ArticlePDF Available

Increasing creative self‐efficacy: Developing the confidence of biochemistry undergraduates to innovate

Authors:

Abstract

Biochemistry graduates need to be creative, however assessing creativity requires the production of novelty, judged by or against that of peers. A related phenomenon is ‘creative self‐efficacy’ (CSE) – one's self‐belief in producing creative outcomes. CSE is a contributor to creativity, but is more easily assessed, and thus more amenable for targeting pedagogically. To investigate interactions between student CSE and the learning environment, a biochemistry laboratory exercise was deployed within a ‘creative’ module, wherein students created their own experimental protocols. Students completed questionnaires at the beginning and end of the module. Compared to ‘control’ modules lacking overtly creative activities, the creative module significantly increased students' perceptions of their own creativity and whether their studies had increased their creativity. Students' confidence in meeting degree learning outcomes (for instance the ability to work productively in a laboratory), and motivation to study, were also significantly increased. Marks attained from the creative exercise correlated with students' CSE, but surprisingly, students' expected marks correlated negatively with their CSE, implying they had a poor understanding of the relationship between creativity and success. Our results suggest that the learning environment can positively affect students' CSE, promoting academic attainment of learning outcomes, motivation, and their confidence as biochemists.
ARTICLE
Increasing creative self-efficacy: Developing the confidence
of biochemistry undergraduates to innovate
Simon Mark Payne
1
| David Edward Whitworth
2
1
Department of Psychology, Faculty of
Earth and Life Sciences, Aberystwyth
University, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, UK
2
Institute of Biological, Environmental,
and Rural Sciences, Faculty of Earth and
Life Sciences, Aberystwyth University,
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, UK
Correspondence
Simon Mark Payne, Department of
Psychology, Faculty of Earth and Life
Sciences, Aberystwyth University,
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3UX, UK.
Email: smp14@aber.ac.uk
David Edward Whitworth, Institute of
Biological, Environmental, and Rural
Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life
Sciences, Aberystwyth University,
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3DD, UK.
Email: dew@aber.ac.uk
Funding information
This research received no external
funding.
Abstract
Biochemistry graduates need to be creative, however assessing creativity requires
the production of novelty, judged by or against that of peers. A related phenome-
non is creative self-efficacy(CSE) one's self-belief in producing creative out-
comes. CSE is a contributor to creativity, but is more easily assessed, and thus
more amenable for targeting pedagogically. To investigate interactions between
student CSE and the learning environment,abiochemistrylaboratoryexercise
was deployed within a creativemodule, wherein students created their own
experimental protocols. Students completed questionnaires at the beginning and
endofthemodule.Comparedtocontrolmodules lacking overtly creative activi-
ties, the creative module significantly increased students' perceptions of their
own creativity and whether their studies had increased their creativity. Students'
confidence in meeting degree learning outcomes (for instance the ability to work
productively in a laboratory), and motivation to study, were also significantly
increased. Marks attained from the creative exercise correlated with students'
CSE, but surprisingly, students' expected marks correlated negatively with their
CSE, implying they had a poor understanding of the relationship between crea-
tivity and success. Our results suggest that the learning environment can posi-
tively affect students' CSE, promoting academic attainment of learning outcomes,
motivation, and their confidence as biochemists.
KEYWORDS
creativity, employability, innovation, social scaffolding
1|INTRODUCTION
Biochemistry educators want their graduates to be curi-
ous, critical appraisers of information, able to produce
balanced rationales for investigations. These attributes
are enhanced by creativity, which is defined as the ability
to create novel, appropriate, and useful/impactful ideas
and/or products.
1,2
Employers place a premium on
innovation and creativity, which is reflected by their
inclusion in employer-informed degree accreditation
criteria such as those offered by the Royal Society of Biol-
ogy.
3
Nevertheless, arts students typically score higher
than STEM students on self-rated creativity,
4
therefore,
STEM students can benefit from an improved apprecia-
tion of their own creativity, increasing their competitive-
ness for employment.
Received: 17 June 2021 Revised: 18 March 2022 Accepted: 29 March 2022
DOI: 10.1002/bmb.21628
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
© 2022 The Authors. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology.
296 Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2022;50:296306.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bmb
1.1 |Creative self-efficacy (CSE)
Creative self-efficacy (CSE) is defined as one's perceived
ability to create novel and useful ideas and/or products,
5
and is positively associated with achievement in higher
education.
6
CSE differs fundamentally from creativity in
that it is the perception of one's creativity, and is thus depen-
dant on a student's beliefs about their ability to achieve
mastery of their academic activities. Demonstrating creativ-
ity requires the production of novel ideas/products, which
is challenging to assess objectively, as it must be judged by
peers, or against that of peers.
7
However, CSE is compara-
tively easy to quantify, for instance using a questionnaire
for students to self-report their perceived creativity.
CSE strongly influences student aspirations, motivation
and accomplishment in higher education,
8
and stems from
four main sources: enactive mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological affective
states.
9,10
Enactive mastery experiences are when a student
reflects on the results of previous attempts at creativity,
and are the most powerful source of self-efficacy.
11
Vicari-
ous experiences are when students learn about their creative
abilities indirectly, by comparing their creative outputs to
those of peers.
9
Verbal persuasion is another indirect way
of increasing a student's CSE, when students are encour-
aged to view a creative task as achievable.
9
Physiological
affective states are psychosomatic phenomena and generate
CSE if a student attributes their creativity to how they were
feelingat the time.
12
1.2 |Benefits of increasing student CSE
CSE affects the creative goals that students set for them-
selves (e.g., challenging vs. non-threatening/facile), their
performance expectations, and whether or not they put
effort into their creative tasks. These beneficial behav-
iours are reason enough to promote the development of
CSE in students, however, the importance of CSE is fur-
ther highlighted when considering student stress, affect,
and mood, with low CSE being associated with unhelpful
cognitions (thoughts), affective responses (feelings), and
behaviours.
8
Stress and affect share a complex relationship, but
often, students will experience negative affective
responses (e.g., anger, contempt, anxiety) in academic
contexts that they find chronically distressing, when
(e.g., through a lack of CSE) they perceive themselves
unable to meet the demands of the situation.
13
While
moderate stress levels can stimulate creativity, intense
stress typically prevents creative thought.
14
Hence, when
students' creative abilities are assessed, educators should
increase their CSE through structured low evaluative
activities and formative assessments that engender a
sense of control.
15
Ideally, teaching environments would
be designed which regularly elicit learning experiences
akin to flowand ultimately, optimize creative perfor-
mances when the stakes are highest, for instance during
summative assessment.
