in the International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research are selected
through precise peer-review to ensure quality,
originality, appropriateness, significance and
readability. Authors are solicited to contribute
to this journal by submitting articles that illus-
trate research results, projects, original surveys
and case studies that describe significant ad-
vances in the fields of education, training, e-
learning, etc. Authors are invited to submit pa-
pers to this journal through the ONLINE submis-
sion system. Submissions must be original and
should not have been published previously or
be under consideration for publication while
being evaluated by IJLTER.

VOLUME 16 NUMBER 7 July 2017
Table of Contents
Exploration of Conceptions of Assessment within High-Stakes U.S. Culture................................................................ 1
Melanie A. DiLoreto, Ph.D., Christie Pellow, M.A., and David L. Stout, Ph.D.
Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Self-Efficacy in Military Cadets ........................................................................... 10
Ole Boe and Hans-Olav Bergstøl
Differentiated Instruction in the High School Science Classroom: Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses ............ 30
Jane Pablico. Moustapha Diack and Albertha Lawson
An Evaluation of using Games in Teaching English Grammar for First Year English-Majored Students at Dong
Nai Technology University.................................................................................................................................................. 55
Lien Cam and Thi Minh Thu Tran
Abolition of Agricultural Science as a Single Subject in Basic Schools in Ghana: Implications for Basic Educational
Reforms .................................................................................................................................................................................. 72
Martin Bosompem and Theophilus Numo
Pre-defined Roles and Team Performance for First-year Students ................................................................................ 84
Jess Everett, Kaitlin Mallouk and Jenahvive Morgan
To What Extent Does the Medicalisation of the English Language Complicate the Teaching of Medical ESP to
Japanese Medical Students Learning English as a Foreign Language? ....................................................................... 102
Abdullah Alami

© 2017 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
1
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 1-9, July 2017
Exploration of Conceptions of Assessment
within High-Stakes U.S. Culture
Melanie A. DiLoreto, Ph.D., Christie Pellow, M.A., and David L. Stout, Ph.D.
The University of West Florida
Pensacola, Florida, United States
Abstract. Past quantitative research about students‘ and faculty
members‘ conceptions of assessment indicates that faculty believe that
one of the primary purposes of assessment is for improvement of both
teaching and learning. Students, however, associate a primary reason
for assessment in higher education for accountability of both students
and the institution. The present study aimed to determine if beliefs
were congruent between student and faculty responses to open-ended
survey items. Using a phenomenological approach to investigate
students‘ and faculty members‘ conceptions of assessment, the
researchers found discrepant results when qualitative data were
compared to the results of past quantitative studies (Brown, 2004;
DiLoreto, 2013; Fletcher, Meyer, Anderson, Johnston, & Rees, 2011).
Additional results of this inquiry and implications of these findings for
educational settings are discussed.
Keywords: conceptions of assessment; teaching; learning; higher
education
Introduction
Research suggests that conceptions are derived from past experiences.
Thus, one‘s past experiences with assessment influences how one conceives the
purpose of assessment. Multiple studies conducted in various low-stakes
environments around the globe have suggested that a primary purpose of
assessment is to improve student learning. However, when a similar study was
conducted in the high-stakes assessment and accountability culture found in the
United States, students reported a belief that a primary purpose of assessment is
to evaluate their performance instead of improve their learning. In order to
further investigate how students and faculty conceptualize assessment, this
phenomenological study sought to explore deeper meanings of the term as well
as the various activities that both students and faculty members associate with
it.
Review of the Literature
In the realm of education, the conceptions of educators and students
alike are often developed and refined through pedagogical endeavours.

2
Specifically, conceptions of assessment are shaped by the attitudes, beliefs, and
perceptual experiences of the perceiver. These preconceived notions can
potentially negatively impact student outcomes (Struyyen et al. 2005; Fletcher et
al., 2011). Nonetheless, assessment serves a valuable and necessary purpose in
the hierarchical chain of higher education. Assessment data can be fundamental
to the continuous improvement of both teaching and learning. It is through the
use of assessments that data can be gathered to support needed changes in
academic courses and programs. Thus, the conceptions of assessment could be
considered as important to the current and future health of the academic
process.
Beliefs are meanings that are based on lived experiences and cultural
norms from which sense is made about these experiences (Ekeblad and Bond,
1994, 343-353). Furthermore, conceptions are defined as mental constructs or
representations of an individual‘s reality (Brown and Lake, 2006; Fodor, 1998;
Kelly, 1991; Lakoff and Johnson 2003; Thompson, 1992, 127-146). Consequently,
an individual‘s conception of assessment and its importance are thus invariably
connected to learning outcomes. Faculty members are not immune to these
predilections either, and their experiences affect the way in which they
implement their own assessments in the classroom. Indeed, past research
indicates that beliefs about assessment impact the way instructors teach and the
way students learn (Brown, 2004; Struyven, Dochy, and Janssens, 2005).
Therefore, because conceptions are filtered through an individual‘s belief
system, the conceptions of assessment held by students may be different from
those held by their teachers (Brown, 2004; Hidri, 2015).
Assessment serves multiple purposes for all stakeholders of institutions
of higher education. As such, assessment practices have evolved as a result of
the demands of external accountability measures imposed by various policy-
makers. One dilemma faced by stakeholders is the fact that the term assessment
is often used within different contexts and with different meanings (Shepard,
2000). Wang and Hurley (2012) indicate that an assessment movement in higher
education began in the 1980s with an emphasis on student learning. Since that
time, accrediting agencies have required institutions of higher education to
implement program-level and institution-level assessment procedures in
addition to documenting student learning. Wang and Hurley (2012) found that
the way assessment is perceived by faculty might impact student achievement.
In a quasi-experimental study, Brown, Chaudhry, and Dhamija (2015)
researched the beliefs of teachers about the purposes of assessment and found
that such beliefs were impacted by the perceived roles of assessment.
Due to a shift in various educational reforms, during the 1990s
institutions of higher education began placing a greater emphasis on research-
based practices and quantifiable evidence to demonstrate that students were
capable of attaining course learning outcomes. A common practice is to
measure the efficacy of students‘ performances on various assessments in order
to identify the most effective institutions for subsequent funding and resource
allocations. Consequently, high-stakes assessment results seem to have become
the key measure of outcomes in today‘s educational climate.
Brown (2011) suggests that the increased accountability pressure to have
institutions show improvement in student learning outcomes has impacted the

3
high-stakes classroom environment for teachers and students alike. Due to these
external pressures, it is possible that faculty may inflate test results to
demonstrate larger gains in student learning with an absence of true
comprehension (Brown, 2011).
While it seems that the disparity of belief systems and their effects on the
conceptions of assessment among the various stakeholders in education is real, it
is also clear that the increased accountability pressure (often politicized and
marketed as value added) to have institutions, schools, and teachers show
improvement in student learning outcomes advocated by politicians, public
policy, and parent populations, has impacted learning (Brown, 2011) and its
measurement in various ways. The multifaceted purpose of assessment includes
obtaining information about student learning, student progress, quality of
teaching, as well as program and institutional accountability (Brown, 2010).
Each facet of this purpose is affected by the beliefs of those who are
implementing the assessments as well as those who are being assessed. Clearly,
such research is complicated by these multi-faceted variables. However, Baird
(2014) suggests that a standardization of approaches to conducting research on
teachers‘ views about assessment would be useful. Furthermore, it is interesting
to note that Oprea (2015) found that this complex field of research has produced
only a small number of studies that have delved into all the complexities of this
topic. An attempt to connect two fields of research was done by Xu and Brown
(2016) when they investigated the connection between educational assessment
and teacher education.
Brown, Lake, and Matters (2011) report that differences in policy,
cultures, and the purpose of assessment lead to differences in how assessment is
conceptualized by various stakeholders. Specifically, Brown et al. (2011)
hypothesize that when there is a high-stakes environment for students
associated with the use of assessments, teachers and students will report a
student-accountability purpose of assessment. Research studies completed in
New Zealand, where a low-stakes assessment environment is routine, confirm
that faculty members‘ and students‘ conceptions of assessment differ from those
belonging to more high-stakes assessment cultures, such as that of the United
States. According to Fletcher et al. (2011), higher education faculty view
assessment as an aid to the learning process whereas university students view
assessment as needed simply for accountability purposes or even irrelevant to
the educational process. The difference lies in the outcome of these assessments
based on the educational climate. In low-stakes settings, test scores have little to
no impact on students or schools, whereas these scores heavily regulate tenure,
promotion, and graduation rates in high stakes climates.
Prior research indicates that students, who conceptualize assessment in
terms of personal accountability rather than external accountability, achieve
more (Brown et al., 2011). Furthermore, researchers found that Australian
students became increasingly negative in their attitudes regarding assessment as
they progressed in education level and hypothesize that this shift may be the
result of students becoming more aware of the pressures and risks associated
with the result of assessment. However, research on the impact of students‘
beliefs about assessment is lacking (Brown and Harris, 2012). A simple wording
modification of Brown‘s (2006) abridged Conceptions of Assessment III (CoA-

