Received: 23 June 2018 Revised: 14 January 2019 Accepted: 30 January 2019

DOI: 10.1002/tea.21542

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Students' self-efficacy for science in different school

systems
Bat-Shahar Dorfman | David Fortus

Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann

Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
Correspondence
Bat-Shahar Dorfman, Department of Science
Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot
76100, Israel.
Email: bat-shahar.dorfman@weizmann.ac.il
Abstract
The important role of self-efficacy (SE) in students' moti-
vation, engagement, persistence, and academic achieve-
ments has been reconfirmed by ample research, both in
general and for STEM disciplines. As most studies
focused on traditional school systems, additional research
is needed on how science SE develops in different educa-
tional environments, which was the goal of this study.
Data were collected from 1979 students in Grades 5–9
from 19 traditional, Waldorf, and democratic schools in
Israel. Students completed a questionnaire that assessed
their science self-efficacy (SSE), general and academic self-
efficacy (GASE), and the sources of their SSE: teachers',
parents', and peers' social persuasions, vicarious experiences
and mastery experiences. Results revealed that SSE and
GASE differed in their levels and in the way they changed
with grade. These differences, and variations in the roles
of the various sources of SSE, appeared to be influenced
by the schools' cultures and curricula. Quantitative results
are accompanied by verbal illustrative examples from inter-
views with students and teachers.

KEYWORDS

democratic education, educational environment, school

system, science education, self-efficacy, Waldorf
education

1 | I N T R O D U C T I ON

In many countries, the number of students pursuing science-related university degrees remains rela-
tively low, and the pipeline starts to leak at high school, with a relatively low proportion of students
choosing to major in science studies (Maltese & Tai, 2011; National Science Board, 2018; OECD,

J Res Sci Teach. 2019;1–23. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tea © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1

2 DORFMAN AND FORTUS

2017). Self-efficacy (SE) has been found to be associated with levels of motivation, persistence,
engagement, and academic achievements—both generally and for science disciplines (Honicke &
Broadbent, 2016; Rittmayer & Beier, 2008; Usher & Pajares, 2008). However, other than in special
environments (Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, 2012), students' self-efficacy for science (SSE) tends to
decline during late elementary and middle school and the decline is typically greater for girls (Barth
et al., 2011; Rice, Barth, Guadagno, Smith, & McCallum, 2013; Rittmayer & Beier, 2008). A diffi-
culty in promoting students' SSE is that the relations between SSE and its sources are complex and
not fully understood. These relations vary as a function of contextual and personal factors such as
age, gender, ethnicity, cultural context, and educational environment (Joët, Usher, & Bressoux, 2011;
Usher & Pajares, 2008). We explored SSE and its relations with its sources at different grades in three
different school systems, representing distinct educational environments: traditional, Waldorf, and
democratic schools. This study deepens our understanding of the ways in which different educational
environments shape students' SSE.

2 | B AC KG R OU ND

2.1 | Self-efficacy
Social cognitive theory of human behavior and learning (Bandura, 1986) emphasizes the view that
individuals' functioning has its foundation both in personal internal factors and in social systems, and
that environmental factors affect both what individuals think and do (Bandura, 1989; Fan &
Williams, 2010). One of the main concepts in social cognitive theory is perceived SE, which is
defined as “people's judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required
to attain designated types of performances” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). According to social cognitive
theory, SE influences the way people feel, think, and motivate themselves, the choices they make and
the courses of action they pursue. Individuals tend to engage in tasks about which they feel compe-
tent and confident and avoid those in which they do not (Pajares & Schunk, 2001a).
Bandura (1997) hypothesized that SE is developed through four sources. The most influential
source is mastery experiences—the interpretation of previous performance. Usually, successful expe-
riences raise SE, while unsuccessful ones lower it (Usher & Pajares, 2009b). The observation of
others' activities and performance also serves as a source of SE—vicarious experiences. Seeing peo-
ple similar to oneself succeed by continued effort affects observers' beliefs that they too may be able
to succeed in similar activities (Bandura, 1994). Another source of SE is social persuasion, which is
the interpretation of verbal and nonverbal messages from others. Supportive messages from parents,
teachers, and peers can enhance one's SE. However, it is often easier to undermine one's SE through
social persuasion than to enhance it (Usher & Pajares, 2009b). Finally, physiological and emotional
states (such as anxiety, stress, fatigue, and mood) influence SE, as individuals interpret them as indi-
cators of competence (Usher & Pajares, 2009b). SE is inferential in nature—it is the interpretation of
the performance and perceptions of the environment, not the actual performance that informs and
alters SE and subsequent performance (Bandura, 1986, 1997).

2.1.1 | Science self-efficacy

Studies of SE in academic settings have investigated both the perceived ability to succeed in learning
activities in general—academic self-efficacy, and the perceived ability to successfully master specific
academic subjects (e.g., science, math, English; Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Caprara, Vecchione,
Alessandri, Gerbino, & Barbaranelli, 2011; Schunk, 1991). In the field of science education, research
DORFMAN AND FORTUS 3

has focused on science self-efficacy (SSE)—students' “belief in their ability to succeed in science
courses or activities” (Britner & Pajares, 2006, p. 486). Several studies have confirmed that SSE
influences a variety of factors related to students' performance and choices across grade levels. For
example, students with higher SSE were likely to pay more attention, participate more in science
experiments, do homework more regularly and persevere in challenging science activities. Students
with low SSE were more likely to express avoidance behavior—refusal to participate in science activ-
ities or expending less effort when it was impossible to avoid the activity entirely (Britner & Pajares,
2006; Lau & Roeser, 2002; Lee, Hayes, Seitz, DiStefano, & O'Connor, 2016). In addition, SSE pre-
dicts science achievement (Britner & Pajares, 2006; Jansen, Scherer, & Schroeders, 2015; Lau &
Roeser, 2002; Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper, 2004). Most research concerning the sources of SE has
reported that mastery experiences are a consistent and powerful predictor of SE across academic
domains, including science. Nevertheless, the relative influence of the other sources is less clear (Joët
et al., 2011; Usher, Ford, Li, & Weidner, 2018; reviewed in Usher & Pajares, 2008).
While SE is commonly understood as being domain or task specific, some researchers have sug-
gested the existence of a more generalized sense of SE that refers to global confidence in one's coping
ability across a wide range of demanding or novel situations—general self-efficacy (Feldman &
Kubota, 2015; Luszczynska, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005; Romppel et al., 2013; Scholz, Dona,
Sud, & Schwarzer, 2002). In this study, general self-efficacy and academic self-efficacy were
assessed to distinguish between students' science specific self-beliefs and their general and academic
self-efficacy (GASE). If only SSE was assessed, we would not have been able to tell whether a stu-
dent's SSE was related to a science-specific cause or was related to the student's feelings of being
capable of performing learning tasks in general.