16,17
Psychological capital(composed of hope, optimism,
resilience, and importantly, self-efficacy), correlates posi-
tively with creativity and the motivation to achieve, while
correlating negatively with perceived stress.
18
Similarly,
positive affect aconsistentlystrongpredictorofacademic
performance has been shown to promote a proactive,
approach motivation, which is influential in enhancing cre-
ativity and the use of creative cognition during study.
19,20
As might be expected, creative experiences and activities
are also generally associated with health and wellbeing ben-
efits for students, in addition to their academic benefits.
21
1.3 |Developing student CSE
The learning environment has a considerable impact on
the development of students' CSE, and the CSE-
behaviour relationship.
22
Behaviour is the interplay
between personal factors (e.g., CSE) and the environment
in which the behaviour is to be enacted for example,
the extent to which creativity has been role modelled by
the lecturer, or the inclusion/omission of creativity/
innovation in a module's learning outcomes.
10,23,24
Many
educators will intuitively engender supportive environ-
ments which are likely to stimulate the development of
CSE, but there are relatively few published studies in the
literature which specifically leverage the psychology of
CSE in undergraduate science education.
This literature is mostly questionnaire-based, determin-
ing the strength and direction of association between CSE
and related constructs such as science understanding,
student-teacher trust, transformational leadership, peers'
creative abilities, intrinsic motivation, originality, creative
self-concept, and expressiveness while also evidencing
the ability of these constructs to predict CSE.
2535
CSE and related constructs can be directly targeted by
intervention studies, yet very few intervention studies in
higher education have been published. A few researchers
have intervened and measured creative output as an out-
come measure in a snapshotfashion, but not targeted
cognitive variables that are associated with future creativ-
ity, such as CSE. Of the few studies that intervened and
assessed the resulting effects on CSE, none involved sci-
ence undergraduates. Dewett and Gruys
36
employed
unconventionalteaching methods in an MBA course, in
an attempt to improve creativity via increased comfort
with risk and increased CSE. The intervention increased
students' CSE, but interestingly, it did not significantly
change how important students perceived creativity to be
PAYNE AND WHITWORTH 297
in the workplace, so it is unclear how sustainable such
CSE increases are and what study/work practices they
might prompt. Robbins and Kegley
37
developed an online
Creative Thinking Program founded on the principle of
psychological safetyas a facilitator of creativity. They
saw a statistically significant (but small) increase in CSE.
Byrge and Tang
38
administered an embodied creativity
training programand found that CSE can be enhanced
through targeted intervention, while Mathisen and
Bronnick
39
investigated the power of creativity training
on a variety of students, worker and teachers, and found
that CSE increased and that the CSE increase persisted
beyond the training course, compared to a control group.
1.4 |Aims
No studies published to date have targeted the develop-
ment of student CSE as part of the teaching of a STEM
subject, despite CSE being linked to desirable student
outcomes, such as the confidence to innovate, increased
motivation to study, aspiration to succeed and increased
academic attainment. The potential cognitive, motiva-
tional, affective, and behavioural benefits of increasing
CSE led us to test the effectiveness of a theoretically-
derived teaching intervention designed to increase the
CSE of undergraduate biochemistry students, and to
investigate how CSE relates to biochemistry students'
perceptions of their academic abilities and outcomes.
2|METHODS
2.1 |Measures
A 19 item survey (File S1) was designed to gauge students'
CSE and related aspects of their lives/studies. They were
also asked to rate their attainment of degree-levellearn-
ing outcomes and asked to predict their end-of-module
mark. Survey items were derived from established theoret-
ical propositions, for example, Bandura's
40
guidance on
the construction of self-efficacy scales. Questions required
responses in a variety of forms, including Likert scales, free
text, and yes/no binary responses.
2.2 |Procedure
2.2.1 | Study design and survey
administration
Student participants were enrolled on Life Sciences BSc
degrees. Three modules spanning the same semester
were selected for inclusion: one, the Intervention Mod-
ule(BSc year 2, n=20), contains an innovative creative
element, while the other two Control Modulesmake no
explicit efforts to develop student CSE (BSc years 1 and
3, combined n=32). Ethical approval was obtained from
the researchers' institution, informed consent was pro-
vided by students, and ethical principles - as outlined by
the American Psychological Association and British Psy-
chological Society - were adhered to throughout the
study. Students were provided with the context for the
study and a description of the data-management plan for
the project, and consented to complete early- and late-
semester questionnaires (weeks 1 and 11 respectively).
2.2.2 | CSE intervention
The creative exercise within the intervention module has
been described previously.
41
In brief, the module is
practical-based, with students undertaking a weekly
series of biochemistry wet labexperiments during the
first half of the module, following staff-provided experi-
mental protocols. During the latter half of the module
the students progress to design their own step-by-step
experimental protocols (working in pairs), which they
then implement in the laboratory, to determine how
many atoms of iron there are in a molecule of hemoglo-
bin (the intervention).
41
Assessment of students was
through their production of written reports for each
experiment, including the experiment for which they
developed their own protocols. Their protocols (i.e., the
products of their creativity) were not assessed directly.
The protocol-design task was well-scaffolded by con-
straining the available experimental materials, and with
an engineered system of feedback and reflection. Stu-
dents were set to work on the task in pairs for a week,
after which they discussed their draft protocols with a
member of staff. One week later they brought a revised
draft to the laboratory, which was then prototyped by a
pair of peers. Feedback from peers was reciprocal, inter-
active and happened in real-time as the draft protocols
were implemented. Finally, a week later a final version of
the protocol was implemented by the protocol creators.
41
The interventionhad been implemented for several iter-
ations before this study and the both the module and the
intervention assessment gave reproducible marks
each year.
2.2.3 | Development of CSE
The intervention's scaffolding pedagogy, social elements,
and in-class feedback targeted the sources of CSE
298 PAYNE AND WHITWORTH
described previously (e.g., enactive mastery experiences,
vicarious experiences and verbal persuasion).
9,10
Each
student participant attended each feedback session, and
to increase treatment fidelity care was taken to ensure
each student received consistent and accurate feedback
from staff, even during the peer-prototyping sessions. The
social interaction element of the intervention aimed to
create an environment where students were inspired to
act on their strengthening perception of CSE, and
because social interactions promote academic achieve-
ment.
6
The low evaluativecontext and controllability
engendered by the intervention are associated with lower
stress and more effective creative performance than
highly evaluative and uncontrollable creative
environments.