4
III) instrument was initially intended to be used by the researchers to determine
faculty members‘ and undergraduate students‘ self-reported conceptions of
assessment. However, in order to gain further insights, to identify trends and to
explore faculty members‘ and undergraduate students‘ beliefs about the
definition of assessment, an open-ended question developed by the researchers
was also added. Specifically, participants were asked what the term assessment
means to them. Furthermore, as part of the researchers‘ modification of the
CoA-III, participants were asked to select from a list of possible responses what
types of activities come to mind when they think of the term assessment.
Consequently, the present study used a phenomenological approach to
investigate the written responses of the participants in order to illuminate any
differences between students‘ and faculty members‘ conceptions of assessment.
Method
Participants. Undergraduate students (n = 404) and faculty (n = 156) located
within the Southern Association of College and Schools (SACS) region of the
United States were invited via email to participate in the study. Faculty
members were included in the present study if their primary duty was
pedagogy, research, program coordination, or academic dean. Additionally,
students were identified as undergraduate students attending one of the
institutions within the SACS region. One hundred and eleven institutions were
contacted to participate in the study. Of the 111 institutional contacts emailed to
participate, a total of ten institutions agreed to allow their students and faculty
to take part in the research.
Instrument. In order to explore students‘ and faculty members‘ beliefs about
the meaning of assessment, both faculty and students were asked to provide a
written response to the open-ended question, ―What does the term assessment
mean to you?‖ Next, participants were asked to ‗select all that apply‘ to the
question, ―What types of activities come to mind when you think of the term
assessment?‖ These two items were added by the researchers to the abridged
version of the CoA-III (Brown, 2006). These questions were used to gain further
insight into what these dichotomous groups conceptualize as the meaning of
assessment in a high-stakes testing culture.
Design. A cross-sectional design using survey methodology was employed for
this study. In an attempt to describe rather than explain the quality of
participants‘ responses to written items on an open-ended items on the
questionnaire, the researchers used a phenomenological approach to explore the
differences, if any, that exist between student and faculty responses to what the
term assessment means to them. A phenomenological approach allowed the
researchers to identify the specific perceptions held by the participants
Procedures. Participation in this study was delimited to faculty members who
are employed by, and undergraduate students who attend, institutions of higher
education located within the SACS region of the United States. Participants
were offered an invitation to be included in a raffle for one of the newest
versions of an Apple iPad as an attempt to increase participant response rate.

5
Participants‘ responses were anonymous and any identifying information
inadvertently collected remained confidential. Thus, member checking was not
completed. Both student and faculty participant responses to the question,
―What does the term assessment mean to you?‖ were analysed separately and
then coded in order to develop themes. Colleagues familiar with such analyses
validated the coding and themes.
Conclusion
Summary of findings. Responses to the open-ended question demonstrate
distinct differences in how faculty members and students conceptualize the term
assessment. The word test, testing, quiz, and/or exam appeared infrequently in
faculty responses (9%) compared to students (36%). Thus, students used the
word(s) test, testing, quizzes, and exams nearly four times more often than
faculty. Faculty mentioned the term evaluation in either program contexts or
student learning contexts 40 times in the 146 responses (27%). Students, on the
other hand, mentioned evaluation only 77 times out of the 394 responses (20%).
The vast majority of the evaluation-related responses for both faculty and
students referred to the assessment of students‘ knowledge and skill set. A
trend was observed where faculty connoted evaluation in respect to a course or
program, while students assumed more external responsibility for the purposes
of evaluation. Interestingly, faculty participants and student participants rarely
mentioned formative assessment, personal feedback, or improvement purposes
in their responses. In the overwhelming majority of responses, the term
assessment was defined as meeting external demands imposed by someone
within or outside of the educational institution. Thus, it is reasonable to
conclude that the findings of the present study have been impacted by the
students‘ recent emersion in a high-stakes assessment culture.
In order to answer the second research question, a crosstab analysis was
employed. The selected responses to ―When you think of the term assessment,
what types of activities come to mind?‖ were analysed. Participants were asked
to check all that apply from a list of 15 items (standardized test, self-reflection,
program evaluation, oral questions/answers, portfolios, homework, course grades,
written reports/research, conferencing, teacher made tests, tenure and/or promotion
dossier, performance evaluation, accreditation, student evaluation, other). Table 1
contains the frequency of responses to each item by faculty and students. It is
evident that the majority of faculty indicated standardized tests, program
evaluation, and teacher made tests as the most common activities associated with
assessment. Congruent with faculty, students also indicated standardized tests in
their conception of assessment most often, along with performance evaluation and
course grades.

6
Table 1: Types of Assessment Activities
Faculty Students
Item # of
Responses
Percentage of
Faculty
(n = 158)
# of
Responses
Percentage of
Students
(n = 404)
Standardized tests 122 77 357 88
Program evaluation 118 75 262 65
Performance evaluation 107 68 301 75
Student evaluation 110 70 262 65
Course grades 103 65 277 69
Teacher made tests 114 72 253 63
Written
reports/research
109 69 191 47
Homework 100 63 174 43
Oral questions/answers 98 62 185 46
Portfolios 98 62 139 34
Self-reflection 90 57 141 35
Accreditation 90 57 121 30
Tenure and/or
promotion dossier
53 34 42 10
Conferencing 52 33 70 17
Other 15 9 15 4
Researchers identified an unusual discrepancy in self-report responses in
the present study compared to previous quantitative research on the topic.
When asked to acknowledge the meaning of assessment from a personal
standpoint, faculty overwhelmingly indicated that assessment involves the
evaluation of programs and/or student learning. Yet, in past quantitative
research, faculty indicated that the primary purpose of assessment was for
improvement purposes. The discordance in faculty responses between the
current research and a prior study was highlighted when faculty were asked to
select from a list of activities about assessment. In their responses, standardized
tests were selected 77 percent of the time by faculty. Standardized testing
activities were followed by program evaluation and teacher made tests — none
of which align to what faculty indicated in their responses to the open-ended
question earlier on in the survey. Students, on the other hand, were more
consistent in their responses to both the open-ended item and the list of
activities associated with the term assessment. These results align to both past
quantitative studies about students‘ conceptions of assessment as well as the
current students‘ definition of the term assessment.
Implications. An overarching purpose in the present research inquiry was to
understand if and how students and faculty differ in their conceptions of
assessment, if responses to survey items are congruent to past quantitative
research, and finally, if membership conceptualizations of assessment match the
represented activities that come to mind in a practical application. As past
research indicates, the term assessment has various contexts and connotations
dependent on the individual. Understanding attitudes about the purpose of
assessment can help inform policy makers regarding the impact of their policy

7
decisions and the projected outcome. Knowing that attitudes, beliefs, and past
experiences with assessment can affect future learning and outcomes of students
(Ajzen 1991; Bandura 1986), and that the assessment practices of instructors can
improve student outcomes (Brown and Hirschfeld 2008; Struyven et al. 2005), it
is important for policymakers to take into consideration the conceptions of both
instructors and students if they expect these implemented policies to have a
positive impact on learning and achievement.
Limitations. The recruitment of participants limited to the Southeastern region
of the United States is a potential limitation in the current research.
Furthermore, there is a large disparity between the number of faculty members
(n = 159) and undergraduate students (n = 404) who participated in the study.
Finally, due to the nature of the data collection, member checking was not
possible. Future research should aim to collect a larger number of faculty
members to provide additional support for the underlying assumptions of the
population. It is also recommended that additional qualitative data be collected
via traditional means of data collection (focus groups, interviews, etc.) in order
to delve deeper into the meanings of the term assessment held by these
individuals.

8
References
Ajzen, Icek. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50: 179-211.
Baird, J. (2014). Teachers‘ views on assessment practices. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, Vol. 21, No. 4, Pages 361 – 364.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.960689
Bandura, Albert. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Brown, Gavin T. L. (2004). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy
and professional development. Assessment in Education, 11(3): 301-318. Accessed
September 14, 2016. doi: 10.1080/0969594042000304609
Brown, Gavin T. L. (2006). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Validation of an
abridged instrument. Psychological Reports, 99, 166-170.
Brown, Gavin T. L. (2010). Assessment: Principles and Practice. In R. Cantwell, & J.
Scevak, An Academic Life: A Handbook for New Academics. Melbourne, Australia:
ACER Press.
Brown, Gavin T. L. (2011). Leading school-based assessment for educational
improvement: Rethinking accountability. Keynote address presented to the Third
International Conference 'Excellence in School Education', Indian Institute of
Technology, New Delhi, India, December 29-31.
Brown, Gavin T.L. Chaudhry, H., and Dhamija, R. (2015) The impact of an
assessment policy upon teachers‘ self-reported assessment beliefs and practices:
A quasi-experimental study of Indian teachers in private schools. International
Journal of Educational Research 71, pages 50-64.
Brown, Gavin T. L., and Harris, Lois. (2012). Student conceptions of assessment by level
of schooling: Further evidence for ecological rationality in belief systems.
Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 12: 46-59.
Brown, Gavin T. L., and Hirschfeld, Gerrit H. F. (2008). Students‘ conceptions of
assessment: Links to outcomes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and
Practice, 15(1): 3-17.
Brown, Gavin T. L., and Lake, Robert. (2006). Queensland Teachers' Conceptions of
Teaching, Learning, Curriculum and Assessment: Comparisons with New
Zealand Teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian
Association for Research in Education (AARE). Adelaide, Australia, April 19-21.
Brown, Gavin T. L., Lake, Robert, and Matters, Gabrielle. (2011). Queensland teachers'
conceptions of assessment: The impact of policy priorities on teacher attitudes.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 27: 210-220.
DiLoreto, Melanie A. (2013). Multi-group invariance of the conceptions of assessment scale
among university faculty and students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS.
Ekeblad, Eva, and Bond, Carol. (1994). The nature of a conception: questions of context.
In Phenomenography: philosophy and practice, edited by R. &. Ballantyne, 343-
353. Australia: Center for Applied Environmental and Social Education
Research.
Fletcher, Richard B., Meyer, Luanna H., Anderson, Helen, Johnston, Patricia, and Rees,
Malcolm. (2011). Faculty and Students Conceptions of Assessment in Higher
Education. Springer Science+ Business Media B.V., 64: 119-133. Accessed
September 14, 2016. doi: 10.1007/s10734-011-9484-1
Fodor, Jerry A. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford, UK:
Clarendon Press.
Hidri, S. (2015). Conceptions of assessment: Investigating what assessment means to
secondary and university teachers. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics e-ISSN

