Academic Self-Concept:
Implications
A review of the voluminous self-concept and
self-esteem literature (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Bornholt
&Goodnow, 1999b; Byrne, 2002; Cosden & McNamara, 1997;
deCharms, 1968; DiPerna & Elliott, 1999; Dusek, 2000; Gresham,
1988; Guay, Marsh, & Boivin, 2003; Harter, 1990; Kaplan &
Lin, 2000; Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2003; Nurmi, Aunola,
SalmelaAro, & Lindroos, 2003; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2002;
Vaughn et al., 2001) suggests the following
implications:
-
Self-concept is related to many other
developmental accomplishments. For example, the affective
component of self-concept (i.e., self-esteem) has been empirically
associated with positive social development, ethnic identity
development, positive peer and parent interactions and
relationships, insulation against the development of a deviant
identity and delinquent behaviors, less anxiety and depression, and
greater satisfaction with life.
-
Although
the size and direction of the relationships (as well as the
measurements and methods used in the research studies) have
sometimes been argued and criticized, in general, academic
self-concept has been consistently linked to positive academic
outcomes. This finding is not surprising given that the high
value placed on academic competence by society typically results in
positive academic competence feelings for learners who are
successful in their academic endeavors. These positive academic
affective self-evaluations are believed to influence future
academic motivation. Part of the disagreement with the self-concept
research findings stems from the use of different
“achievement” indicators. Academic self-concept
is more consistently correlated with grades and less consistently
correlated with test scores. It has been hypothesized that
academic self-concept exerts more influence on grades (vs test
scores) as grades are believed to be more influenced by motivation
and volition (Snow, et al., 1996).
-
An
important finding (across a diverse range of students—gifted
and talented; disadvantaged; students with learning disabilities or
mild intellectual disabilities) regarding the development of
academic self-concept is the big-fish-little-pond effect.
According to the big-fish-little-pond effect, “learners
compare their own academic ability with that of their peers and
then use this social comparison impression as one basis for the
formation of their academic self-concept” (Byrne, 2002, p.
901). The big-fish-little- pond effect occurs when students
compare their personal academic performance/ability with that of
their peers (an external frame of reference). For example,
“a negative big-fish-little-pond effect is evidenced when
learners of equal ability exhibit lower academic self-concepts
after comparing themselves with more able learners, albeit they
exhibit higher academic self- concepts following comparison with
less able learners. The big-fish-little-pond effect exemplifies
external frame of reference effects and, as a consequence, lends
itself well to academic environments that involve selective school
placement or choice” (Byrne, 2002, p. 901). Social
comparison theory is the basis for the big-fish-little-pond
effect. Social comparison theory suggests that students in
educational settings where the average reference group is higher in
ability, often experience a decrease in academic self-concept.
According to social comparison theory, this decrement in academic
self-concept occurs as the less capable students (e.g., students
with disabilities) judge themselves as less capable than their more
competent peers.
-
The
developmental trajectory of self-concept tends to mirror that
described previously for self-efficacy. In general, young
children initially develop very positive self-concepts that tend to
be biased (inflated) when compared to external reference
indicators. With increasing age, self-concept becomes more
differentiated (i.e., multidimensional), reality- based, less
positive, and more aligned with external indicators and sources of
evaluation (e.g., adult evaluations of performance).
Disagreement exists on the causal mechanisms of the developmental
changes in academic self-concept and the resulting appropriate
interventions. Research has suggested that the development of
positive and healthy academic self-concepts can result from early
interventions that either focus on fostering young children’s
academic self-beliefs (self-enhancement methods) or interventions
focused on developing academic skills (skill enhancement
methods).
-
See Guay
et al. (2003) for a recent treatment of academic self-concept early
intervention literature.
-
The
reaction of significant adults (teachers and parents) to a learner
can have a positive or negative impact on the development of
academic self-concept. Research has demonstrated that
individuals tend to perceive themselves as they are perceived by
others. The reflected perceptions and appraisals of significant
others play an important role in the development of a
student’s academic self-concept.
-
Students
with learning disabilities frequently (and spontaneously) compare
themselves to their non-disabled peers, and as a result, often
suffer negative decrements in academic self- concept.
Although the research findings have, at times, been inconsistent
regarding global self-concept and self-esteem, the evidence is
relatively clear that students with learning disabilities, as a
group, display decreases in academic self-concept over time.
Interestingly, some studies have reported that students with
learning disabilities may compare themselves favorably to their
peers in the intellectual ability domain, but not the academic
abilities domain. These findings suggest that students with
learning disabilities may make relatively accurate self-evaluations
of their personal strengths and
weaknesses.
-
Some
research reviews have estimated that students with learning
disabilities, in general, display academic self-concepts
approximately 1.3 standard deviations lower than students without
disabilities. In addition, research suggests that academic
self- concept may vary as a function of the specific education
setting of the student with a learning disability. For
example, “studies have tended to show that children with LD
who receive special education services in either segregated (i.e.,
self-contained) or mainstreamed (i.e., resource) settings have more
favorable general self-concepts and self-perceptions of academics
than children with LD in regular classrooms who receive no special
education or remedial services” (Bear, Minke, & Manning,
2002, p. 406). This latter finding, however, as well as other
findings synthesized in integrative reviews, has not been
consistently replicated. Clearly, some students with learning
disabilities (and most likely students with other forms of
disabilities that adversely affect school performance) pay a high
emotional and social price for their poor achievement (Gresham,
1988). Further evidence for the price paid for low
achievement is the finding that samples of college students with
learning disabilities (who likely represent some of the higher
functioning and more motivated portions of the learning disability
population at this age range) report lower academic self- concepts
when compared to their university peers.
-
See Bear
et al. (2002) for a recent meta-analysis of research studies on the
self- concepts of students with learning disabilities and a
discussion of prior research synthesis and the various
methodological issues bearing on the inconsistencies reported
across reviews.
-
The
adverse impact of repeated academic failure can threaten a
student’s academic self- concept and general
self-worth. As a result, a student may develop a need to
protect both their private and public sense of perceived academic
competence or self- worth from failure. The need for
self-worth protection can result in the development of maladaptive
defensive strategies that include defensive pessimism (e.g.,
maintaining unrealistically low expectations for success,
discounting the importance of success), self-handicapping (creating
an impediment that serves as an excuse for possible
failure—e.g., procrastination, poor health), and self-worth
protection (a general approach of not expending effort so that
failure can be attributed to ambiguous causes rather than personal
inadequacies). As is the case with most defensive
coping strategies, there may be an immediate near-term protection
of feelings of self-esteem and self-concept. However,
research indicates that the adoption and repeated use of
failure-avoidant defensive protective strategies can produce poor
and inconsistent long-term achievement, lower academic interest and
motivation, negative affective consequences (e.g., increased
anxiety, decreased life satisfaction), and less self-regulated
learning. It has been suggested that defensive failure- avoidant
strategies may be most prevalent in competitive (vs cooperative)
learning environments.
-
See
Covington (2000), Martin et al. (2003), and Nurmi et al. (2003) for
a contemporary overview of the defensive strategy research
literature.
|
|