15
2.3 |Data analysis
For the key study variable CSE, paired responses (begin-
ning and end of the module) were obtained from 19 stu-
dents on the intervention module, and from 31 students
on the control modules, respectively. (For some between-
group analyses the full nof 20 and 32 were available.)
Likert scale data was assumed to be a discretisation of an
underlying continuous variable. The distribution charac-
teristics of all data were evaluated using visual checks
(histograms and normal QQplots), skewness and kurto-
sis calculations, and statistical tests (Kolmogorov
Smirnov and ShapiroWilk). The KolmogorovSmirnov
and ShapiroWilk tests tended to suggest non-normal
distribution, which was in conflict with observations
derived from the other inspection methods. Hence, para-
metric (ttests) and non-parametric (MannWhitney Uor
Wilcoxon Z) tests of difference, and parametric
(Pearson's) and non-parametric (Spearman's) tests of
association (corrected for multiple tests), were conducted
to provide a comparison of outcomes. The direction,
strength, and significance of correlations were broadly
similar for the parametric and non-parametric tests, so
the parametric tests are reported. Alpha was set at
p< 0.05 for all one- and two-tailed tests of significance.
3|RESULTS
3.1 |Teaching interventions can give
targeted increases in student CSE
Table 1displays descriptive data for the study's main vari-
ables, while Table 2summarises the early-to-late-module
change score comparisons between groups. The interven-
tion group's CSE significantly increased from beginning
to end of module (t
[18]
=2.970, p< 0.01; x=3.00 to
3.53/5), whereas the control groups' CSE did not change
significantly (x=3.61 to 3.74/5). The difference between
the two groups in CSE change from pre- to post- interven-
tion (0.13 vs. 0.53) was also significant (t
[48]
=1.778, one-
tailed p=< 0.05).
When measured early and late in the semester, the
importance participants placed on the need to be creative
in their studies remained relatively constant in both
groups (control: x=4.38 and 4.59/6; intervention:
x=4.45 and 4.65/6), as did their motivation to develop
their creative abilities (control: x=4.38 and 4.31/6; inter-
vention: x=4.45 and 4.55/6). The early-to-late-module
change scores for these two variables did not differ
between the two groups (t
(50)
=0.054, p> 0.05 and
t
(50)
=0.426, p> 0.05, respectively). Hence, other
between-group comparisons (control vs. intervention)
can be interpreted in light of the fact that the two groups
did not differ in these underpinning variables, suggesting
that the changes observed in CSE are a true reflection of
the intervention's effectiveness and not an artefact associ-
ated with changes in the two variables above.
Interestingly, at pre-intervention, only 10% of partici-
pants believed that they would know where to start if
they wanted to learn to be more creative, but at post-
intervention this rose to 55%. Students were not explicitly
trained in how to seek out creativity-raising opportuni-
ties, so it seems that their attitude to developing their cre-
ativity had been improved by virtue of their involvement
in the CSE intervention.
3.2 |CSE increases coincide with
enhanced perceptions of course creativity
and attainment of learning outcomes
At the beginning and end of the module participants
indicated the extent to which they believed they had
developed effective creative skills on past modules during
their degree. The intervention group's scores significantly
increased on average (t
[19]
=4.344, p< 0.001; x=2.05
to 2.90/4), whereas the control groups' did not (x=2.78
to 2.88 / 4). This difference in change from pre- to post-
between the two groups (0.09 vs. 0.85) was significant
(t
(50)
=2.729, p< 0.01) and suggests that an increase in
contemporary CSE can retrospectively increase students'
perceptions of the historical development of their
creativity.
Students also rated themselves on the ability to meet
five degree-levellearning outcomes related to creativity
(How would you rate your own ability to produce
novel protocols for use in a laboratory,generate novel
and useful experimental data,analyse and interpret
PAYNE AND WHITWORTH 299
novel data in a useful manner,produce a report of novel
data and its interpretation, for use by other scientists,
and step into an unfamiliar laboratory and work produc-
tively). Between the two surveys, participants in the
control group gained a significantly improved perception
of their ability to generate novel and useful experimental
data (x=3.50 to 3.91/6; t
[31]
=2.204, two-tailed
p< 0.05), but no other perceived abilities changed
TABLE 1 Average scores for the main study variables
Control group Intervention group
Variable & item response scale range Early Late Difference Early Late Difference
Creative self-efficacy (16) 3.61 3.74 +0.13 3.00 3.53 +0.53**
Creativity skills from past modules (14) 2.78 2.88 +0.10 2.05 2.90 +0.85***
Importance placed on creativity (16) 4.38 4.59 +0.21 4.45 4.65 +0.20
Strength of motivation to develop creative abilities
(16)
4.38 4.31 0.07 4.45 4.55 +0.10
Strength of motivation for university work (16) 4.09 3.61 0.48 4.35 4.38 +0.03
Perceived riskiness(3to+3) 1.00 0.88 0.12 0.55 0.80 +0.25
Perceived impulsiveness (17) 4.72 4.50 0.22 3.95 3.90 0.05
Creative STEMM abilities (16):
Novel protocols 3.84 4.06 +0.22 3.48 4.08 +0.60***
Novel data 3.50 3.91 +0.41*3.75 4.40 +0.65**
Novel analyses 3.78 3.95 +0.17 3.50 4.15 +0.65*
Novel report 3.45 3.90 +0.45 4.00 4.63 +0.63**
Unfamiliar lab 3.75 3.69 0.06 3.88 4.58 +0.70**
Expected module score (%) 61.3 (7.8) 63.3 (9.3) +2% 60.0 (18.0) 63.6 (6.0) +3.6%
*p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ***p< 0.001.
TABLE 2 Average change in study variables from pre-to-post intervention
Control group Intervention group
Variable & item response scale range
Early > late
difference
Early > late
difference
Significant between-group
difference?
Creative self-efficacy (16) +0.13 +0.53 p< 0.05
Creativity skills from past modules (14) +0.09 +0.85 p< 0.01
Importance placed on creativity (16) +0.21 +0.20
Strength of motivation to develop creative
abilities (16)
0.07 +0.10
Strength of motivation for university work
(16)
0.47 +0.03
Perceived riskiness(3to+3) 0.12 +0.25
Perceived impulsivity (17) +0.02 0.05
Creative STEMM abilities (16):
Novel protocols +0.22 +0.60 p=0.051
Novel data +0.41 +0.65
Novel analyses +0.17 +0.65
Novel report +0.45 +0.63
Unfamiliar lab 0.06 +0.70
Expected module score (%) +2% +3.6%
300 PAYNE AND WHITWORTH
significantly. In contrast, and mirroring the observed
increases in their CSE, the intervention group gained a
significantly improved perception of all five abilities
(increases ranging from 0.60 to 0.70/6; all one-tailed
pvalues =<0.01).