9
2490-4198 Vol. 1, No. 1, 19-43.
Kelly, George A. 1(991). The psychology of personal constructs: A theory of personality.
London, UK: Routledge.
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: Chicago
University Press.
Oprea, Dana (2015) Teachers‘ Conceptions of Assessment. In Chis, V. and Albulescu, I.
(Eds.) The 3rd International Conference "EDUCATION, REFLECTION,
DEVELOPMENT", 3th - 4th July, 2015, ClujNapoca, Romania, Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 209, 229 – 233.
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher
29(7): 4–14.
Struyven, Katrien, Dochy, Filip, and Janssens, Steven. (2005). Students' perceptions
about evaluation and assessment in higher educadtion: A review. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4): 127-146.
Thompson, Alba G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the
research. In Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning,
edited by Douglas A. Grouws, 127-146. New York: Macmillan.
Wang, X., & Hurley, S. (2012). Assessment as a scholarly activity: Faculty perceptions of
and willingness to engage in student learning assessment. Journal of General
Education, 61(1), 1-15. doi:10.1353/jge.2012.0005
Xu, Y., and G. T. L. Brown. (2016). Teacher Assessment Literacy in Practice: A
Reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education 58: 149 –
62.10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010

10
Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 10-29, July 2017
Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Self-Efficacy
in Military Cadets
Ole Boe
Department of Military Leadership and Management,
Norwegian Defence Staff and Command College,
Norwegian Defence University College,
Oslo, Norway
Hans-Olav Bergstøl
Norwegian Military Academy,
Oslo, Norway
Abstract. Within the military profession the will to succeed and to strive
for results that go beyond what is expected, is the difference between
success and failure. The demands of war can be extreme and a crucial
factor for the will to succeed is the education of and training on self-
efficacy. Self-efficacy can be obtained either through theory or through
practice. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether
officer cadets at the Norwegian Military Academy felt that there was a
correlation between theory and practice when it came to Bandura’s four
factors of how to increase self-efficacy. The four factors were enactive
mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and
physiological and mental states. Method: A self-developed
questionnaire with 14 questions was used in order to investigate the
research question. 10 questions related to theoretical and practical
aspects of self-efficacy was developed. The last question was intended to
find out which of the four factors that had the largest impact upon self-
efficacy, and respondents were forced to choose one of the four factors.
50 officer cadets at the Norwegian Military Academy participated in the
study. Results: A correlation between Bandura’s theory and the practice
was found. The factors enactive mastery experiences and vicarious
experience were found to have a high correlation between theory and
practice. The highest correlation between theory and practice was found
for the factor verbal persuasion. The lowest correlation between theory
and practice was found for the factor physiological and mental states.
However, when forced to choose which factor that in total had the
largest impact upon self-efficacy, a clear majority of respondents
indicated the factor enactive mastery experiences.
Keywords: self-efficacy; enactive mastery experiences; vicarious
experiences; verbal persuasion; physiological and mental states; military
officers; theory; practice; education

11
Introduction
High standards are required for professionals and it should be obvious
that you need a strong self-efficacy to deal with the countless scenarios you may
find yourself in as a soldier and officer. Self-efficacy can be defined as; "... [The]
beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required
to produce given attainments" (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). This is not about the
abilities and skills one possesses, but about what one considers attainable with
the skills one possesses (Bandura, 1986). Believing in one´s own capacities, skills
and abilities has been found to be important for Norwegian military officers
within diverse subjects such as increasing the will to kill (Boe & Johannessen,
2015), learning aggression and aggression control (Boe & Ingdahl, 2017),
preparing for a parachute jump (Boe & Hagen, 2015), and enhancing leadership
communication skills (Boe & Holth, 2017; Holth & Boe, 2017).
Bandura writes that self-efficacy is a very important factor for people in
order to perform (Bandura, 1997). Perceived competence is seen as a major factor
in all types of educational processes, and prior research in a military context
have found satisfactory concordance between self-reported military competence
and demonstration of effort and expertise in military personal (Adler, Thomas,
& Castro, 2005). Studying an American Stryker brigade, Hammermeister et al.
(2010) found that soldiers with well-developed psychological skills performed
better on physical tests than soldiers with less-developed psychological skills.
Similarly, in a study of a very physically demanding selection program in the
U.S. Special Forces, self- efficacy was found to have a significant impact as to
whether the soldiers completed the hard physical selection or not (Gruber,
Kilcullen, & Iso-Ahola, 2009). These studies lends support to the notion that
psychological skills are important for soldiers and officers. In addition, several
meta-analyses have suggested a positive relationship between self-efficacy and
performance (Gully et al., 2002; Moritz et al., 2000; Multon, Brown & Lent, 1991;
Sadri and Robertson, 1993; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). On the other hand, a
study by Buch, Säfvenbom, and Boe (2015) found that self-efficacy seemed less
important for an increased perception of military competence in cadets who
revealed a higher intrinsic motivation. The picture regarding self-efficacy in the
military context is thus not clear-cut.
"The rigors in combat can be extreme. In our profession, the will to
succeed and to strive towards results that exceed the expected, is the difference
between success and failure" (Forsvarsstaben, 2007. p. 160, our translation). The
quotation is taken from the Norwegian Armed Forces Joint Operational Doctrine
and gives a good picture of why soldiers and officers need a strong self-efficacy
when conducting their professional practice. Norwegian soldiers and officers
have been participating in several operations in different countries with an
increasingly difficult operational environment (Boe, Kjørstad, & Werner-Hagen,
2012). After a conventional "cold war" scenario where the Norwegian soldiers
only guarded its own borders, recent international conflicts are of a much higher
complexity. The conflicts that the Norwegian Armed Forces have participated in
the recent decades has evolved from regular combat operations through
stabilization operations to complex peace operations (Forsvarsstaben, 2014).

12
Military leadership requires a robustness in order to think clearly and
effectively, and to master one’s own emotions in the face of complex situations
(Forsvarsstaben, 2012). An important factor in the education of soldiers and
officers will be to create a high degree of belief in their own abilities (Eid &
Johnsen, 2006). The U.S. Army´s field manual 6-22 on Army leadership
emphasize the self-development process of military leader. This includes
strengths and developmental needs as well as determination and goal setting
(U.S. Department of the Army, 2015). To educate soldiers and officer with faith
in themselves and their skills is crucial so that different missions can be solved
both at home and abroad. The Norwegian Military Academy (NMA) also
emphasizes the development of self-efficacy in its cadets. For instance, the
combat fatigue course that the cadets have to participate in during their three-
year education at the NMA is an arena aimed at improving the cadet's ability to
cope and to develop good and appropriate coping strategies (Krigsskolen, 2010;
2016). By constantly exposing the soldiers to more challenging tasks, it is
possible to increase the individual soldier´s psychological as well as physical
fitness skills. This will increase the possibility to respond effectively when facing
a dangerous situation (Matthews, 2014).
Bandura (1997) believes there are four factors if one wants to achieve a
better subjective self-efficacy. The four factors are enactive mastery experiences,
vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and mental states.
By understanding and using these, we can perform at our best. As a soldier and
officer, being able to perform at your best could be the difference between life
and death. It is therefore essential that when the urgency is the greatest, the
military professional manages to perform at his or her best.
Self-efficacy is not just about controlling your actions and surroundings,
but also about being able to control your own thought process, motivation and
physiological emotions (Bandura, 1997). Kaufmann and Kaufmann reinforced
this impression when they wrote: "research shows that this subjectively
experienced self-efficacy capability can often be just as crucial to a person's
achievement as the objective problem-solving abilities" (Kaufmann & Kaufmann,
1998, p. 30, our translation). This means that two individuals with the same skill
level can perform very differently, because the cognitive factor of self-efficacy
play an important role in the performance of the two individuals. Therefore, it is
rational to assume that individuals with high self-efficacy will perform better
than individuals with low self-efficacy (Wormnes & Manger, 2005). It is further
logical to imagine that individuals with a high self-efficacy will be more apt to
believe that they can meet labour challenges although various stressors are
present (Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, & Primeau, 2001). Much previously conducted
research has shown that certain psychological skills are critical in order for
experts to perform at their maximum in a variety of tasks and contexts (see for
instance Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995; Ericsson & Smith, 1991; Janelle & Hillman,
2003; Williams & Ericsson, 2005).
On the other hand, it has been pointed out that the belief in one´s self-
efficacy is not necessarily a reflection of reality or the physical capacities that one
possesses, because of the tendency to subjectively judge one’s abilities (Bandura,
1997). This means that having a high degree of self-efficacy will not solve all
problems. The level of self-efficacy belief varies widely from person to person,