2.2 | Factors that may influence SSE

2.2.1 | Parental influences
Adolescents receive much input from their families that can influence their SSE. Parents can help
children build a sense of competence when they provide an environment that challenges but encour-
ages, sets high but realistic aspirations, provides positive role models, and teaches how to deal with
difficulties and failure (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Sada, Street, Singh, Shada, & Naik,
2011; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2016; Schunk & Meece, 2006; Sha, Schunn, Bathgate, & Ben-Eliyahu,
2016). Studies of family socialization processes have examined the influence of parental beliefs on
children's perceptions of their own learning abilities. Research suggests that parents form beliefs about
their children's academic abilities which in turn affect their children's own competence beliefs. Parents
relay their beliefs both explicitly and implicitly, through statements about their child's ability (like
verbal praise), causal attributions for their child's performance, the types of learning activities they
encourage or discourage, and their immediate and long-term expectations for and from their child
(Bouchey & Harter, 2005; Eccles et al., 1998; Rice et al., 2013). We hypothesize that children's
perceptions of their parents' beliefs, messages, and expectations influence their SE in general and in
science in particular.

2.2.2 | Classroom environment, teacher, and peers

School is the primary setting in which cognitive capabilities are formally cultivated, continually
tested, and socially validated (Bandura, 1989). The classroom environment contains many potential
influences on SE—such as amount and type of teacher attention, the nature of tasks, and social com-
parisons. These factors act together to provide students with information about how well they are
4 DORFMAN AND FORTUS

learning, which are then used by them to adapt and re-align their SE for further learning (Schunk &
Meece, 2006).
Teachers influence their students' SE as they play a major role in shaping the class atmosphere and
provide efficacy information through social persuasions (their formal and non-formal evaluations and
feedback), mastery experiences (the activities they plan and the way they define success in those activi-
ties), and vicarious experiences (providing the students with role models, both of grown-ups and of peers).
More specifically, teachers can develop students' learning SE by providing students with challenging
tasks and meaningful activities that can be mastered, setting proximal and specific learning goals, offering
support and encouragement, giving accurate feedback on performance, progress, and personal attributes,
and by providing examples of role models (Pajares & Schunk, 2001a; Schunk & Meece, 2006).
Peers influence adolescents' SE in various ways. One way is through peer networks and feedback
(i.e., social persuasions). Another way is through vicarious experiences and model similarity. Model
similarity is primarily influential for students who are unsure about their performance capabilities, stu-
dents who lack task familiarity or those who are doubtful of themselves after experiencing difficulties
(Bandura, 1986; Pajares & Schunk, 2001b; Schunk, 1987). Peers' influence peaks around ages 12 and
16, in conjunction with the decline in parental involvement in children's activities (Pajares & Schunk,
2001b). It is possible that educational environments which foster competition lead students to make fre-
quent comparisons between their abilities and their peers' (Usher & Pajares, 2008). Studies indicate that
classroom environments with much social comparison and strong emphasis on competition and norma-
tive evaluation can decrease SE (Schunk & Meece, 2006; Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, 2012). In contrast,
classroom environments that emphasize individual mastery and self-improvement, collaboration, the
importance of effort, and individual student interests help adolescents maintain or increase positive per-
ceptions of their SE (e.g., Anderman & Midgley, 1997; Schunk & Meece, 2006).
The classroom environment, the teacher's attention and feedback, the learning activities provided
to the students and the nature of social comparisons are often influenced by school culture and its
educational philosophy.

2.3 | School culture

Schools differ in several fundamental characteristics—their values, traditions, the existence of and
the emphasis on certain goals, expectations, and their organizational structure. These create the social
atmosphere in which students have different experiences. Researchers have referred to the wide range
of school characteristics as “school culture,” “school climate,” or “school environment.” Those terms
have been used interchangeably through the literature (Hoy, Smith, & Sweetland, 2002; Maehr &
Anderman, 1993; Moran, Carlson, & Tableman, 2012). Considerable research on school culture has
indicated that it plays an essential role in influencing school outcomes, such as students' motivation,
engagement, and achievement (e.g., Fortus & Daphna, 2017; Maehr & Anderman, 1993; Osborne,
Simon, & Collins, 2003). The literature on the influence of different school cultures on students' SE
focuses mostly on schools in different countries (Ahn, Usher, Butz, & Bong, 2016; Joët et al., 2011;
Oettingen, 1995). These studies showed that culture influences the way the four sources of SE shape
students' academic SE. Studies investigating students' SE in different school cultures within the same
country are scarce. One study that did so was conducted by Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, (2012) who
compared students' motivation and SE for science in Israeli democratic and traditional schools. They
found that in traditional schools, students' motivation and SE for science learning declined between
Grades 5 and 8. Such declines were not found in democratic schools. In this study, we investigated
how various environmental factors, including teachers, peers, and parents, affect Israeli students' SSE
in three different school types: traditional, Waldorf, and democratic schools.
DORFMAN AND FORTUS 5