3.3 |Contributory factors to academic
CSE and a disparity with extra-
curricular CSE
Participants were asked on what experiences and
thoughts their academic creative ability self-ratings were
based. When asked early in the module, students cited
previous successful experiences as the primary positive
influence, while negative perceptions were based on pre-
viously unsuccessful experiences (File S2).
Participants were also asked whether their perceived
creativity in their studies differed from other life contexts,
and if so, why. Prior to the intervention 55% of students
from the intervention module indicated that their aca-
demic CSE was relatively lacking. Example rationales are
provided in File S2. However, at post-intervention, 75%
said they would rate their CSE similarly within university
and beyond, indicating that for the intervention group,
improved academic CSE self-rating had begun to
TABLE 3 Relationships between CSE, performance expectations, and actual performance (n=14)
Performance indicators and CSE variables
rvalues
Year one
performance
(x
=65%,
SD =5)
Pre-
intervention
expected
module score
(x
=60%,
SD =18)
Post-
intervention
expected
module score
(x
=64%,
SD =6)
Intervention
module actual
performance
(x
=65%,
SD =7)
a
Pre-
intervention
CSE
(x
=3.07,
SD =0.73)
Post-
intervention
CSE (x
=3.64,
SD =0.50)
Year one
performance
(x=65%,
SD =5)
Pre-intervention
expected
module score
(x=60%,
SD =18)
0.427 (one-
tailed
p> 0.05)
Post-
intervention
expected
module score
(x=64%,
SD =6)
0.766 (one-
tailed
p< 0.001)
0.148 (one-tailed
p> 0.05)
Intervention
module actual
performance
(x=65%,
SD =7)*
0.630 (one-
tailed
p< 0.01)
0.263 (one-tailed
p> 0.05)
0.524 (one-tailed
p< 0.05)
Pre-intervention
CSE
(x=3.07,
SD =0.73)
0.550 (two-
tailed
p< 0.05)
0.174 (two-tailed
p> 0.05)
0.550 (two-tailed
p< 0.05)
0.314 (two-tailed
p> 0.05)
Post-
intervention
CSE
(x=3.64,
SD =0.50)
Not needed Not needed 0.587 (one-tailed
p< 0.05)
0.376 (one-tailed
p=0.093)
0.076 (one-
tailed
p=>0.05)
a
For analyses related to the intervention group's performance data, five participants were removed because they did not achieve their full potential due to non-
submission of one or more coursework components; n=14.
Grey shades indicate comparisons which would be self-self.
PAYNE AND WHITWORTH 301
converge with their CSE from contexts in which they
were more comfortable/confident (File S2).
3.4 |Positive relationships between CSE,
student-predicted grades and academic
attainment
The intervention took place in a year two module of a
3 year degree program, therefore participants' year one
average scores were available to the researchers, as were
their scores from the module itself upon its completion.
At pre- and post-intervention, participants were asked to
estimate the score they expected to achieve on the mod-
ule (and what informed their estimations see File S2).
A series of correlation tests were performed to determine
the strength and direction of relationship between actual
scores, expected scores, and CSE (Table 3).
At pre-intervention, students generally predicted that
they would achieve a statistically similar module mark to
that which they achieved overall in their first year (60%
vs. 65%, respectively). However, despite the similar
means, the correlation between the two variables was
moderately strong and negative (r=0.427, p< 0.05)
suggesting a disconnection between past experiences and
future expectations. Nevertheless, at post-intervention
the students' predicted marks had risen slightly
(x=63.6%, SD =6.0), aligning more closely to their
actual module score (x=64.7%, SD =7.0).
In terms of CSE, the relationship between pre-
intervention and post-intervention CSE was almost non-
existent (r=0.076, one-tailed p> 0.05), suggesting inde-
pendence between the two variables and further
strengthening the study's justification (Table 3). The rela-
tionship between post-intervention CSE and actual mod-
ule score was stronger but did not quite achieve
statistical significance (r=0.376, p=0.093). Neverthe-
less, CSE did demonstrate a positive relationship with
module performance, suggesting its status as a contribut-
ing factor.
3.5 |CSE correlates with increased
motivation to study and may also impact
on risk-taking behaviour
Students experienced some interesting and potentially
beneficial changes associated with their participation in
the CSE intervention. Control group participants'
strength of motivation for university work substantially
decreased from beginning to end of the semester
(x=4.09 to 3.61/6; t
[31]
=1.789, two-tailed p=0.083),
whereas the intervention groups' improved slightly
(x=4.35 to 4.38/6; t
[19]
=0.101, p> 0.05). Late in the
module, the intervention group's increased CSE shared a
statistically significant, strong, positive relationship
(r=0.690, two-tailed p< 0.001) with their (slightly
increased) strength of motivation for university work
(x=4.38/6). For the control group, late in the semester,
there was no relationship between their CSE and their
motivation for university work (r=0.103, p=0.581). It
seems plausible that the intervention, which required on-
going completion of a series of tasks which clearly built
on one another, stimulated students' prolonged engage-
ment (and motivation) as well as developing their CSE.
At the beginning and end of the module participants
were also asked how risky(i.e., prone to take a course
of action when the outcome is far from certain) and
impulsive (i.e., prone to act before giving the conse-
quences full consideration) they would say they were in
everyday life. Statistically, participants in the control
group maintained their perceived riskiness(x=1.00
and 0.88/3to+3) and impulsiveness (x=4.72 and 4.50
/ 7), as did the intervention group (x=0.55 and 0.80/3
to +3; x=3.95 and 3.90/7, respectively; all two-tailed
pvalues >0.05). However, decreases in the average raw
scores for riskiness and impulsiveness can be seen for the
control group but less so for the intervention group. The
intervention sought to encourage risk-taking and creative
exploration through careful scaffolding and peer-to-peer
support, and this observation is therefore noteworthy, as
students often see creativity and risk-taking as synony-
mous, preferring to play-it-safe rather than be creative/
take a risk.
42
4|DISCUSSION
4.1 |An intervention targeted to
increase student CSE
The majority of life science undergraduates we surveyed
(55%) had lower CSE in the context of their studies than
in extra-curricular contexts. However, an intervention
which targeted the development of CSE increased stu-
dents' academic CSE, bringing it more in line with their
extra-curricular CSE. Intervention module students and
control module students exhibited no significant differ-
ences prior to the intervention, and both sets of students
were primedequally. The increase in CSE of the inter-
vention module students was not due to an increased per-
ception of the importance of creativity, or the motivation
to develop creativity, as these remained stable pre- and
post-intervention (Table 1).