13
yet there are some characteristics that are more pronounced in both those with
good and those with poor self-efficacy. People with poor self-efficacy more
easily give up or lower their expectations and efforts in the activity where they
will perform the behaviour (Bandura, 1997). In addition, people with low self-
efficacy largely wish to refrain from taking part in the activity, and to call
attention to the possible consequences and disasters. Those with a strong self-
efficacy, however, will see challenges as solvable tasks. Instead of seeing the
challenge as a menacing obstacle, they see how it most effectively can be passed
(Bandura, 1997). Thus, the four factors may affect our self-efficacy both
positively and negatively, depending on how one interprets and relates to them.
The following sections will go into detail on each of the four factors in
order to give a deeper explanation of what they entail. Four factors are needed in
order to increase self-efficacy according to Bandura. He points out that there are
four factors that contribute. These are respectively: Enactive mastery
experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and
affective states.
Enactive mastery experiences
Enactive mastery experiences are the factor that influences self-efficacy
the most (Bandura, 1997). An explanation for this is that the actions you have
mastered before, give a pretty good picture of whether you will be able to solve
similar tasks (Bandura, 1986). The successful, but also unsuccessful, coping
experience will be stored in your memory, so they later may affect your self-
efficacy belief. Stated differently, repeated success will build self-efficacy while
repeated failure will weaken it. Doss (2007) also places great emphasis on
enactive mastery experiences in order to build belief in oneself and one’s
abilities. He explains that this way to build self-efficacy is one of the most
effective ways to boost your confidence and increase faith in your abilities. Doss
thus supports Bandura´s (1997) thinking and emphasizes that it is important for
both soldiers and instructors to understand that success comes from being
confident in your skills.
However, performing very simple tasks over time may result in small
defeats creating cracks in one’s self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Therefore, it is
important to find a balance between difficult and easy tasks. As an example of
what this means, we can envision a cadet who has been a company commander
on an infantry exercise. He or she has mastered this role in a satisfactory manner
and has experienced success with the goals he or she had decided upon. In the
next exercise, the cadet is a platoon leader. The cadet has a good previous
experience from being in a leadership role and therefore feels confident in his or
her abilities as a platoon leader. At this point the cadet used the good enactive
mastery experiences from the company commander role, and therefore became
better suited to solve the platoon leader role. A positive experience such as this
one will allow the cadets to acquire more faith in themselves and in their
abilities when they know that they have mastered a similar role before.

14
Vicarious experiences
The second factor regarding how to increase self-efficacy is vicarious
experiences. Seeing others succeed is also an important factor in order to achieve
a better self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). The person who looks on will then be able
to persuade him- or herself to believe that he or she is capable of doing the same
or of performing even better (Bandura, 1986). In addition, if one is able to
identify with the person performing, this will provide an even greater impact in
achieving a better self-efficacy (Bandura 1997). Doss (2007) also emphasizes
observing others as a factor to improve faith in oneself and one’s skills. He
writes that observing others can be a good strategy, especially if you can identify
with the person you are looking at. On the other hand, this way to build self-
efficacy is not thought to be as powerful as enactive mastery experiences (Doss,
2007).
As an example of how this factor works in practice, we can imagine a
cadet who is about to have his or her exam in close combat. In the beginning, the
cadet is looking at other cadets going through the exam situation. The cadet sees
one of his or her fellow cadets who performs in an outstanding manner
throughout the whole exam. The cadet may think that he or she is as good as the
other cadet in all the other things they do, and convince him- or herself that he
or she can achieve the same result. In this way, the cadet gained a better self-
efficacy, because of convincing him- or herself that it is possible to pass the
examination just as the other cadet did.
Verbal persuasion
The third factor dealing with how to increase self-efficacy is verbal
persuasion. To hear praise or encouraging comments is then the third factor that
affects self-efficacy. Support from others has been identified as a key element in
the NMAs leadership development program (Boe & Hjortmo, 2017). Verbal
encouragement is partly used to convince people that they possess skills that
will enable them to achieve what they set themselves as goals (Bandura, 1986).
Bandura (1997) explains that positive feedback at work or during an ongoing
task will encourage people to make a greater effort if the encouragement is
realistic. In order for the encouragement to be felt as real, the feedback must be
within the limits of what is feasible for the person. Experiencing failure because
you were encouraged to take on more responsibility than you yourself thought
was realistic could on the contrary have a negative impact on your self-efficacy.
Negative comments will also weaken your self-efficacy (Cox, 2007). For example,
an instructor or supervisor should avoid commenting on negative behaviour, or
refrain from giving negative feedback. On the other hand, there should be room
to give feedback that is not positive, but with the intention to help the person to
develop. Meanwhile, correct feedback and encouragement causes the focus to be
turned away from the difficult and over to how you should do your best to
resolve the challenges (Bandura, 1997).
An example in this context can be an instructor who encourage a cadet to
take on a task with more responsibility. The instructor explains that the cadet is
loyal, fair and full of effort and should therefore take on the task. Here the
instructor encourages the cadet and explains why he or she believes that the
cadet is fit to take on this task. The cadet experiences that the instructor has

15
credibility and therefore this will increase the belief that he or she can cope with
such a task if he or she takes on the responsibility. Here the positive and
encouraging words may improve the cadet´s self-efficacy so that he or she will
take on the task.
Physiological and affective states
The fourth factor dealing with how to increase self-efficacy is
physiological and affective states. When people judge themselves and their
skills, they often consider information that comes from cognitive and emotional
impulses (Bandura 1986). This can be anything from feelings such as stress and
anxiety, or other characteristics such as butterflies in the stomach, a positive
mood or increased pulse. These cognitive and emotional impulses may over
time evolve so much that you will have difficulty functioning in a normal way,
or that these impulses will improve the way we function. Feelings and thoughts
can therefore contribute to either strengthening or weakening our self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1997).
An example of this is that a platoon leader who is highly stressed before
a mission can develop a weak self-efficacy for his or her abilities to solve the
mission, and for similar situations, where he or she repeatedly has failed to
control himself or herself. The feeling of stress will return in similar situations
affecting the platoon leader in a negative way, because he or she recognizes the
negative feelings. If the platoon leader repeatedly experiences this without being
able to control himself or herself or the situation, this may weaken the self-
efficacy (Bandura 1997). On the other hand, the development of personal coping
strategies and techniques can be very effective in order to win back control and
achieve a better self-efficacy (Yanilov & Boe, in press). For example, practicing
mindfulness for two weeks before their first parachute jump resulted in a higher
self-confidence in a group of cadets as compared to a group that did not practice
mindfulness before the first parachute jump (Boe & Hagen, 2015). In this study, a
conclusion was drawn that practicing mindfulness helped to reduce the
perception of stress in an acute stressful situation.
The purpose of the study
Our purpose in this study was to identify any relationships that existed
between theory and practice when it comes to Bandura´s four factors to increase
self-efficacy. The following research question was asked: To what degree does
NMA cadets feel that there is a correlation between theory and practice when it
comes to Bandura’s four factors to increase self-efficacy?
Method
To answer the abovementioned research question, a quantitative method
was used. This was done in order to find a pattern or a tendency among the
population (Kvarv, 2010). A questionnaire was given to 50 cadets at the NMA
taking part as respondents in the study.

16
Participants
The population in the present study consisted of cadets from the NMA.
The total number of cadets at the NMA is classified information and will
therefore not be revealed in this article. Our sample consisted of 50 respondents.
When the sample size was evaluated, it was assumed that the population was
homogeneous and that the number should not be less than 30 respondents in
accordance with the guidelines provided by Johannessen, Tufte, and
Christoffersen (2010). Subsequently, a randomized selection procedure resulted
in five female cadets and 45 male cadets, which was quite representative of the
total population of the NMA cadets consisting of around ten percent women.
Procedure
The respondents filled out the questionnaire at the NMA. The
respondents were asked to consider their own experiences and perceptions and
then to indicate by putting a cross in a box how much they agreed or disagreed
with the statements in the questionnaire. The questionnaires were then collected
by one of the authors. As six of the respondents were not present when the
questionnaire was to be filled out, they were given permission to give their
responses via e-mail to one of the authors.
Materials
Our starting point for the study was first to interpret Bandura´s theory
(1997). Based on our interpretation of Bandura´s theory we then developed a
questionnaire. The questionnaire dealt with how much one would agree or
disagree that there were any correlations between theory and practice when it
came to Bandura’s four factors of increasing self-efficacy.
The questionnaire was designed in a structured way with the main
emphasis on pre-coded response options. A structured questionnaire contains
pre-coded answer alternatives (Johannessen, Tufte, & Christoffersen, 2010). The
questionnaire was designed with five categories. The five categories were
enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion,
physiological and mental states, and a general category related to self-efficacy.
The first four categories each had two questions, where one question had a
theoretical context and the other question a practical context. The aim was to see
whether respondents believed that Bandura´s four factors were equally
important in theory as in practice, i.e. that theory and practice correlated. The
last category had one question more than the other categories and was intended
to capture the factor that our respondents believed had the greatest impact on
their self-efficacy. Finally, a last question about which factor would be the most
important for self-efficacy was included in the questionnaire. Table 1 below
gives an overview of the questions included in the questionnaire.
The self-developed questionnaire thus consisted of a total of 14
questions. They were structured as follows: Three initial questions were asked
about the respondent: First they were asked to indicate their gender, followed by
indicating which unit they belonged to at the NMA. In the third question, they
were asked to indicate if they had a good understanding of Bandura’s (1997)
self-efficacy theory. Here the answer categories were either yes or no. The
purpose of this question was to find out if the knowledge of Bandura’s self-