2.3.1 | Traditional, Waldorf, and democratic schools

The term “traditional schools” is used by us to describe schools which belong to the mainstream for-
mal education system in Israel. The formal education system is almost entirely public, funded, and
run by a relatively centralized Ministry of Education. The centralized educational system publishes
detailed official standards, an authorized list of textbooks and other instructional materials, as well as
mandatory standardized achievement examinations. In recent years, schools are given greater free-
dom of choice over educational processes and curricular emphases (Resh & Benavot, 2009). Never-
theless, science studies in traditional schools have several common characteristics, including
following the nationally set curricula and using standardized high-stakes tests as the main measure of
success (Fortus & Vedder-Weiss, 2014; OECD, 2015). In middle-schools, science is a core-subject
that receives relatively high mean weekly time and is implemented relatively uniformly across the
system compared to other subjects (Benavot & Resh, 2004; Resh & Benavot, 2009).
Democratic and Waldorf schools are two predominant types of alternative schools, which focus on
distinct social and cultural value systems (Michaeli, 2015). In Israel, a process of official recognition and
funding of unique schools began in 2013. As a result, many democratic and Waldorf schools, including
those who participated in this study, are public schools and receive full financial support from the state.
Although some still charge tuition, it is quite low, usually maxing at $200 a month and providing schol-
arships to low SES students. They are not allowed to reject applicants based on their financial ability
(Ministry of Education, 2016). Democratic schools can be described as “education[al environments] in
which young people have the freedom to organize their daily activities, and in which there is equality
and democratic decision-making among young people and adults” (Alternative Education Resource
Organization—AERO website, 2017). Autonomy of students and teachers is a guiding principle in dem-
ocratic schools, and the teacher's role is not interventionist. Teachers are coaches who help individual
students understand their own learning and motivation (Hecht, 2005; OECD, 2008). The autonomy that
guides democratic schools leads to diversity among them. For example, while some schools do not have
any compulsory subjects, others have a few. Some schools draw on the same curriculum as traditional
schools do, while others do not (Fortus & Vedder-Weiss, 2014; Hecht, 2005). However, it appears that
there are a few common characteristics to most science studies in democratic schools: science is not a
compulsory subject at any grade level, and students are free to choose whether or not to learn science
and which science courses to take. Teachers are autonomous in their instruction, choose the topics they
teach and do not follow a specific curriculum. Science classes are often aged mixed. Although, in some
schools, there are tests (usually starting in 7th grade), they are not used as the main evaluation method
and they usually do not have grades—evaluation is mostly qualitative (Fortus & Vedder-Weiss, 2014;
Hecht, 2005).
Waldorf education is a humanistic holistic approach based on the anthroposophical philosophy devel-
oped by Steiner (1997). The educators' responsibility is to give each child the best conditions to develop
not only cognitively, but also physically, emotionally, and spiritually (Sommer, 2010). Waldorf pedagogy
emphasizes long-term student–teacher relationships. Students spend a lot of time with their homeroom
teacher and develop a nurturing relationship with them (OECD, 2008; Randoll & Peters, 2015). Similar
to other developmental psychology theories, according to Steiner individuals go through several develop-
mental stages in their lifetimes. Waldorf education aims to match the content and pedagogy (including
teaching methods, evaluation, the class atmosphere, and the way to approach the children) to the develop-
mental stage of the students (Randoll & Peters, 2015; Salleh et al., 2014). Science is taught from 5th grade
and the emphasis is on developing observation skills by exploring natural phenomena. Starting from the
8th grade, the focus shifts to developing an intellectual understanding of natural phenomena, abstract
ideas, and scientific concepts. Although graded examinations start from 7th grade, evaluation methods
are mostly qualitative and are done in concordance with the holistic approach (Salleh et al., 2014).
6 DORFMAN AND FORTUS

This study investigated how students' SSE differed between these culturally different school sys-
tems. Assessing students' SSE and its sources in the different school systems may help deepen the
understanding of the relations between school culture and student SSE.

3 | METHOD

3.1 | Participants
The study was based upon a survey followed by individual interviews. Almost 2000 Israeli students
from Grades 5 to 9 participated (n = 1979, 1,002 girls and 977 boys), coming from 10 traditional
schools, 5 Waldorf schools, and 4 democratic schools, all from middle to middle-high socio-
economic backgrounds. There are much fewer democratic and Waldorf schools in Israel than tradi-
tional schools, and there is often only one class per grade level in democratic and Waldorf schools.
Participation of all schools, teachers, and students was voluntary. In democratic schools, the sample
included students who chose to learn science (n = 236) as well as those who did not (n = 103).
Table 1 presents the number of participants per grade level per type of school. Forty-four students
were interviewed: 26 from traditional schools, 11 from Waldorf schools, and 7 from democratic
schools. All interviewees participated in the quantitative part of this study and were selected for max-
imum variation in age, gender, academic achievement, attitudes toward science and school type, their
assent, and their parents' consent to them being interviewed. Eleven teachers were interviewed:
3 teachers from traditional schools (1 from an elementary school and 2 from middle schools), 3 from
Waldorf schools and 5 from democratic schools. The Waldorf and democratic teachers teach all grade
levels. Some teachers were interviewed twice. Teachers were selected according to their willingness
to participate.

3.2 | Instruments
Quantitative data were collected by anonymous Likert-type questionnaires. Instructions for complet-
ing the questionnaires were given to the students by the first author who distributed and collected the
questionnaires, was present while students completed them and answered their questions. Most items
were based on existing validated scales using 5-level Likert-type items (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001;
Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Thomas, Anderson, & Nashon, 2008; Usher & Pajares, 2009b; Zeidner,
Schwarzer, & Jerusalem, 1993). In all scales, no distinction was made between the different science
domains. The items were translated to Hebrew and modifications were made to adapt them to the pur-
pose of this study, for example, adding the words “science class” where appropriate. Some items
were developed for the purpose of this study, relying on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1989,
1997). All items were comprehension-validated by interviewing four students from 5th to 8th grade
using the cognitive pretesting procedure (Karabenick et al., 2007). Items of insufficient validity were

TABLE 1 Sample distribution

School type Traditional Waldorf Democratic

Grade 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th
No. of students 256 331 113 188 301 59 174 73 76 69 58 52 72 70 87
No. of girls 587 238 177
No. of boys 602 213 162
Total 1,189 451 339
DORFMAN AND FORTUS 7

revised or deleted. The questionnaire was then revalidated by two more students, following the same
procedure to validate the new set of items. The items were content-validated by three science educa-
tion researchers who were also science teachers. The entire survey is available as Supporting Infor-
mation Table S1.
The survey assessed the following constructs:

1. SSE—Students' perceptions of their ability to succeed in science learning in school. Nine items
related to succeeding in different types of assignments and in understanding the materials taught
in science class. One item related to tests. As grades and tests are often not given in democratic
and Waldorf schools until 7th grade, students in classes that did not have tests were asked to
ignore this item.
2. GASE—Students' perceptions of their ability to succeed in general tasks and in general academic
tasks were assessed, using six items. General SE and academic SE were grouped into one con-
struct, as factor analysis indicated that these items loaded on the same factor. A confirmatory fac-
tor analysis confirmed that the two scales can be grouped (CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.966,
RMSEA = 0.0065, SRMR = 0.024). To stress that these items do not relate to science, we added
to each item the words “not in science” or “not only in school.”
3. Sources of SSE—Factors that are likely to influence students' SSE. They were assessed by
13 items: (a) mastery experiences—students' interpretation of their own previous experiences;
(b) vicarious experiences—students' interpretation of their peers' competence; and (c) social
persuasions—the extent to which students perceive themselves as receiving encouraging or dis-
couraging messages about their science learning abilities from peers, parents, and teachers.