The intervention was designed to draw on factors
known to promote CSE, such as a classroom
302 PAYNE AND WHITWORTH
environment that was conducive to non-threatening
peer-to-peer collaboration. By scaffolding the students'
learning activities, the module provided low-stakes crea-
tive spacefor enactive mastery experiences to occur. This
approach was reinforced through a system of reflection
and feedback, which is a valuable contributor to students'
introspection and metacognition.
9,10
Personal reflections
on learning and performance, integrated with feedback
from an expert, should result in lasting increases in CSE
as an indirect form of enactive mastery experience.
39
It
would therefore be interesting to investigate whether the
ability to self-reflect is a mediator of the efficacy of this
intervention.
Peer-to-peer support was also integral to the interven-
tion, with classmates providing a source of CSE through
verbal persuasion. Classmates worked together to critique
their own and their peers' creative process and output,
which would be expected to facilitate positive mood
states and enactive mastery through vicarious experience
and external perspective-taking.
4.2 |Benefits associated with increases
in CSE
The increased CSE resulting from the intervention was
associated with other beneficial changes in the students'
survey responses. Compared to students on the control
modules, post-intervention the intervention group
exhibited increased motivation and risk-taking, with
increased confidence in their ability to achieve learning
outcomes and to enter the workplace (Table 1).
Increases in various types of academic self-efficacy
(e.g. reading self-efficacy) have been shown to be associ-
ated with improvements in that type of academic perfor-
mance.
43,44
Unsurprisingly, CSE is a contributing factor
to creative performance, albeit the strength of that contri-
bution can increase, remain stable, or decline over
time.
12,45
It would be interesting to test whether increases
in CSE as a result of this intervention are also associated
with, or cause, an increase in creativity. However, as self-
efficacy and performance are reciprocally deterministic, a
chicken-and-egg conundrumexists, making attempts to
establish causality difficult.
46
Increased CSE was associated with increased motiva-
tion for study at the end of the semester (Table 1). This is
important because completion of assignments, class
attendance, hours spent studying, and final grade, are all
associated with motivation.
4749
Motivation to study is
time-dependent, for instance, how students compare
themselves to peers is a motivational factor that evolves
with time.
50
All-too-often, the strength and/or quality of
student motivation is diminished from the start to the
end of a semester,
5053
but this was not observed in the
intervention group. Potentially, the tempo of the inter-
vention, with practical tasks being completed on an
ongoing basis clearly building on one another, stimulated
the students' prolonged engagement.
4.3 |Areas for further consideration
Increases in CSE can be lasting,
39
and it would be inter-
esting to undertake longitudinal studies to assess the fre-
quency with which CSE-promoting interventions should
be embedded in the curriculum. Will students with
increased CSE act on their increased sense of familiarity
with the creative side of their subject to further develop
their own creativity?
It would also be interesting to explore the relationship
between CSE and perceptions of risk-taking in students.
Risk-taking is domain specific
54
and future research
should investigate how risk and impulsiveness as specific
to academic pursuits, relate to student perceptions of cre-
ativity and CSE. Scaffolded opportunities for creative and
innovative exploration may attenuate students' belief in
the riskinessof creative behaviours potentially
resulting in an altered approach, from avoidance of risk
to pursuit of opportunity.
55
The nature of the intervention we deployed in this
study meant that our sample size nwas necessarily small,
although nwas sufficient to demonstrate some significant
differences between intervention and control groups and
between early/late or pre-/post-intervention. The conclu-
sions drawn here are therefore somewhat tentative, and
it would be useful to target further larger modules with
bespoke CSE-targeted interventions to establish the gen-
erality of our observations, which would likely extend
beyond biochemistry to other STEM subjects and/or
school education settings.
It is concerning that there was a negative correlation
between students' prior marks and the pre-intervention
prediction of their marks in the intervention module
(Table 3). It could be that students were threatened by
the creativity element of the module, and this manifested
in a pessimistic score prediction, potentially also as a pro-
tective self-presentational strategy.
56,57
Nevertheless, an increased correlation between post-
intervention predictions and marks obtained for the
intervention module (Table 3), suggest the intervention
may help students link learning activities to learning out-
comes and performance. Students performed better than
they had expected to at the start of the semester, also
supporting the intervention's effectiveness of coaching
upstudents' creative abilities. In our experience creativ-
ity-relatedterms are usually missing from marking
PAYNE AND WHITWORTH 303
criteria and learning outcomes, making it difficult for stu-
dents to reconcile creativity with scoring points for
performance.
It is also noteworthy that many students' reported
that their pessimistic predictions of module marks were
due to previous negative experiences (Supplemental File
S2). This reinforces the importance of making creative
exercises low stakes and non-threatening, otherwise crea-
tive teaching exercises could be counterproductive,
reducing students' CSE.
58
4.4 |Implications for practice
CSE is an important component of the student experi-
ence that can be actively enhanced by pedagogic strate-
gies, although in higher education there is often little
opportunity for the required risk-taking, collaborative
exploration and autonomy,
59
and creative exercises also
have to compete for time with the taught curriculum.
60
Pedagogic interventions aside, leader CSE has an indirect
effect on the creativity (if not the CSE) of followers,
61,62
and academics can role-model creativity, encouraging
engagement of their students with the creative process.
The teaching intervention we deployed did not
require teaching staff to have strong CSE of their own.
Instead, it included (i) learning tasks designed to increase
students' CSE as well as a mode of assessment that
inspired creative efforts, and (ii) creation of a learning
environment that provided enabling resources, opportu-
nity structures, and was intended to reciprocally benefit
students' CSE. These are relatively simple teaching inter-
ventions that are grounded in strong psychological the-
ory, that target the four key sources of CSE (enactive
mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal per-
suasion, and physiological affective states).
10,23,24
Such
interventions can be relatively simple and straightfor-
ward to implement. For example, by providing practice
sessionswhere students can access the laboratory to
informally experiment with techniques and equipment,
by facilitating discussions between students to compare
or aggregate protocols/data, or by breaking up challeng-
ing tasks into smaller sub-tasks which can then be
brought together when the individual sub-tasks have
been mastered.
Potentially, the composition of the peer group ele-
ment of the intervention could be manipulated to
increase beneficial outcomes. Should students be given
autonomy to choose who to team up, or should they be
placed into groups that challenge their zone of proximal
development and role model effective study habits
63
?
Composition of the peer groups also has implications for
stress levels, social anxiety, risk-taking, and engagement
behaviours,
64
and so warrants further investigation if
CSE-raising interventions are to maximise their
effectiveness.