17
efficacy theory would affect the remaining answers in the questionnaire. The
next eight questions (questions 4-11) dealt with the four factors of self-efficacy.
For each of the four factors the respondents were asked to ponder upon a
theoretical and a practical question. Finally, there were three general questions
(questions 12-14) related to self-efficacy. Question 14 was intended to identify
the most important factor contributing to self-efficacy. Here the respondents
were asked to choose one of five possible options that they thought had the most
impact upon their self-efficacy.
To measure the relationship between theory and practice, a five-point
Likert-scale was used in questions 4 to 13. Here, the respondents had the
opportunity to choose between a neutral answer category or two positive or two
negative answers. The five answer categories were: totally disagree, partially
disagree, neither agree nor disagree, partially agree, and totally agree. The use of
these five answer categories was based on the suggestion that five alternative
answers would give a respondent an opportunity to respond in a way that was
nuanced enough (Johannessen, Tufte, & Christoffersen, 2010). The answers that
were obtained from question 4 to 13 were converted to numbers ranging from 1
(totally disagree to 5 (totally agree). In question 14 the respondents could
indicate which one of five options they thought had the biggest impact on their
self-efficacy. They could only indicate one answer of the following five options:
1. Past experiences (example: I have mastered a similar task before), 2. The
achievements of others (example: Seeing that a fellow cadet succeeds with a
task), 3. Verbal encouragement from others (example: Positive feedback on my
own performance), 4. Physiological and mental states (example: Have a strategy
to cope with stress, negative thoughts, etc. so I feel calm and relaxed), and 5.
Other (meaning something else).
Table 1. An overview of questions given to the respondents.
General questions
Question 1. Indicate your gender
Question 2. Indicate which unit at NMA you belong to
Question 3. I have a good understanding of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory
Questions related to enactive mastery experiences
Question 4. Previous success has a positive impact on my own skills. Previous success
means tasks or actions I have succeeded in completing in an earlier stage in life1
Question 5. A well-executed platoon leader role gives me an increased confidence that I
will succeed in a similar role after the NMA2
Questions related to vicarious experiences
Question 6. When I see others succeed with their performances, I experience an
increased self-efficacy belief in myself1
Question 7. When I see a fellow cadet, I identify with shooting excellently on a shooting
test, this increases the belief that I too will succeed2
Questions related to verbal persuasion
Question 8. Positive feedback on my performances gives me greater self-efficacy1
Question 9. When competent instructors give me encouraging feedback on my
leadership role, I become more confident in my own skills2
Questions related to physiological and mental states and a general category

18
Question 10. When I get control of my physiological and mental body reactions, I
experience an increased belief that I will succeed in the present situation. (Examples of
such reactions may include: palpitations, increased heart rate, stress, anxiety, butterflies
in the stomach, nervousness, etc.) 1
Question 11. Good coping strategies give me greater self-efficacy when I am about to
give a speech in front of the entire NMA2
Questions related more generally to self-efficacy
Question 12. Self-efficacy is important for an officer to succeed in his or her profession1
Question 13. A well-developed self-efficacy has a great significance for my
achievements2
Question intended to identify the most important factor in self-efficacy
Question 14. Which of these five options do you think has the largest impact on your
self-efficacy: (You can only indicate one answer).
1. Past experiences (example: I have mastered a similar task before)
2. The achievements of others (example: Seeing that a fellow cadet succeed with a task)
3. Verbal encouragement from others (example: Positive feedback on my own
performance)
4. Physiological and mental states (example: Have a strategy to cope with stress,
negative thoughts, etc. so I feel calm and relaxed)
5. Other (meaning something else)
1Theoretical question, 2Practical question. Answers to question 1 was either male or
female. Answers to question 2 was either 1, 2, or 3. Answers to question 3 was either yes
or no. Answers to questions 4-13 was on a scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5
(totally agree). Answers to question 14 was either 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.
The results from the questionnaire were based on the subjective opinions
of our respondents. To increase the validity of data three elements were
emphasized: (1) use of plain language. (2) Formulation of questions so that
respondents could intuitively understand what information they had to recall in
order to answer. (3) Giving the respondents a benchmark they could relate to
when they should respond. In the introduction to the questionnaire it was
emphasized that the questionnaire was anonymous. The idea behind this was to
influence the respondents to answer as honestly as possible.
Results
The data obtained from the respondents’ questionnaires were coded into
the statistical program IBM SPSS 23.0. Regarding question 1: “Indicate your
gender“, five respondents indicated female and 45 indicated male, as expected.
Question 2: “Indicate which unit at NMA you belong to” had three answer
options. The answers given by the respondents to these two questions were not
used in the data analyses simply because the sample of 50 respondents was so
small that it did not make any sense to conduct data analyses based upon
groups. The 50 cadets were thus treated as one group. The third question: “I
have a good understanding of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory” was intended to
rule out any respondents that had a good understanding of Bandura’s self-
efficacy theory as this might have affected the answers. However, this question
can be interpreted in an ambiguous way. Some of the respondents may have
thought that the question was directed towards their understanding of the
definition of self-efficacy, while the original idea was that this question should

19
act as a filter question. Those with a good understanding of Bandura’s self-
efficacy theory were to be excluded from the study to avoid the influence of any
pre-understanding of the theory. Based upon this insecurity we chose not to use
this question as a filter question, and we did not conduct any data analyses
based upon this question.
Enactive mastery experiences
Two of the questions were related to the factor enactive mastery
experiences. Question 4, the theoretical question, was: “Previous success has a
positive impact on my own skills. Previous success means tasks or actions I have
succeeded in completing in an earlier stage in life.” Here, 70 % of the
respondents answered that they totally agreed, while 30 % answered that they
partially agreed. The practical question 5 was: “A well-executed platoon leader
role gives me an increased confidence that I will succeed in a similar role after
graduating from the NMA”. Here 42 % of the respondents answered that they
totally agreed, 52 % that they partially agreed, 2 % replied that they neither
agreed nor disagreed, while 4 % answered that they partially disagreed.
In general, we found that there was a tendency for the respondents to
agree more with the theoretical question than the practical question.
Furthermore, the greatest difference of response options, 70 % indicating “totally
agree” in the theoretical question, and 42 %, in the practical question,
corresponds to a difference of 28 %.
Questions 4 and 5 both refer to enactive mastery experience based upon
Bandura's theory. In general, the results of both questions indicated that
respondents agreed that this factor had an influence on their self-efficacy.
Probably, the found consensus between the two questions was a result of this,
and according to Bandura this factor has the strongest influence on our self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1997). On the other hand, a closer look at the results showed
that there was a difference between the theoretical and practical question. The
difference may be an indication that the respondents do not recognize
themselves in the practical question (question 5). Another reason may be that
many of the respondents have experienced repeated failures in the role as a
platoon leader, which may have led to a weakened self-efficacy. One successful
completion as platoon leader will therefore not be sufficient to affect the self-
efficacy belief enough. Bandura (1986) also points out that repeated negative
experiences will weaken one’s self-efficacy belief.
Respondents think that enactive mastery experiences are an important
factor in order to improve self-efficacy. To carry out activities such as combat
fatigue courses and stress management exercises can make soldiers and officers
better able to believe in their own skills in similar conflict environments. With
repeated success in training, they can develop a mental confidence in themselves
and their skills, which likely will affect performance (Doss, 2007).
In summary, the respondents believed that enactive mastery experiences
were an important source for increasing their own skills. The mean score for the
theoretical question (question 4) was 4.70, and for the practical question
(question 5), the mean score was 4.32. The difference between the two averages
(0.38) nevertheless showed that there was a high correlation between theory and
practice.