Qualitative data were collected by semistructured interviews with students and teachers from the
three types of schools from all five grades. Interviews of students and teachers were performed to cre-
ate a comprehensive picture of students' SSE and its sources. Each interview lasted 20–60 min, and
was audio recorded and transcribed by one of the authors. Prior to the interviews themselves, the
schools were visited several times, during which random observations and conversations were held
with various persons and classes (mostly science classes but also other classes) to get a sense of the
atmosphere, what appeared to be typical of the school, and to help decide upon the contexts of the
interviews (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Data were analyzed according to the cross-case analysis
method described by Miles and Huberman (1994). Due to space limitations, this article does not pre-
sent the complete results of the qualitative data analysis. Instead, data collected during the interviews
were presented in the form of selected utterances used to enrich the quantitative data with verbal illus-
trative descriptions. Utterances that were presented were ones that: (a) represented concepts that were
ubiquitous in many interviews and (b) clearly articulated the concepts of interest.

3.3 | Analysis
Exploratory factor analysis was conducted with varimax rotation, matching the theoretical structure
of the constructs (all items that were intended to measure the same construct loaded onto the same
factor). The internal reliabilities of the scales were evaluated by calculating Cronbach's alpha for each
scale, 0.932 for the SSE scale and 0.849 for the GSE scale.
Following the exploratory factor analysis, most constructs were Rasch analyzed using the com-
plete data set (2,207 students, from Grades 5 to 9 in all the schools). This analysis provided us with
individual interval values for each construct (each item that is part of a construct provides an ordinal
value) and, using infit and outfit, both verified that each construct reliably modeled data provided by
8 DORFMAN AND FORTUS

each item and identified students whose responses did not fit the Rasch model (Boone, Staver, &
Yale, 2014). That is, items whose normalized infit values were greater than 2 were removed from the
questionnaire and students whose normalized outfit was greater than 2 were removed from the sam-
ple, as this means that the Rasch model could not provide an adequate justification for these partici-
pants' responses. The corrected sample consisted of 1,979 students (see Table 1). If a scale consisted
of less than three items, this process could not be done as Rasch analysis requires a minimum of three
items per scale, in which case the mean of the raw ordinal data was used for further analyses. In some
cases, items were analyzed individually.
Multiple linear regressions were performed on the Rasch-based results to test grade-driven trends
and to test the relations between the different variables. An alpha of 0.05 was used for all statistical
tests. Traditional linear regressions were used rather than hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) despite
the nested structure of the data. HLM analysis was found to be unnecessary as the Intraclass Correla-
tion Coefficient was found to be lower than 5% (Woltman, Feldstain, MacKay, & Rocchi, 2012). In
all analyses, the data were aggregated by school type, despite the variation between schools of the
same type. This is justified by a previous study (Vedder-Weiss, 2012) that showed the variation
between different schools of the same type is smaller than the variation between them and different
types of schools, such as between democratic and traditional schools.

4 | RESULTS

4.1 | Grade-related changes in levels of self-efficacy (SSE and GASE)

In democratic schools, there were no significant differences between the GASE of students who
learned science and those who did not. Therefore, in the analyses regarding students' GASE, data
from both groups of students were aggregated before the analyses. In the analysis regarding students'
SSE, analyses were conducted only for students who learned science.
Figure 1 summarizes the grade-related changes identified for both SE constructs in traditional,
Waldorf, and democratic schools: SSE and GASE. As stated above, for democratic schools,
Figure 1c shows the SSE of students who learned science and the GASE of all students.
In traditional schools, SSE in 7th grade was significantly lower than in other grades (F[1188] = 3.65,
p < 0.01). GASE was significantly higher than SSE in all grades (p < 0.05 for each grade level) and

FIGURE 1 Students' self-efficacy in (a) traditional, (b) Waldorf, and (c) democratic schools, Grades 5–9: science self-
efficacy and general and academic self-efficacy. Error bars represent standard error
DORFMAN AND FORTUS 9

changed little between the grades (Figure 1a). As it is possible that the 7th grade dip is due to the transfer
of students from elementary school to middle school after 6th grade, we looked separately at schools
where students remain from 1st to 8th or 9th grade, without transferring to a middle school. Three such
schools were sampled (473 students from Grades 5 to 9). Results indicated that the 7th grade dip in stu-
dents' SSE occurred in these schools as well. Thus, the significant dip in SSE in 7th grade cannot be attrib-
uted to changing schools.
Several 5th and 6th grade students in traditional schools mentioned in the interviews that they
expected 7th grade to be more difficult. They referred to harder topics and more exams. For example:
“Obviously science class will be more difficult next year. The topics will be harder and there will be more
exams. Later on, each year the materials will get harder and there will be more exams. We will have to
study harder in order to succeed.” (boy 5th grade, Traditional). Ninth graders referred to the topics learned
in middle school as harder to understand than topics learned in elementary school because they were
abstract. For example: “I think that what we learn in physics is less ‘vivid’ it's less concrete and therefore
it's less understandable. We talk about energy – I don't see energy. Even when we talk about matter – we
don't see matter. Cells, atoms – we don't see any of that…” (boy 9th grade, Traditional).
In Waldorf schools, the 6th grade SSE was significantly higher than in the other grades (F[446] =
2.53, p < 0.05). Only in 9th grade was there a significant difference between SSE and GASE
(t[68] = −3.41, p < 0.001)—Figure 1b. Some Waldorf 9th graders referred to 7th grade as a turning
point, primarily as the requirements from the students and level of studies were suddenly raised. For
example: “I started feeling not successful about science – I guess in 7th grade. I always preferred sub-
jects like history, but in the lower grades I still enjoyed science class. It changed when we started
learning more seriously in 7th grade.” (girl 9th grade, Waldorf). A teacher explained the differences
in science learning between 6th and 7th grade from the Waldorf education point of view: “In 6th grade
there is still something a little childish, more of a whole-class process… In 7th grade a focus on objec-
tivity enters – they want to know if they really know. They want a grade and exams… They ask it
from us and we give it to them in our curriculum. It is both teaching more science and expecting a
higher level of knowledge. You test them, you give them a grade for the first time. The learning pro-
cess is more individual and more demanding…” Later, the same teacher described the change in stu-
dents' feelings in 7th grade: “…the students are more insecure. In 6th grade I didn't hear anyone
complaining… they all studied and some students understood. Now, because there is an exam, an
objective measure, the ‘murmurs’ start - ‘I don't understand anything’.”
In democratic schools, there was no significant change in SSE between 5th and 6th grade and
from there SSE consistently declined until 9th grade (B = −0.22, p < 0.05). GASE remained constant
throughout the grades—Figure 1c. Students who learned science in democratic schools spoke about
the absence of differences between grade levels. Some students and teachers said that the level of the
science classes increased with grade. For example: “The level goes up. It's not necessarily the level –
sometimes it's because there are topics that I haven't learned before so it's harder since I start them
from scratch. The courses are about different topics, and sometimes they just call the same ideas with
names we didn't use in 4th grade… more complicated names” (girl 7th grade, Democratic).
In Waldorf and democratic schools, across grade levels, students expressed a feeling that they
learn less science than in traditional schools—less material with lower requirements. With reference
to this feeling, ninth graders were also concerned about the upcoming transition to high-school (most
of them had to go to a traditional one). For example: “In high-school I will have to make much more
effort –relative to kids coming from other (traditional) schools- because here the level of effort you
have to put is very minimal.” (girl 9th grade, Waldorf).
The difference between SSE and GASE was expressed in many of the interviews. In all school
types, students declared that science was harder than other school subjects, and that they or their
10 DORFMAN AND FORTUS