Many excellent resources are available to help edu-
cators promote creativity in their teaching.
65,66
Unfor-
tunately, teaching practices such as modelling
creativity, allowing time for creative thinking, allowing
mistakes, and rewarding creative outputs, for example,
are often forgotten by students as their deadlines loom
and they revert to marks-acquisition mode to the exclu-
sion of skill development.
67
Potentially, inclusion of
innovationand creativityterms throughout assess-
ment marking criteria and module learning outcomes,
wouldhelpstudentstoseetheimpactofcreativityon
their marks, and the value that teaching staff and
employers place on creativity and innovation. Ideally,
teachers would also design their modes of assessment
to explicitly include some opportunity for creative
thought and expression,
68
harnessing the benefits of
CSE-associated study behaviours.
10,6971
ORCID
David Edward Whitworth https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
0302-7722
REFERENCES
1. Piffer D. Can creativity be measured? An attempt to clarify the
notion of creativity and general directions for future research.
Think Skill Creat. 2012;7:25864.
2. Sokol A, Gozdek A, Figurska I, Blaskova M. Organizational cli-
mate of higher education institutions and its implications for
the development of creativity. Procedia Soc Behav. 2015;182:
27988.
3. Royal Society of Biology. Degree accreditation programme
handbook. London, UK: Royal Society of Biology; 2019.
https://heteaching.rsb.org.uk/education/accreditation/Degree-
Accreditation. Accessed 15 April 2021.
4. Furnham A, Batey M, Booth TW, Patel V, Lozinskaya D. Indi-
vidual difference predictors of creativity in art and science stu-
dents. Think Skill Creat. 2011;6:11421.
5. Tierney P, Farmer SM. Creative self-efficacy: its potential ante-
cedents and relationship to creative performance. Acad Man-
age J. 2002;45:113748.
6. Schneider M, Preckel F. Variables associated with achievement
in higher education: a systematic review of meta-analyses.
Psychol Bull. 2017;143:565600.
7. Plucker JA, Beghetto RA, Dow GT. Why isn't creativity more
important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and
future directions in creativity research. Educ Psychol. 2004;39:
8396.
8. Bandura A. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development
and functioning. Educ Psychol. 1993;28:11748.
9. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behav-
ioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:191215.
10. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
304 PAYNE AND WHITWORTH
11. Zimmerman BJ. Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Con-
temp Educ Psychol. 2000;25:8291.
12. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York
City, NY: Freeman; 1997.
13. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Transactional theory and research on
emotions and coping. Eur J Personality. 1987;1:14169.
14. Epstein R. The big book of creativity games. New York City,
NY: McGraw-Hill; 2000.
15. Byron K, Khazanchi S, Nazarian D. The relationship between
stressors and creativity: a meta-analysis examining competing
theoretical models. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95:20112.
16. Hamilton ER. Finding creativity and flow in a high-stakes
assessment context. Irish Educ Stud. 2013;32:10917.
17. Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: the psychology of optimal experi-
ence. New York: Harper & Row; 1990.
18. Sarwar F, Rahman SA, Bt PA. Psychological capital, a unique
resource to develop effective managers; relationship with crea-
tivity, achievement motivation and stress. Adv Sci Lett. 2017;
23:8598602.
19. Baas M, De Dreu CK, Nijstad BA. A meta-analysis of 25 years
of mood-creativity research: hedonic tone, activation, or regula-
tory focus? Psychol Bull. 2008;134:779806.
20. Rogaten J, Moneta GB. Use of creative cognition and positive
affect in studying: evidence of a reciprocal relationship. Creat
Res J. 2015;27:22531.
21. Hughes G, Wilson C. In: Reisman F, editor. Creativity.
London, England: Innovation and Wellbeing. KIE Conference
Publications; 2017. p. 2365.
22. Marsh HW, Martin AJ, Cheng JHS. A multilevel perspective on
gender in classroom motivation and climate: potential benefits
of male teachers for boys? J Educ Psychol. 2008;100:7895.
23. Bandura A. The changing face of psychology at the dawning of
a globalization era. Can Psychol. 2001;42:1224.
24. Richter AW, Hirst G, van Knippenberg D, Baer M. Creative
self-efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: cross-
level interactions with team informational resources. J Appl
Psychol. 2012;97:128290.
25. Beghetto RA, Baxter JA. Exploring student beliefs and under-
standing in elementary science and mathematics. J Res Sci
Teach. 2012;49:94260.
26. Choi JN. Individual and contextual predictors of creative per-
formance: the mediating role of psychological processes. Creat
Res J. 2004;16:18799.
27. Karwowski M. It doesn't hurt to askbut sometimes it hurts to
believe: polish students' creative self-efficacy and its predictors.
Psychol Aesthet Creat. 2011a;5:15464.
28. Karwowski M. Teachers' personality and perception of the climate
for creativity in a school. Int J Creat Probl Solv. 2011b;21:3752.
29. Karwowski M. Peer effect on Students' creative self-concept.
J Creat Behav. 2015;49:21125.
30. Karwowski M, Gralewski J, Szumski G. Teachers' effect on Stu-
dents' creative self-beliefs is moderated by Students' gender.
Learn Individ Differ. 2015;44:18.
31. Karwowski M, Lebuda I. The big five, the huge two, and crea-
tive self-beliefs: a meta-analysis. Psychol Aesthet Creat. 2016;
10:21432.
32. Lim HS, Choi JN. Testing an alternative relationship between
individual and contextual predictors of creative performance.
Soc Behav Personal. 2009;37:11735.
33. Puente-Díaz R. Creative self-efficacy: an exploration of its ante-
cedents, consequences, and applied implications. J Psychol.
2016;150:17595.
34. Putwain DW, Kearsley R, Symes W. Do creativity self-beliefs
predict literacy achievement and motivation? Learn Individ
Differ. 2012;22:3704.
35. Tsai KC. The value of teaching creativity in adult education.
Int J High Educ. 2012;1:8491.
36. Dewett T, Gruys ML. Advancing the case for creativity through
graduate business education. Think Skill Creat. 2007;2:8595.
37. Robbins TL, Kegley K. Playing with Thinkertoys to build crea-
tive abilities through online instruction. Think Skill Creat.
2010;5:408.
38. Byrge C, Tang C. Embodied creativity training: effects on crea-
tive self-efficacy and creative production. Think Skill Creat.
2015;16:5161.
39. Mathisen GE, Bronnick KS. Creative self-efficacy: an interven-
tion study. Int J Educ Res. 2009;48:219.