20
Vicarious experiences
Two questions were related to the factor vicarious experiences. Question
6 was the theoretical question related to vicarious experiences. Question 6 was:
“When I see others succeed with their performances, I experience an increased
self-efficacy belief in myself”. 4 % of the respondents answered that they totally
agreed, 40 % said they partially agreed, 34 % replied that they neither agreed nor
disagreed, 20 % said they partially disagreed, while 2 % responded that they
totally disagreed with the question.
Question 7 was the practical question related to vicarious experiences.
This question was: “When I see a fellow cadet I identify with shooting
excellently on a shooting test, this increases the belief that I will succeed too”.
Here 16 % of the respondents answered that they totally agreed, 50 % said they
partially agreed, 22 % replied that they neither agreed nor disagreed, while 12 %
answered that they partially disagreed.
In general, we can say that there was a tendency that respondents agreed
more on the practical question than on the theoretical question. The mean value
of the theoretical question (question 6) was 3.24 and the mean value for the
practical question (question 7) was 3.70. The difference between the two average
values at 0.46 suggest a somewhat larger difference than the one we found on
the first factor, enactive mastery experiences. The difference was also in the
opposite direction from enactive mastery experiences, with vicarious
experiences having the highest mean for the practical question (M=3.70). For
enactive mastery experiences, the theoretical question scored the highest
(M=4.70).
Questions 6 and 7 both refer to vicarious experiences in Bandura's (1997)
theory. In general, the results of both questions suggest that there were very
different opinions about the factors contribution to increasing the respondent’s
self-efficacy. The answers range from "totally disagree" to "totally agree".
Nevertheless, the averages of the two questions that respondents answered were
more agree than disagree in that others' success had an impact on their self-
efficacy. Bandura (1986) and Doss (2007) point to an explanation of why the
difference is so great. Bandura and Doss both state that the factor vicarious
experiences will have a greater impact and influence if one can identify with the
person one is observing.
Taking a closer look at the results, we find an interesting discovery,
namely the relationship between factors enactive mastery experiences and
vicarious experiences. Doss (2007) explains that observing others' success and
then modelling this is not as effective and powerful as the success with one’s
own performance. This could be a possible explanation for why enactive
mastery experiences have been perceived as more significant than vicarious
experiences. This in turn is supported by Bandura (1997), who claims that the
enactive mastery experience factor is the strongest and most significant factor in
achieving an improved self-efficacy
The results show that the average respondent had the belief that other
people's success had an impact on their self-efficacy. For example, we can
imagine an infantry squad from the Norwegian infantry battalion heading out
on an assignment in Afghanistan. For this infantry squad to increase their belief

21
that they will succeed, the other infantry squads’ performances can be an
important factor that affects the soldiers' self-efficacy. If the other infantry
squads in the platoon had previously failed to carry out their operations, this
would probably have influenced the self-efficacy beliefs of most soldiers in a
negative direction. The opposite would probably have been the case if the other
infantry squads had achieved success time after time. It is therefore important to
get a grasp on the success of others.
In summary, the respondents seemed to agree more than disagree that
others' success was important for their self-efficacy, despite large variations in
responses. The average difference between the theoretical and the practical
question (0.46) although in favour of the practical question, showed that there
was a relatively good agreement between theory and practice.
Verbal persuasion
Another two questions were related to the factor verbal persuasion.
Questions 8 and 9 refer to verbal persuasion within Bandura’s (1997) self-
efficacy theory. Question 8: “Positive feedback on my performances gives me
greater self-efficacy” was the theoretical question, whereas question 9: “When
competent instructors give me encouraging feedback on my leadership role, I
become more confident in my own skills”, was the practical question. For the
theoretical question (question 8), 74 % of the respondents answered that they
totally agreed, 22 % answered that they partially agreed and 4 % replied that
they neither agreed nor disagreed on the issue. Regarding the practical question
(question 9), 72 % of the respondents answered that they totally agreed, while 28
% answered that they partially agreed. In general, the results indicated that there
was a broad agreement that this factor affected the respondents' self-efficacy.
The reason for the high score of totally agree in both questions can be the focus
the NMA puts on feedback and feedback culture. The NMA attaches great
importance to establishing a good feedback culture to promote personality and
leadership growth (Andersson et al., 2009). For example, after the different
exercises, time is set aside to give and receive feedback. This culture may have
influenced the respondents while they were answering the questionnaire, and
may therefore be a cause of the high degree of correlation of the two questions.
On the other hand, the high score could also be attributed to the
respondents’ need for their opinions to be of importance and to be recognized.
Verbal persuasion is a factor that cannot be controlled by the respondents,
unlike the other three factors. For most of us it is important to get feedback,
because it gives us a sense of being valued or seen. The significance of this is of
course subjective, but probably it is important for most of us. As a cadet, it is
desirable to be recognized, just to get a confirmation on that matter, and this
may be one reason why this factor was so highly correlated on both questions.
The tendency among respondents showed that this factor was important for
their self-efficacy and it therefore supports Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory.
Furthermore, another interesting finding can be seen by comparing the
mean values of enactive mastery experiences and verbal persuasion. The mean
values were 4.70 for the theoretical question and 4.32 for the practical question
related to enactive mastery experiences, and 4.70 for the theoretical question and
4.72 for the practical question related to verbal persuasion. When we put the two

22
the mean values up against each other, we see that the factor verbal persuasion
has a higher degree of unity between the theoretical and practical questions than
the factor enactive mastery experiences. In Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory
this has not always been found, as Bandura thinks enactive mastery experiences
is the one factor that aids in the strongest growth of self-efficacy. One possible
reason for this finding may be the poor wording of the practical question related
to enactive mastery experience (question 5), which could have caused the
respondents to give a lower mean score to enactive mastery experience in total.
The significance of the factor verbal persuasion in practice is not hard to
understand. In a combat situation with little food and water, positive feedback
could be a "boost" for one´s self-efficacy belief and accomplishments. In
moments where you are exhausted, this form of self-efficacy could help to
provide an extra motivation to carry on and do your best.
In summary, the respondents highly agreed that verbal persuasion was
important for their self-efficacy. The mean score on the theoretical question
related to verbal persuasion was 4.70, and the mean score on the practical
question was 4.72. The difference between the two questions in average (0.02)
shows that there was a very high correlation between theory and practice
regarding the importance of the factor verbal persuasion.
Physiological and affective states
Two questions were related to the factor physiological and affective
states. Questions 10 and 11 dealt with the physiological and mental states within
Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory. Question 10 was the theoretical question.
The question was: “When I get control of my physiological and mental body
reactions, I experience an increased belief that I will succeed in the present
situation. (Examples of such reactions may include: palpitations, increased heart
rate, stress, anxiety, butterflies in the stomach, nervousness, etc.). Question 11
was the practical question. The question was: “Good coping strategies gives me
greater self-efficacy when I am about to give a speech in front of the entire
NMA”. Regarding question 10 (the theoretical question) 46 % of the respondents
answered that they totally agreed, 44 % replied that they partially agreed, while
10 % responded that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the question.
Question 11 was the practical question. To this question, 8 % of the respondents
answered that they totally agreed, 34 % replied that they partially agreed, 46 %
replied that they neither agreed nor disagreed, 10 % replied that they partially
disagreed, and 2 % said they totally disagreed with the question.
In general, we can say that there were wide variations in how the
respondents answered the two questions. Averages showed that the
respondents agreed more than disagreed, in that this factor had a positive effect
on their own skills. Probably the low scores result from what Bandura (1986)
wrote that ”people rely partly on information from their physiological state in
judging their capabilities” (p. 401). This quote can be interpreted so that the
factor physiological and mental states can be seen as less meaningful than the
other three factors, and that it therefore gets generally low scores from the
respondents.
On the other hand, a closer look revealed that there was a big difference
between the theoretical and the practical question, which may have affected the

23
overall impression of this factor. For the theoretical question related to the factor
physiological and affective states (Question 10), 90 % of the respondents
partially or totally agreed. If we look further on the practical question related to
the factor physiological and affective states (Question 11), over 50 % of the
respondents answered that they partially disagreed or neither agreed nor
disagreed. These results showed a clear gap between theory and practice.
Intuitively, one reason for this could be that the practical question was not very
well developed so that the two questions were perceived to be unrelated. On the
other hand, it may be that the respondents believed that coping strategies did
not affect their performance. Another possibility may be that the respondents do
not use coping strategies or know what this is. If the latter option is the case, this
may have influenced the respondents to indicate neutral on this question.
In general, there were relatively large differences in the respondents’
answers to the two questions. The largest difference is between the response
option; totally agree. Here there was a difference of 38 %. Average scores for the
theoretical question related to the factor physiological and affective states was
4.36 and 3.36 for the practical question. The difference between the two averages
was 1.0 indicating that there was a large difference between theory and practice
on this factor.
General questions related to self-efficacy
Three questions were more generally related to self-efficacy. Question 12
was: “Self-efficacy is important for an officer to succeed in his or her profession”,
and question 13 was: “A well-developed self-efficacy has a great significance for
my achievements”. Question 12 was the theoretical question, and 74 % of the
respondents totally agreed, while 26 % answered that they partially agreed with
the question. Question 13 was the practical question. 44 % of the respondents
answered that they totally agreed, while 56 % answered that they partially
agreed. Mean values for the two questions were respectively 4.74 and 4.40 with
the theoretical question getting the highest mean scores. The difference in
averages between the two questions was 0.34, which means there was a high
correlation between the theoretical and the practical question.
The most important factor contributing to self-efficacy in military
cadets
Question 14 consisted of the following: “Which of these five options do
you think has the largest impact on your self-efficacy: 1. Past experiences
(example: I have mastered a similar task before), 2. The achievements of others
(example: Seeing that a fellow cadet succeeds with a task), 3. Verbal
encouragement from others (example: Positive feedback on my own
performance), 4. Physiological and mental states (example: Have a strategy to
cope with stress, negative thoughts, etc. so I feel calm and relaxed) and 5. Other
(meaning something else). To this question, 78 % of the respondents answered
past experiences, 0 % answered the performance of others', 4 % answered verbal
encouragement, 14 % answered physiological and mental states, while 4 % said
other, indicating that something else had a great impact upon their self-efficacy.
Most respondents answered alternative 1 (past experiences), which means that
enactive mastery experiences were the factor that had the largest impact on self-