peers felt they could not succeed in science, as opposed to other subjects. For example: “The problem
is that some kids come a-priori with an attitude of ‘we don't understand science, it's hard’. It doesn't
happen in other subjects. They are always scared about science and math. I don't know why, maybe
because there are a lot of rules… In math, physics, chemistry there are lots of rules, lots of laws,
axioms and stuff that are a bit intimidating. Although that when you look at it later and try to under-
stand them you realize they are not that complicated. But it is a bit frightening in the beginning.”
(boy 9th grade, Waldorf).

4.2 | Sources of science self-efficacy

Multiple regressions were performed to analyze the relations between students' SSE and their percep-
tions of the sources of their SSE. The first stage included a separate analysis of the elements that con-
tributed to each source: mastery experiences—science mastery experiences and general academic
mastery experiences; vicarious experiences—friends and the entire class; and social persuasions—
teachers, parents, and peers. Analyses were conducted for the total sample of each school type and by
grade level. The second stage included an analysis of all the sources together, to see their relative
influence on SSE. For democratic schools, the analyses were run only for students who learned sci-
ence. Table 2 presents the results of the multiple regression analysis, when each source was analyzed
separately.

4.2.1 | Mastery experiences as predictors of science self-efficacy

Multiple regression analyses were conducted with two predictors: science-related mastery experi-
ences and general academic mastery experiences. Results indicate that in all school types and aggre-
gating across all grade levels, science-related mastery experiences were strong predictors of SSE.
General academic mastery experiences also predicted SSE in traditional and Waldorf schools
(Table 2).
In all school types, when asked in the interviews what makes them feel they can succeed in sci-
ence or how they know they can succeed in science, most of the interviewees' first response was
related to their mastery experiences. In traditional schools, across grade levels, students referred to

TABLE 2 First stage—regression coefficients for the prediction of SSE separately by mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, and social persuasions

Traditional Waldorf Democratica

Source β Sig. β Sig. β Sig.
Mastery experiences Science 0.665 *** 0.699 *** 0.732 ***
General academic 0.123 *** 0.118 ** 0.086 –
Vicarious experiences Friends 0.019 – 0.162 ** 0.095 –
Entire class 0.346 *** 0.126 * 0.358 ***
Social persuasions Teachers Say 0.330 *** 0.161 * 0.170 –
Think 0.082 – 0.247 *** 0.129 –
Say about entire class −0.002 – 0.054 – 0.062 –
Parents Say 0.125 ** 0.196 ** 0.135 –
Think 0.244 *** 0.221 *** 0.379 ***
Expect 0.193 *** 0.273 *** −0.004 –
Friends Think 0.648 *** 0.674 *** 0.523 ***
*
p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. – p > 0.05, not significant.
a
For democratic schools, only the results of students who chose to learn science are presented.
DORFMAN AND FORTUS 11

the grades they had received so far and the extent to which they understood the materials: “I am not
sure that I can succeed [in science], because although I do understand and remember the material,
when I test myself I know everything, and during the test I feel I will get a good grade… but then I
get disappointed when I get the actual grade” (girl, 5th grade, Traditional).
In Waldorf schools, there are no exams or grades until 7th grade, but even in 7th grade, after a
few exams, the students still did not mention grades as their primary way of knowing whether they
were successful or not. Interviewees of all grade levels mentioned mostly improving, understanding
the materials, participating in class, giving the correct answers, and doing their homework easily.
Some also said explicitly that getting a good grade was not enough to make them feel satisfied: “In
situations when I didn't understand everything but I still got a good grade in the exam, it doesn't fully
satisfy me – I feel ‘OK, so I passed the exam, but I will soon forget all of this except for specific
topics (that I did understand)…” (girl 9th grade, Waldorf). Starting in 7th grade, students described
how their grades affected their feelings (mostly negatively), but also said that exams are good “in
order to check yourself and what you understood” (girl, 7th grade, Waldorf).
In democratic schools, interviewees said that they know they succeed when they feel they under-
stand the material and give correct answers in class. Some said that success for them is if they are
interested, if they show up for class or participate. “You know when something is not well, you see
it, you see that some things are still not clear… in classes I understand what we talk about. I know
because I answer the questions in class. I participate…” (boy 7th grade, Democratic).
In some of the democratic schools in this study, there were no exams at all until high school and
some schools where exams began in 6th or 7th grade. Exams, when given, were not necessarily
numerically graded—the teachers made their own choices how to provide feedback. Some inter-
viewees expressed the idea that exams and grades help them know how successful they are and some
implied that grades are not really necessary. Similarly to Waldorf schools, even after having exams
(with or without grades), the students did not mention exams or grades as primary way of knowing
whether they were successful or not: “A test is good, because it reflects my level and my progress to
me. Like, listening and answering in class are good for knowing, but I don't always know what my
situation really is. So when there's a test I see if I don't succeed in answering the questions or I do
succeed” (girl 7th grade, Democratic). Another girl, referring not only to exams, but also to an
absence of challenges that can prevent a feeling of success from arising, said: “I don't know if I suc-
ceed in science. We don't have exams so I don't have the feeling of ‘I got a 100 so I'm successful’.
It's more – I learn a lot, succeed in understanding the materials, succeed in going to class. But there is
nothing that is really ‘I succeeded, I did it!’. There is nothing you can fail in, so you don't really -…”
(girl 8th grade, Democratic).