40. Bandura A. Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspect
Psychol Sci. 2006;1:16480.
41. Whitworth DE. Recasting a traditional laboratory practical as a
design-your-own protocolto teach a universal research skill.
Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2016;44:37780.
42. Sahlberg P. In: Villalba E, editor. Measuring creativity. Luxem-
burg: OPOCE; 2009. p. 33744.
43. Unrau NJ, Rueda R, Son E, Polanin JR, Lundeen RJ,
Muraszewski AK. Can Reading self-efficacy be modified? A
meta-analysis of the impact of interventions on Reading self-
efficacy. Rev Educ Res. 2017;88:167204.
44. Bartimote-Aufflick K, Bridgeman A, Walker R, Sharma M,
Smith L. The study, evaluation, and improvement of university
student self-efficacy. Stud High Educ. 2016;41:191842.
45. Bandura A. On the functional properties of self-efficacy
revisited. J Manage. 2012;38:944.
46. Talsma K, Schüz B, Schwarzer R, Norris K. I believe, therefore
I achieve (and vice versa): a meta-analytic cross-lagged panel
analysis of self-efficacy and academic performance. Learn
Individ Differ. 2018;61:13650.
47. Lepper MR, Corpus JH, Iyengar SS. Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational orientations in the classroom: age differences and
academic correlates. J Educ Psychol. 2005;97:18496.
48. Martin AJ, Marsh HW. Academic resilience and its psychologi-
cal and educational correlates: a construct validity approach.
Psychol Schools. 2006;43:26781.
49. Pintrich PR, Zusho A. In: Smart JC, Tierney WG, editors.
Higher education: handbook of theory and research. Volume
17. Dordrecht, Germany: Springer; 2002.
50. Bo WV, Loh EKY, Tse SK. In: Zheng B, Guo Z, editors. Acquisi-
tion, assessment and application: theory and practice of teach-
ing Chinese in higher education. London, UK: Sinolingua
London Ltd; 2016. p. 11128.
51. Pulfrey C, Buchs C, Butera F. Why grades engender
performance-avoidance goals: the mediating role of autono-
mous motivation. J Educ Psychol. 2011;103:683700.
52. Smith L. Changes in student motivation over the final year of
high school. J Educ Enq. 2004;5:6485.
53. Woodrow L. In: Ushioda E, editor. International perspectives
on English language teaching. London, England: Palgrave Mac-
millan; 2013.
PAYNE AND WHITWORTH 305
54. Tyagi V, Hanoch Y, Hall SD, Runco M, Denham SL. The risky
side of creativity: domain specific risk taking in creative indi-
viduals. Front Psychol. 2017;8:19.
55. Bandura A, Locke E. Negative self-efficacy and goal effects
revisited. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88:8799.
56. Kosakowska-Berezecka N, Jurek P, Besta T, Badowska S. Self-
presentation strategies, fear of success and anticipation of
future success among university and high school students.
Front Psychol. 2017;8:1884.
57. Török L, Szab
o ZP, T
oth L. A critical review of the literature on
academic self-handicapping: theory, manifestations, prevention
and measurement. Soc Psychol Educ. 2018;21:1175202.
58. Ceci MW, Kumar VK. A correlational study of creativity, hap-
piness, motivation, and stress from creative pursuits.
J Happiness Stud. 2016;17:60926.
59. MacLaren I. The contradictions of policy and practice: creativ-
ity in higher education. Lond Rev Educ. 2012;10:15972.
60. Bronson P, Merryman A. The creativity crisis. New York City,
NY: Newsweek; 2010. https://www.newsweek.com/creativity-
crisis-74665. Accessed 1 July 2019.
61. Huang L, Krasikova DV, Liu D. I can do it, so can you: the role
of leader creative self-efficacy in facilitating follower creativity.
Organ Behav Hum Dec. 2016;132:4962.
62. Zhang X, Bartol KM. The influence of creative process engage-
ment on employee creative performance and overall job perfor-
mance: a curvilinear assessment. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95:
86273.
63. Tudge J. In: Moll LC, editor. Vygotsky and education: instruc-
tional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychol-
ogy. New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1992.
p. 15572.
64. Furrer CJ, Skinner EA, Pitzer JR. The influence of teacher and
peer relationships on students' classroom engagement and
everyday motivational resilience. Natl Soc Study Educ. 2014;
113:10123.
65. James A, Brookfield SD. Engaging imagination: helping stu-
dents become creative and reflective thinkers. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass; 2014.
66. Sternberg RJ, Williams WM. How to develop student creativity.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development; 1996.
67. Lieberman DA, Remedios R. Do undergraduates' motives for
studying change as they progress through their degrees? Br J
Educ Psychol. 2007;77:37995.
68. Sternberg RJ. The concept of intelligence and its role in lifelong
learning and success. Am Psychol. 1997;52:10307.
69. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Appl
Psychol Int Rev. 2002;51:26990.
70. Caprara GV, Fida A, Vecchionem M, Del Bove G, Vecchio GM,
Barbaranelli C, et al. Longitudinal analysis of the role of per-
ceived efficacy for self-regulated learning in academic continu-
ance and achievement. J Educ Psychol. 2008;100:52534.
71. Zimmerman BJ, Bandura A, Martinez-Pons M. Self-motivation
for academic attainment: the role of self-efficacy beliefs and
personal goal-setting. Am Educ Res J. 1992;29:66376.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found in the
online version of the article at the publisher's website.
How to cite this article: Payne SM,
Whitworth DE. Increasing creative self-efficacy:
Developing the confidence of biochemistry
undergraduates to innovate. Biochem Mol Biol
Educ. 2022;50(3):296306. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bmb.21628
306 PAYNE AND WHITWORTH
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Academic self-handicapping is a very popular subject of research in educational psychology, in which a growing number of related findings are reported. However, apart from a recent meta-analysis (Schwinger et al. in J Educ Psychol 106(3):744–761, 2014), the last comprehensive review of the subject was published 17 years ago (Urdan and Midgley in Educ Psychol Rev 13(2):115–138, 2001). This paper integrates relevant findings accumulated since then, which are discussed in a coherent interpretive framework. The first part of the paper discusses the definition and theoretical grounds of academic self-handicapping, then its manifestations in an academic context are enumerated. The second part of the study focuses on the self-protective function of stereotypes based on self-handicapping as well as on the impressions self-handicapping students may make on others at school. A summary of the contributions of goal orientation theory is provided in relation to self-handicapping, and the effects of various goal orientations and goal structures on academic performance are analysed. Based on an analysis of interactions between self-handicapping and academic performance, the authors argue for the importance of prevention and suggest possible ways to prevent self-handicapping. In conclusion, measurement issues of academic self-handicapping and the methodological paradox inherent in questionnaire measures are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
Self-efficacy has long been viewed as an important determinant of academic performance. A counter-position is that self-efficacy is merely a reflection of past performance. Research in the area is limited by unidirectional designs which cannot address reciprocity or the comparative strength of directional effects. This systematic review and meta-analysis considered both directions of the relationship simultaneously, pooling data from longitudinal studies measuring both academic self-efficacy and academic performance over two waves. Pooled correlations (k = 11, N = 2688) were subjected to cross-lagged path analysis that provided support for a reciprocal effects model. Performance had a net positive effect on subsequent self-efficacy (β = 0.205, p < 0.001), significantly larger than the effect of self-efficacy on performance (β = 0.071, p < 0.001). Moderator analyses indicated that reciprocity holds for adults, but not for children (in whom performance uniquely impacts subsequent self-efficacy beliefs, but not the reverse). Cross-lagged effects were stronger in studies which used methodologies consistent with recommendations of self-efficacy theorists.