24
efficacy. This factor is known as the strongest of the four factors (Bandura, 1997)
and explains the tendency we found. It is nonetheless interesting that the factor
enactive mastery experiences did not receive the same weight as the factor
verbal persuasion received when looking at the four different self-efficacy
factors. Why most respondents chose the factor enactive mastery experiences as
the most important factor in question 14, but not when they answered the other
questions related to self-efficacy, may have several reasons. Despite this
discrepancy, these results eliminate the argument that verbal persuasion is a
larger and more important factor than enactive mastery experience.
A short overview of the results of the theoretical and practical questions
related to self-efficacy
Table 2 below gives a short summary of the answers given to the
questions related to the four factors of how to increase self-efficacy and to the
two questions that were more generally related to self-efficacy (questions 4-13).
For reasons of simplicity, the questions are not fully written out in the table (see
table 1 for the full wording of the questions).
Table 2. Mean values (Mv) of answers given to the questions
related to self-efficacy (n=50).
Questions
Mv
Questions related to enactive mastery experiences
Question 4. Previous success has a positive impact on my own skills1 4.70
Question 5. A well-executed platoon leader role gives me an increased
confidence that I will succeed in a similar role after
the NMA2 4.32
Questions related to vicarious experiences
Question 6. When I see others succeed with their performances, I experience
an increased self-efficacy belief in myself 1 3.24
Question 7. When I see a fellow cadet, I identify with shooting excellently on a
shooting test, this increases the belief that I will succeed too2 3.70
Questions related to verbal persuasion
Question 8. Positive feedback on my performances gives me greater self-
efficacy1 4.70
Question 9. When competent instructors give me encouraging feedback on my
leadership role, I become more confident in my own skills2 4.72
Questions related to physiological and mental states
Question 10. When I get control of my physiological and mental body reactions,
I experience an increased belief that I will succeed in the present situation1 4.36
Question 11. Good coping strategies give me greater self-efficacy when I am
about to give a speech in front of the entire NMA2 3.36
Questions related more generally to self-efficacy
Question 12. Self-efficacy is important for an officer to succeed in his or her
profession1 4.74
Question 13. A well-developed self-efficacy has a great significance for my
achievements2 4.40
1Theoretical question, 2Practical question.

25
As can be seen from table 2, the highest correlation between the
theoretical and the practical questions was found for the factor verbal persuasion
(Mv=4.70 and Mv=4.72), followed by the factor enactive mastery experiences
(Mv=4.70 and Mv=4.32). Regarding the correlation between the theoretical and
the practical questions for the factor vicarious experiences, the correlation was
high, but in the opposite direction of the three other factors (Mv=3.24 and 3.70).
The lowest correlation between the theoretical and the practical questions
was found for the factor physiological and mental states (Mv=4.36 and 3.36). It
was also found that the respondents to a very high degree agreed that self-
efficacy was important for an officer in his or her profession (Mv=4.74), and that
a well-developed self-efficacy had a great significance for their achievements
(Mv=4.40). Also for these last two general questions (questions 12 and 13)
related more generally to self-efficacy there was a high correlation between the
theoretical and practical question.
Conclusions
This article had the following research question: To what degree do
NMA cadets feel that there is a correlation between theory and practice when it
comes to Bandura’s four factors to increase self-efficacy? To answer this research
question, we used a self-developed quantitative questionnaire and gave this to
50 respondents at the NMA. The answers from the respondents were analysed
and then discussed against Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory.
In general, the results showed that there was a good correlation between
theory and practice when it came to Bandura’s four factors to increase self-
efficacy, except for the factor physiological and mental states. In addition, there
was also a variation between the level of correspondence between the different
factors with regard to the theoretical and practical impact this had upon self-
efficacy.. The most noteworthy differences we found were between the
theoretical and practical questions for each of the four factors, with the exception
of the factor verbal persuasion, where the mean values were almost the same for
the theoretical and practical question. Respondents thus generally seemed to
believe that the remaining three factors of how to increase self-efficacy were
more important in theory than in practice. This may indicate a weakness in the
formulation of the situations in the practical questions. On the other hand, these
situations were constructed so that the respondents would be able to recognize
the situations.
The largest difference between theory and practice was found for the
factor physiological and mental states, while the smallest difference was found
for the factor verbal persuasion. Probably, the diverging results for the factor
physiological and mental states were large because of the uncertainty
surrounding the use of coping strategies. Meanwhile, it could also be a result of
the respondents struggling to recognize themselves in the situation. When
looking at the factor verbal persuasion, the low difference between the
theoretical and the practical question may simply be a result of the well-
developed feedback culture that the respondents are accustomed too.
The factor enactive mastery experiences revealed that the respondents
believed this factor to be of great significance in relation to their self-efficacy.

26
The average values were not very different between theory and practice,
indicating that there was a relatively good correlation between theory and
practice.
The factor vicarious experiences showed that the respondents agreed
more than disagreed with how this factor affected their self-efficacy. Yet it
turned out that the practical question had a greater score than the theoretical
one. This may be because the respondents agreed more that the identification
element had more to say for one´s self-efficacy belief, as compared to observing
a random person.
The factor verbal persuasion showed that respondents believed this
factor had a great influence on their self-efficacy. This factor scored higher than
enactive mastery experience when it came to the practical question, while the
score on the theoretical question was equal to the score on the theoretical
question for the factor enactive mastery experiences. The factor verbal
persuasion thus revealed a very high correlation between theory and practice.
The factor physiological and mental states had large variations in the
responses to the two questions. Nevertheless, respondents agreed more than
they disagreed, in that this factor had an impact on their self-efficacy. Despite
this, respondents agreed more to the theoretical question than to the practical
question. The reason for this may probably be a poorly formulated practical
question.
Regarding the questions that were more generally related to self-efficacy,
the results here also showed a high degree of correlation between the theoretical
and practical question. A clear majority of respondents totally agreed that self-
efficacy was important for an officer to succeed in his or her profession (the
theoretical question). For the practical question related to self-efficacy, stating
that a well-developed self-efficacy had a great significance on their
achievements, about half of the respondents totally agreed, and the remaining
respondents partially agreed to this question.
When the respondents were asked to choose which of five options they
thought had the largest impact on their self-efficacy, it was found that 78 % of
the respondents answered past experiences. This indicates that enactive mastery
experiences were the most important factor related to self-efficacy. However,
although most respondents choose the factor enactive mastery experiences as the
most important factor for this question, answering the other questions related to
self-efficacy revealed that the strongest factor with the highest correlation
between the theoretical and the practical question was verbal persuasion. We
draw the conclusion that enactive mastery experience in total was the most
important factor for increased self-efficacy. The reason for this is that when
forced to choose among the different factors it was very clear that the factor
enactive mastery experience had the largest impact upon the respondents’ self-
efficacy.
In summary, our findings illustrates that there is a connection between
theory and practice when it comes to Banduras (1997) four factors to increase
self-efficacy.
As this article has mapped the correlations between theory and practice
of Banduras (1997) four factors to increased self-efficacy, it could in turn be
interesting to make a qualitative study on the same subject. This might bring out

27
the underlying thinking in the respondents and thus create a deeper
understanding of why they respond as they do. This would also at the same time
give a deeper understanding which factors increase self-efficacy and why this is
important for military officers.
Acknowledgements
This research work was supported by the Norwegian Military Academy
and the Norwegian Defence University. The views expressed in this article are
those of the authors and do not represent any official position by the Norwegian
Army or the Norwegian Armed Forces. The authors wish to thank senior
lecturer Merete Ruud at the Norwegian Military Academy for valuable help
with the language of this work.
References
Adler, A. B., Thomas, J. L., & Castro, C. A. (2005). Measuring Up: Comparing Self-
Reports With Unit Records for Assessing Soldier Performance. Military
Psychology, 17(1), 3-24.
Andersson, B., Auran, B. G., Boe, O., Eidhamar, A., Gravem, F., Holmøy, R. E., Holth, T.,
Kjenstadbakk, T. J., Kjevik, J., Lilleng, H., Lundberg, L. K., Nilsen, F. A., Osberg,
O., Stenvik, K., Vindenes, N. F., Warø, H. & Øyen, O. M. (2009). Lederutvikling i
Hæren: Krigsskolens program for lederutvikling. Emneplan for ledelsesfaget ved
Krigsskolen (Leadership development in the Norwegian Army: the Norwegian Military
Academy´s program for leadership development. Subject plan for the leadership subject
at the Norwegian Military Academy). Oslo: Krigsskolen.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., EnglewoodCliffs.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and
Company.
Boe, O., & Hagen, K. (2015). Using mindfulness to help reducing the perception of stress
during an acute stressful situation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197,
858-868.
Boe, O., & Hjortmo, H. (2017). The Norwegian Military Academy`s concept of leadership
development. EDULEARN Proceedings, 4887-4894.
Boe, O., & Holth, T. (2017). Is guidance as a tool for leadership communication for
military leaders effective? Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 8(2).
Boe, O., & Ingdahl, A. (2017). Educating monsters with brakes: Teaching soldiers
aggression and aggression control. Kasmera, 45(3), 1-30.
Boe, O., & Johannessen, A. H. (2015). The effects of the role of the group, the role of the
leader, the emotional distance to the enemy, and the aggressive predisposition
upon killing. Kasmera, 43(6), 125-144.
Boe, O., Kjørstad, O., & Werner-Hagen, K. (2012). Løytnanten og krigen: Operativt lederskap
i strid (The lieutenant and the war: Operational leadership in combat). Bergen:
Fagbokforlaget.
Buch. R., Säfvenbom, R., & Boe, O. (2015). The Relationships Between Academic Self-
Efficacy, Intrinsic Motivation, and Perceived Competence. Journal of Military
Studies, 6(1), 1-17.
Cox, R. H. (2007). Sports psychology – concepts and applications. New York: McGraw-Hill. 
Doss, W. (2007). Condition to win: Dynamic techniques for performance oriented mental
conditioning. New York: Looseleaf Law Publications, Inc.
Eid, J., & Johnsen, B. H. (2006). Operativ psykologi (Operational Psychology) (2nd ed).
Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