4.2.2 | Vicarious experiences as predictors of science self-efficacy

Multiple regression analyses were conducted to find the relations between students' SSE and two
types of vicarious experiences: the success of everybody in science class, and the success of friends.
In both traditional and democratic schools, the success of friends did not predict SSE, while the suc-
cess of the entire class was a significant predictor of SSE. In Waldorf schools, SSE was predicted
both by the success of friends and the success of the whole class (Table 2).
In the interviews, in all school types and across grade levels, students referred to vicarious experi-
ences. However, in traditional schools, all of these references described the negative effects of seeing
peers succeed. For example: “I compare myself a lot to others. I think I don't get it as fast as they do
and I think it makes me not as good as they are” (girl 9th grade, Traditional). In Waldorf schools, stu-
dents mentioned both positive and negative effects of vicarious experiences: “When I see kids that
12 DORFMAN AND FORTUS

really make it, it's hard for me to see that I don't succeed. Because in our class some kids have very
good grades and sometimes when I look at them – I feel I can succeed like this, too – but I cannot.
I'm not as good as others in all subjects, and that's OK” (girl 9th grade, Waldorf). In democratic
schools, vicarious experiences and social comparisons were mentioned only twice. One girl explained
it: “I do not compare myself to others. In order to know if I'’m doing fine or not – it's more if I under-
stood the materials or not… I generally don'’t compare myself, because of the multiple ages of kids
in class. Sometimes it happens, but relatively not a lot” (girl, 8th grade, Democratic).

4.2.3 | Social persuasions as predictors of science self-efficacy

The influences of three agents of social persuasions were assessed in this study—parents, teachers,
and friends. For each of these agents, multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine the
relative influence of different types of social persuasions on SSE, that included the way students:
(a) perceived what others thought about their ability to succeed in science learning (representing non-
verbal messages); (b) heard what others said to them regarding their ability to succeed in science
learning (representing verbal messages); and (c) perceived what their parents expected of them (repre-
senting a crossover of verbal and non-verbal messages).

The influence of parents

Results indicate that in all school types, aggregated across grades, the way parents were perceived as
thinking about their child's ability to succeed in science was a significant predictor of SSE. The influ-
ence of the other parental social persuasions varied more between school types. In democratic
schools, the way students perceived their parents to be thinking regarding their ability to succeed was
the only significant predictor of SSE among the parental social persuasions (Table 2).
In the interviews, most students in traditional and Waldorf schools said their parents encourage them
with verbal messages, and some said that the feedback they got from their parents related mostly to the
effort they made, and not necessarily to their achievements. For example: “My parents see that I study
and that I know everything when they test me, so they are not angry with my grades… they say that it's
my intentions that count. It encourages me. It encourages me that they see I really study and the grade is
not my fault” (girl 5th grade, Traditional). In traditional middle schools, students referred also to their
parents' expectations. Some said that their parents expect them to succeed specifically in science: “For
my parents it's most important that I succeed in science and math. I don't know why. The rest doesn't
interest them that much. For example, when I got low grades in literature and in math, my parents were
very dramatic about math and hardly mentioned literature” (girl 9th grade, Traditional). Unlike students
from both Waldorf and traditional schools, none of the interviewees in democratic schools related to their
parents' reaction or point of view about grades or achievements. The parents were described as not
directing their kids toward specific courses, and if they had expectations, they were about persistence: “I
feel my parents care more that if I choose something I will persist with it, and not what I study… that I
will not quit but make an effort” (boy 7th grade, Democratic).

The influence of teachers

Figure 2 presents regression coefficients for the prediction of SSE by social persuasions from the sci-
ence teacher. In all school types, the teacher's messages about the ability of the entire class to succeed
in science was not a significant predictor of SSE. The schools differed in the extent to which SSE
was predicted by what the science teacher said or was perceived to be thinking about the student's
personal ability to succeed in science learning. In Waldorf schools, the way the science teacher was
perceived to be thinking was a stronger predictor of SSE than what the teacher said to the students
DORFMAN AND FORTUS 13

FIGURE 2 Science teacher's social persuasions as predictors of science self-efficacy in the different schools *p < 0.05,
**p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

regarding their personal ability to succeed in science, although both were statistically significant. In
traditional schools, students' SSE was predicted only by what the teacher said. In democratic schools,
none of the teachers' social persuasions was a significant predictor of SSE (Figure 2).
Many interviewees referred to the messages they receive from their teachers regarding their ability to
succeed. In traditional schools, many elementary students said they get encouraging verbal messages
from their teacher. In middle school, in contrast, students said that their teacher never gave them personal
feedback or expressed how possible it was for them to succeed. For example: “I think it would help if
they (the teachers) came and said that I'm good or something like that. They never told me that in sci-
ence… If someone told me ‘good job’ it would make me feel good. Even if I got a 100 – it would feel
different if someone told me or no one told me... I always need someone to tell me that I did well, to
have a proof that I'm good” (girl 9th grade, Traditional). Also: “In elementary school I used to get really
bad grades (in science), but I had a teacher that I told her ‘I'm not good at it, I don't succeed’… She
would tell me that I was good. I listened to her, maybe something got in, and now I'm in advanced level.
She didn't say it only once, she said it over and over again until I stopped telling her I was weak. I think
she was the best teacher I ever had” (boy 9th grade, Traditional).
Students from Waldorf schools talked about the personal connection they have with their teachers
beyond class and the devotion of their teachers. They also gave several examples of verbal feedback
they got from their teachers, that made them feel successful: “On my test he wrote ‘good job, there
were many things you remembered although you didn't have to’ – it made me feel good, that I
remember things” (girl 7th grade, Waldorf); “What's good in this school is that the teachers never
come with the attitude of ‘it's hard’ – but rather ‘just try and try’, they explain it to you as much as
necessary and don't give up” (girl 9th grade, Waldorf).
In democratic schools, most of the interviewees said that the science teacher is a figure they meet
only in class, and they rely mostly on their personal mentor. For example: “The teachers here hear
you. They hear what you have to say, and if you have difficulties they help you. I know that in case I
need help – I can ask it from a teacher. I prefer my ‘mentor’… I haven't turned to my science teacher
because I don't think I had a reason to. It makes me feel I have support” (girl 9th grade, Democratic).
When democratic teachers described the learning process, they did not describe themselves as central
to it, in accordance with democratic schools' focus on individualism and autonomy. Some also
referred to the connection between the students and their personal mentors, and to the minimal part
that subject teachers play: “I hardly give them written feedback. Only once a year in the final report.
In this school it is not common for a subject teacher to write an evaluation - the mentor writes the
evaluations… but it was important to me to write one as well - so I will [at the end of this term]. …
14 DORFMAN AND FORTUS