Article
Full-text available
Psychological capital (PsyCap), a higher order multidimensional human capacity is composed of hope, (self) efficacy, resilience and optimism (HERO). All four constituent constructs have strong theoretical base, valid measures, are non-imitable, and are state-like which makes them open to development. Research over years indicates that PsyCap is a positive predictor of various organizational and individual level positive attitudes, behaviors, and performance measures, and is negatively related to undesired outcome variables. PsyCap is such unique and developable psychological resource, which future managers, must possess in order to survive, excel, and positively contribute in business environment. The study hypothesized that psychological capital is positive predictor of individual creativity, achievement motivation, and negative predictor of perceived stress. Literature indicates these three variables have significant impact on success in professional life, for both traditionally employed and self-employed individuals. To empirically test the hypothesis, data was collected from 165 final year university students enrolled in Information technology and commerce courses. The positive and significant results from path analysis indicated that PsyCap is indeed a substantial predictor of the three constructs as hypothesized. Efforts to develop individual PsyCap at university level and in professional life can considerably guarantee a successful manager in future.
Article
Full-text available
The backlash avoidance model (BAM) suggests women insufficiently self-promote because they fear backlash for behavior which is incongruent with traditional gender roles. Avoiding self-promoting behavior is also potentially related to associating success with negative consequences. In two studies we tested whether self-promotion and fear of success will be predictors of lower salaries and anticipation of lower chances of success in an exam. In study 1, prior to the exam they were about to take, we asked 234 students about their predictions concerning exam results and their future earnings. They also filled scales measuring their associations with success (fear of success) and tendency for self-promotion. The tested model proved that in comparison to men, women expect lower salaries in the future, anticipate lower test performance and associate success with more negative consequences. Both tendency for self-promotion and fear of success are related to anticipation of success in test performance and expectations concerning future earnings. In study 2 we repeated the procedure on a sample of younger female and male high school pupils (N = 100) to verify whether associating success with negative consequences and differences in self-promotion strategies are observable in a younger demographic. Our results show that girls and boys in high school do not differ with regard to fear of success, self-promotion or agency levels. Girls and boys anticipated to obtain similar results in math exam results, but girls expected to have higher results in language exams. Nevertheless, school pupils also differed regarding their future earnings but only in the short term. Fear of success and agency self-ratings were significant predictors of expectations concerning future earnings, but only among high school boys and with regard to earnings expected just after graduation.
Article
Full-text available
Risk taking is often associated with creativity, yet little evidence exists to support this association. The present article aimed to systematically explore this association. In two studies, we investigated the relationship between five different domains of risk taking (financial, health and safety, recreational, ethical and social) and five different measures of creativity. Results from the first (laboratory-based) offline study suggested that creativity is associated with high risk taking tendencies in the social domain but not the other domains. Indeed, in the second study conducted online with a larger and diverse sample, the likelihood of social risk taking was the strongest predictor of creative personality and ideation scores. These findings illustrate the necessity to treat creativity and risk taking as multi-dimensional traits and the need to have a more nuanced framework of creativity and other related cognitive functions.
Article
Studies of interventions’ impact on reading self-efficacy have been conducted since the 1980s. The purpose of this project was to conduct a systematic review of these studies because the primary studies often yielded divergent results. Included studies entailed an intervention, addressed reading specifically, and reported explicit pre- and postintervention measures of reading self-efficacy. Subjects were students in elementary grades through college. The results of a systematic search and screening procedure found 30 studies in which 2,300 subjects received treatments of various kinds while 1,957 were in control or comparison groups. A meta-analysis of three subsets of study designs revealed that each subset generated a significant effect size: treatment–control (g = 0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.10, 0.39]); treatment–comparison (g = 0.44, 95% CI [0.04, 0.84]); pretest–posttest (g = 0.36, 95% CI [0.16, 0.57]). Significant heterogeneity was found and modeled using moderator analyses conducted on several variables. The results indicated that significant moderators of effect sizes included grade level, number of sources shaping reading self-efficacy, a reading self-efficacy measurement index, and journal publication. In studies that measured the impact of the intervention on reading comprehension, its relationship with reading self-efficacy was analyzed revealing a strong correlation between the two constructs. Discussion includes an exploration of the importance of these findings to future policy, practice, and research on the design of reading self-efficacy measurement instruments and on interventions that utilize major sources of experiences shaping reading self-efficacy.
Article
Presents an integrative theoretical framework to explain and to predict psychological changes achieved by different modes of treatment. This theory states that psychological procedures, whatever their form, alter the level and strength of self-efficacy. It is hypothesized that expectations of personal efficacy determine whether coping behavior will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences. Persistence in activities that are subjectively threatening but in fact relatively safe produces, through experiences of mastery, further enhancement of self-efficacy and corresponding reductions in defensive behavior. In the proposed model, expectations of personal efficacy are derived from 4 principal sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. Factors influencing the cognitive processing of efficacy information arise from enactive, vicarious, exhortative, and emotive sources. The differential power of diverse therapeutic procedures is analyzed in terms of the postulated cognitive mechanism of operation. Findings are reported from microanalyses of enactive, vicarious, and emotive modes of treatment that support the hypothesized relationship between perceived self-efficacy and behavioral changes. (21/2 p ref)
The quality of students' relationships with teachers and peers is a fundamental substrate for the development of academic engagement and achievement. This chapter offers teachers and researchers a motivational framework that explains how positive and negative student-teacher and student-peer relationships are sustained in the classroom, and strategies for creating solutions to improve relationships.