1. Advising At-Risk Students
Self Efficacy and Implicit Theories of Intelligence
Mikelene Ray and Paul Smith
Alverno College, Milwaukee WI

2. “At-Risk”?
The label “at-risk” indicates the expectation that the student will have difficulty with her academic program.
That expectation may be based on:
The student’s own past performance.
Characteristics the student has in common with past students who had difficulty.

3. “At-Risk”?
The purpose of the “at-risk” label is to match students with available help.
Nonetheless, the “at-risk” label may result in negative stereotyping.

4. Models of Student Success
What determines students’ success?
Model
Determinant of Student Success
“Risk Factors”
Number and severity of risk factors
Bandura
Students’ self efficacy
Dweck
Students’ beliefs about the nature of intelligence.

5. “Risk Factors” Model
A naïve model of advising at-risk students suggests:
Identifying at-risk students
Giving them special support

6. “Risk Factors” Model Implicit Assumption: (and therefore…)
At-risk students face special difficulties that impede their graduation.
(and therefore…)
Students in general who graduate on time do so because they faced no special difficulties.

7. Bandura: Self Efficacy Model
Bandura on Agency :
“Self-generated activities lie at the very heart of causal processes”
“Because judgments and actions are partly self-determined, people can effect change in themselves and their situations through their own efforts”
“Among the mechanisms of personal agency, none is more central or pervasive than people’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over events that affect their lives”
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in Social Cognitive Theory. American Psychologist, 44,

8. Bandura: Self Efficacy Model
“Self-doubts can set in quickly after some failures or reverses…Because the acquisition of knowledge and competencies usually requires sustained effort in the face of difficulties and setbacks, it is resiliency of self-belief that counts”.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in Social Cognitive Theory. American Psychologist, 44,

9. Self Efficacy versus Magical ThinkingX
If you believe in yourself,
you can accomplish anything!

10. Self Efficacy versus Magical Thinking
“Magic” Theory
(some unspecified mechanism)
“Believe in yourself!”
“You can do anything!”
Self Efficacy
Believe that you can accomplish this particular task.
Succeed at this particular task.
Persist in your efforts at this task, even after setbacks.

11. Dweck: Implicit Theories of Intelligence
Core principle:
Students’ beliefs about the nature of intelligence determine the orientation they take toward learning.

12. Dweck: Implicit Theories of Intelligence
Entity Theory (held by some students):
Intelligence in an area is a fixed entity.
The learning process is a matter of discovering whether or not you have intelligence in an area.
Effect on learning behavior:
Adopt Performance Goal: goal of learning process is to demonstrate existing competence.
In the face of failure, stop trying.
Dweck, C. S. & Leggett, E. L. (1998). A Social-Cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95,

13. Dweck: Implicit Theories of Intelligence
Incremental Theory:
Intelligence in an area can be developed.
The learning process is a matter of taking on challenging tasks that promote development.
Effect on learning behavior:
Adopt Learning Goal: goal of learning process is to develop competence.
Failure provides information about what to work on next.
Dweck, C. S. & Leggett, E. L. (1998). A Social-Cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95,

14. Dweck: Implicit Theories of Intelligence
Theory of Intelligence
Goal Orientation
Perceived present ability
Behavior pattern
Dweck, C. S. & Leggett, E. L. (1998). A Social-Cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95,
Entity
(Intelligence is fixed)
Performance
(Goal is to gain positive judgments/avoid negative judgments of competence)
High
Mastery oriented
(Seek challenge; high persistence)
Low
Helpless
(Avoid challenge; low persistence)
Incremental
(Intelligence is malleable)
Learning
(Goal is to increase competence)
High or Low
Mastery oriented
(Seek challenge that fosters learning; high persistence

15. Dweck: Implicit Theories of Intelligence
Entity Theory
(Initial thoughts: I have an inherent talent)
“I am naturally good at helping people”
“I will be a successful Psychology student”
(Faced with a Challenge: I lack an inherent talent)
“I will avoid taking the required Probability and Statistics course”
“I can’t do math”

16. Dweck: Implicit Theories of Intelligence
Incremental Theory
(Initial Thoughts: Need to learn a skill)
“I like helping people”
“I will become a Psychology Major”
(Faced with a Challenge: What do I need to learn?)
“I did not receive the feedback/grade in Statistics that I was hoping for”
“I will continue as a Psychology major, but may need to put more effort into understanding principles of Statistics”

17. Applying the Research
Can a student’s Self Efficacy for college success change?
Can we do anything to improve a student’s Self Efficacy?
Can we do anything to move a student from an Entity Theory of intelligence to an Incremental Theory?

18. Applying the Research
Can a student’s Self Efficacy for college success change?

19. Applying the Research
Can a student’s Self Efficacy for college success change?
Can we do anything to improve a student’s Self Efficacy?

20. Applying the Research
Can we do anything to move a student from an Entity Theory of intelligence to an Incremental Theory?
Stop encouraging the Entity Theory.
Explicitly discuss the model with students.
Acknowledge the hard work we did in order to learn.