TABLE 3 Second stage—regression coefficients for the prediction of SSE by mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, and
social persuasions, when analyzed together
Traditional Waldorf Democratica
Source β Sig. β Sig. β Sig.
Mastery experiences Science 0.489 *** 0.523 *** 0.615 ***
Vicarious experiences Friends NA NA 0.044 – NA NA
Entire class 0.114 *** NA NA 0.149 **
Social persuasions Teachers Say 0.070 * NA NA −0.065 –
Think NA NA 0.029 – NA NA
Parents Think 0.077 ** NA NA 0.129 *
Expect NA NA 0.174 *** NA NA
Friends Think 0.275 *** 0.268 *** 0.153 *
*
p < 0.05. p < 0.01. p < 0.001. – p > 0.05, not significant.
** ***
a
For democratic schools, only the results of students who chose to learn science are presented.

All of the teachers are nice to them, not only me. But, it is clear to them that they have their mentor,
and if they have any difficulty they turn to their mentor. It is him they make the emotional and social
processes with. No one has ever turned to me…” (science teacher, Democratic).

The influence of friends

When analyzed as a single predictor, what one's friends were perceived to be thinking about one's
success in science was found to be a strong predictor of SSE in all school. Analysis by grade levels
showed that these results were consistent across grade levels in all schools with the following excep-
tions: both in Waldorf and democratic schools, what friends were perceived as thinking was not a sig-
nificant predictor of students' SSE in 5th grade.
In the interviews, students from elementary schools referred to the support they get from their
friends. For example, a 6th grader said that she is “good in science.” When asked how she knows
that, she said that “I know it because I feel I succeed, and they (her friends) give me the power to suc-
ceed. If I don't succeed, my friends help me, support me and tell me that I am successful and good…”
(girl 6th grade, Traditional).

4.2.4 | The relations between the three sources and self-efficacy

Multiple regression of the strongest predictors of SSE from all three sources together was performed to ana-
lyze the relative influence of the three sources on science SE. Based on the results obtained in the first stage,
we included in the analysis only the strongest predictor of SSE in each category for each school type. These
factors were analyzed together in separate multiple regressions for each school type.1 Table 3 presents the
results. As not all factors were included in each multiple regression, NAs represent factors that were not
included in the analysis for a certain school type, while the numbers represent the results of factors that were
included. Results were similar in all school types. Science mastery experiences were the strongest predictors
of SSE followed by what friends were perceived as thinking. The other factors predicted SSE to a much
lesser extent or were insignificant. These findings were consistent across grade levels.

5 | D IS CU S S I ON

Research has shown that adolescents' science SE tends to decline during late elementary and middle
school (Barth et al., 2011; Rice et al., 2013; Rittmayer & Beier, 2008). This decline may be one of
DORFMAN AND FORTUS 15

the causes for the relatively low proportion of students choosing to major in science studies and to
pursue science-related careers (Maltese & Tai, 2011; OECD, 2017). Results of our study support
these previous findings and offer several new insights: (a) Adolescents' SSE and its decline are distin-
guished from their GASE, which remains relatively unchanged between grade levels; (b) The way
SSE changes between grade levels differ between school types; and (c) The influences of the sources
of SE as suggested by Bandura (1997) differed between school types. These findings justify focusing
on specific causes for the decline in SSE and stress the importance of investigating SSE and its
sources in different educational environments.

5.1 | The difference between science self-efficacy and general and academic self-efficacy
Bandura (1994) stressed the domain-specific nature of SE. Research has shown that students may
possess different efficacy beliefs regarding different academic domains (Bong, 2006; Butz & Usher,
2015). Further evidence supporting this can be found in this study, as we found that students' SSE
tends to be lower than their GASE. SSE and GASE differed both in their levels and in the way they
changed across grades. In traditional and Waldorf schools, SSE significantly changed between 5th
and 9th grade, while GASE did not. In addition, in traditional schools and in 9th grade Waldorf clas-
ses, students' SSE was significantly lower than their GASE. Finally, SSE was influenced much more
by science-related experiences than by general academic experiences. These results were consistent
across school types and grade levels, and justify the claim that previous research on academic SE
might not be generalized to the sciences, as suggested by Jansen et al. (2015). Thus, it is worthwhile
investigating how the various environmental factors relate specifically to SSE.
The differences between SSE and GASE may be explained by the perception of science as a diffi-
cult subject compared to less quantitative ones (Götz et al., 2014). The perceived level of difficulty
of the topic at hand was found to be one of the factors influencing students' attitudes and SE toward
it (Schunk, 1990; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2012; Usher & Pajares, 2009b). Thus, if science is per-
ceived as difficult, it is less likely that students will feel able to succeed at it, which can explain the
significant differences found between SSE and GASE. This notion was supported by the interviews,
where students of all school types referred to science as “harder” than the other subjects or as “scary.”
Students from traditional schools also said that their parents expected them to succeed specifically in
science. These parental expectations can also be a factor distinguishing SSE from GASE. Despite
this, in democratic schools, no significant differences were found between the levels of SSE and
GASE, nor in the way those changed across grade levels. These results may be due to the fact that
these SSE results are only of students who chose to study science. It is possible that the students who
study science by choice feel more efficacious toward science learning despite the difficulties (Butz &
Usher, 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2000)—those who are intimidated by science just do not take science
classes. In other words, perhaps for students who chose to learn it, the difficulty in science class is
not perceived as very different from that of other subjects, or of studying in general.