28
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review,
102, 211-245.
Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Prospects and limits of the empirical study of
expertise: An introduction. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Towards a general
theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 1-38). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Forsvarsstaben. (2007). Forsvarets fellesoperative doktrine (Norwegian Armed Forces Joint
Operational Doctrine). Norwegian Armed Forces Defence Staff: Oslo.
Forsvarsstaben. (2012). FSJ grunnsyn på ledelse i Forsvaret (The Norwegian Armed Forces
Chief of Defence basic view of leadership in the Armed Forces). Norwegian Armed
Forces Defence Staff: Oslo.
Forsvarsstaben. (2014). Forsvarets fellesoperative doktrine (Norwegian Armed Forces Joint
Operational Doctrine). Norwegian Armed Forces Defence Staff: Oslo.
Gruber, K. A., Kilcullen, R. N., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (2009). Effects of Psychosocial
Resources on Elite Soldiers’ Completion of a Demanding Military Selection
Program. Military Psychology, 21, 427-444.
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of
team- efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis
as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819-
832.
Hammermeister, J., Pickering, M. A., McGraw, L., & Ohlson, C. (2010). Relationship
between psychological skill profiles and soldier physical fitness performance.
Military Psychology, 22(4), 399-411.
Holth, T., & Boe, O. (2017). Enhancing the Leadership Communication Skills of
Norwegian Military Officers. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 8(1), 1-6.
Janelle, C. M., & Hillmann, C. H. (2003). Expert performance in sport: Current
perspectives and critical issues. I K. A. Ericsson & J. Starkes (Eds.), Recent
advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 19-48). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jex, S. M., Bliese, P. D., Buzzell, S., & Primeau, J. (2001). The impact of self-efficacy on
stressor-strain relations: Coping style as an exploratory mechanism. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 401-409.
Johannessen, A., Tufte, P. A., & Christoffersen, L. (2010). Introduksjon til
samfunnsvitenskapelig metode (Introduction to social science methodology) (4th ed).
Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.
Kaufmann, G., & Kaufmann, A. (1998), Psykologi i organisasjon og ledelse (Psychology in
organization and leadership) (2nd ed). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad & Bjørke
AS.
Krigsskolen (2010). Studiehåndbok Krigsskolen 2010-2011 Bachelor i militære studier, ledelse,
og landmakt, treårig utdanning (Study handbook for the Norwegian Military Academy
2010-2011 Bachelor in military studies, leadership, and land power three-year program).
Oslo: Krigsskolen.
Krigsskolen (2016). Studiehåndbok Krigsskolen 2016-2017 Bachelor i militære studier, ledelse,
og landmakt, treårig utdanning (Study handbook for the Norwegian Military Academy
2010-2011 Bachelor in military studies, leadership, and land power three-year program).
Oslo: Krigsskolen.
Kvarv, S. (2010). Vitenskapsteori: Tradisjoner, posisjoner og diskusjoner (Theory of Science:
Traditions, positions and discussions). Oslo: Novus forlag.
Matthews, M. D. (2014). Head strong: How Psychology is Revolutionizing War. Oxford
University Press: New York, USA.
Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R., & Mack, D. E. (2000). The relation of self-
efficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(3), 280-94.

29
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to
academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 38, 30-38.
Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Self-efficacy and Work-related Behaviour: A Review
and Meta-analysis. Applied Psychology, 42(2), 139-152. 
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240-261. 
U.S. Department of the Army. (2015). FM 6-22. US Army Field Manual 6-22. Army
Leadership.Washington, USA: Department of Army.
Williams, A. M., & Ericsson, K. A. (2005). Perceptual-cognitive expertise in sport: Some
considerations when applying the expert performance approach. Human
Movement Science, 24(3), 283-307.
Wormnes, B., & Manger, T. (2005). Motivasjon og mestring: Veier til effektiv bruk av egne
ressurser (Motivation and coping: Methods to make efficient use of your own resources).
Bergen:Fagbokforlaget.
Yanilov, E., & Boe, O. (in press). Combat Mindset and Mental Conditioning: Beating Stress in
Business, Family, and Social Settings. Tel Aviv: Dekel Publishing House.

30
Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 30-54, July 2017
Differentiated Instruction
in the High School Science Classroom:
Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses
Jane Pablico
Walker High School
Walker, Louisiana, USA
Southern New Hampshire University
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA
Moustapha Diack and Albertha Lawson
Southern University and A & M College
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
Abstract. This study aimed to determine the effect of Differentiated
Instruction (DI) on learning outcomes of high school science students
using a convergent, parallel, mixed method research. The qualitative
component of the research was a phenomenological approach which
explored individual beliefs, experiences and perceptions of teachers
about DI. The quantitative part involved a comparison in the End-of-
Course (EOC) performance of biology students exposed to DI versus
those not exposed to DI. Personal interviews with six science teachers
and survey results from 65 biology students revealed that teachers and
students alike have positive perceptions of DI. The teachers perceived
DI as an effective instructional method for improving student
engagement and academic performance. More students scored
Good/Excellent in the DI group (76.9%) compared with the Non-DI
group (67.6%). However, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) suggests
that at 5% level, the DI group did not perform significantly higher than
the non-DI group (p=.12). This implies that there is no significant effect
of DI on student learning outcomes measured by EOC. Although the
quantitative result of the study did not show a significantly higher EOC
score in the DI group, differentiated instruction positively impacted the
learning process by increasing student engagement in class.
Keywords: differentiated instruction, high school science, teachers‟
perceptions, teaching strategies
1. Introduction
Students come to class bringing with them their diverse cultural background,
learning styles, interests, abilities and multiple intelligences. The diversity of

31
students in the classroom can result in a significant challenge for teachers when
it comes to meeting the needs of all students. Some students may find the lesson
too easy while some find it too hard; some may find the topic interesting while
some find it boring. It is the goal of differentiated instruction (DI) to reach out to
each student and approach the lesson in a way that fits their learning styles,
interests, abilities or multiple intelligences.
Differentiated instruction has a strong theoretical basis that includes
constructivist theory, brain-based research and multiple intelligences (Felder &
Soloman, 2004; Gardner, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978). However, the philosophy of
differentiation is lacking empirical validation (Ducey, 2011; Subban, 2006;
Tulbure, 2011). Many of the studies are qualitative in nature indicating positive
emotional outcomes in terms of motivation, task commitment, and excitement
about learning (Burkett, 2013; Maeng, 2011). On the quantitative studies
determining the effectiveness of differentiated instruction, some studies revealed
the effectiveness of differentiated instruction over traditional instruction
(Aliakbari & Haghigi, 2014; 2010; Dosch & Zidon, 2014; Joseph, et al., 2013;
Stavroula, et al., 2011), but some showed no significant difference with the
traditional instruction (Ducey, 2011; McCoach, et al., 2013; Maxey, 2013; Vincent,
2012). Studies on differentiated instruction are mostly focused on the elementary
and middle-school level and are very rare on the high school level (Maeng,
2011). Furthermore, differentiated instruction occurs most often in reading,
writing and math classrooms and is seldom applied to other subject areas
including science (Eady, 2008; Tobin & Tippett, 2014).
The limited literature on the use of differentiated instruction in high school
science classes and the conflicting results of previous quantitative research calls
for more studies to be conducted. The gap in the literature has motivated the
researchers to conduct this study.
2. Research Questions
A public school district in southern Louisiana began implementing
differentiated instruction during the 2014-2015 school year. School
administrators were first trained, who in turn, trained the teachers in their
respective schools. Full implementation of differentiated instruction in the
district occurred in the 2014-2015 school year. During that school year,
differentiation strategies for content, process and product, were explicitly
described in the teachers‟ lesson plans.
This study aimed to determine the teachers‟ and students‟ perceptions of
differentiated instruction after their exposure to it, and to determine the
effectiveness of differentiated instruction in improving student learning
outcomes. Specifically, it sought to address the following questions:
1. What are the science teachers‟ perceptions of the effect of differentiated
instruction on student learning?
2. What are the students‟ perceptions of differentiated instruction in their
science classes?

Vol 16 No 7 - July 2017

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (7)

Similar a Vol 16 No 7 - July 2017

Similar a Vol 16 No 7 - July 2017 (20)

Más de ijlterorg

Más de ijlterorg (20)

Último

Último (20)

Vol 16 No 7 - July 2017