5.2 | Grade-related differences in science self-efficacy

Grade-related changes in SSE differed between school types and were associated with the school's
culture, curriculum, and goals.
In traditional and Waldorf schools, SSE significantly declined in 7th grade, as has been found in
previous studies (e.g., Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, 2012). Possible reasons for the decline that have been
suggested are puberty and other changes students go through during adolescence (Harter, 1998;
Harter, Whitesell, & Kowalski, 1992; Schunk & Meece, 2006), and the transition from elementary to
16 DORFMAN AND FORTUS

middle school, which is accompanied by a change in the social comparison group, teachers and the
actual physical environment, which often cause a decline in competence and efficacy beliefs (Addi-
Raccah, Biran, & Freedman-Goldberg, 2011; Harter et al., 1992; Schunk & Meece, 2006). Results of
this study suggest that these may not be the only explanations. If it was, we would expect to see a simi-
lar decrease in students' GASE. Although there was a slight decline in students' GASE as well, those
changes were not significant in any of the school types. In addition, the significant decrease in SSE
was also found in traditional 8 or 9 year elementary schools and in Waldorf schools, in which students
remain in the same school and class until 8th or 9th grade. Yet, there are other important differences
between elementary and middle grades that may influence students' SSE, such as changes to the sci-
ence curriculum, goal structures, and evaluation methods. These changes occur in both traditional and
Waldorf schools, but not in democratic schools.
In traditional schools, studies revealed that elementary and middle school classrooms tend to
have different goal structures. Compared with elementary students, middle school students perceive
their learning environment as less focused on learning and mastery and more focused on grades, com-
petition, and ability differences (Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, 2011; Midgley, Middleton, Gheen, &
Kumar, 2014; Schunk & Meece, 2006). Accordingly, there is a difference in evaluation standards—
in elementary schools, individual progress is stressed, while in middle schools most evaluations are
normative (Eccles et al., 1984; Pajares & Schunk, 2001a). The decline in GASE and SSE may be
related to students' reassessment of their ability, in light of shifts in evaluation standards and increas-
ing emphasis on relative ability (Friedel, Cortina, Turner, & Midgley, 2010; Schunk & Meece,
2006). Interviews supported this explanation, as students expected middle school science to be harder
because the materials and topics get more difficult to learn and there are more hours of learning and
exams.
Another possible reason for the 7th grade dip could be the difference in the science curriculum
and the materials that are taught up to 6th grade compared to those that are taught starting from 7th
grade. These changes would affect 7th graders in all types of traditional schools (middle school,
8/9-year elementary school). When examining the science curriculum dictated by the ministry of edu-
cation for elementary and middle school, a major shift is found in the nature of the topics and the
phenomena taught. In elementary school (5th–6th grade), the curriculum stays mostly at the macro or
sensory levels, for example, “light and vision” is taught through sources of light and the function of
lenses; “colors” is taught through the spectrum, rainbows, and colors in nature; “human body”
through visual systems and processes, disease, and so forth (Ministry of Education, 2018a). In middle
school, on the other hand, the curriculum goes to the microlevel, as well as the connection between
the micro and macrolevels—more complex and abstract ideas. For example: particles, the atomic
model, cells and processes at the cellular level, the structure of matter at the microlevel and its rela-
tion to their macroscopic properties (Ministry of Education, 2018b). This shift was reflected in the
interviews with 9th grade students, who said that in middle school the topics were harder to under-
stand as they were abstract and dealt with the microlevel. In contrast, students said that the materials
studied in 9th grade (like nutrition, human body, and reproduction) were interesting and easy to
understand. These views about the curriculum correspond to the decrease in SSE in 7th grade and its
increase from 7th grade to the 9th. All of the above reinforce the idea that the changes in SSE may be
largely due to changes in the science curriculum and evaluation standards.
In Waldorf schools, there were two significant changes to SSE between grade levels: SSE peaked in
6th grade and decreased in 7th grade. Both can be explained by the nature of the science periods in these
grade levels in Waldorf schools. While in 5th grade science classes are not called “science” yet, in 6th
grade the students encounter for the first time topics that are explicitly called science. They are very
excited about this and have lots of positive expectations (Alfasi, 2014). Extra emphasis is put on making
DORFMAN AND FORTUS 17

the students feel a sense of wonder about nature, rather than seeing the universe as mechanically driven.
The theme in 6th grade matches this goal—exploration of everyday phenomena, which is done through
observations, without involving scientific theories (Alfasi, 2014; Masters, 1992). The goal of enhancing
wonder together with a focus on observation, which may not be perceived by the students as demanding,
may explain the high SSE of 6th grade students.
In 7th grade, the teaching approach changes to fit the need for objectivity and individualism
(Alfasi, 2014). Accordingly, although other means of evaluation are still used, 7th grade is the first
time that the students take exams, get graded and receive a more objective feedback from their
teachers. This was mentioned in the interviews with students and teachers as a factor that lowers stu-
dents' SSE in 7th grade. In addition, the science curriculum goes through changes. The theme in 7th
grade science is that there are rules which are common to different phenomena. As a result, although
the focus is still on the phenomenon, the students are required to think at a higher level. They now
need to identify relations between different phenomena and understand a more complex concept of
causality and constrained behavior. In addition, starting from 7th grade the students learn subjects
that involve time and size scales unacquainted to students, such as astronomy and the particle nature
of matter (Alfasi, 2014; Masters, 1992). The influence of these changes and demands on SSE may be
magnified as they come after only a year's acquaintance with science learning of a very different
nature. Perhaps because the discrepancy between 6th and 7th grade is so great, students do not con-
sider the skills they developed in 6th grade as relevant to the tasks and requirements in the 7th. Lack
in task familiarity and in perceived relevant skills, negatively affect SE (Schunk, 1991). All of these
factors can explain why SSE decreases.
In democratic schools, as opposed to both traditional and Waldorf schools, students' SSE did not
decrease significantly in any particular grade level. Changes with grade levels in SSE and GASE
were subtle—both decreased only a little from grade to grade. This suggests that the school as an
educational environment is not perceived as changing or that the changes in the educational environ-
ment have a minimal influence on students' SE, or both. This matches the democratic schools' educa-
tional approach, in which autonomy, of both students and teachers, is a guiding principle. Students
choose and organize their own activities and the school has a very limited role in setting those activi-
ties. Each student is encouraged to pursue his own goals and interests, in an autonomous learning
process to develop as an individual (AERO website, 2017; Hecht, 2005). Although other elements in
school culture may change along the grades, their effect on students may be minimized due to this
autonomy. If a leading principal is minimal intervention of the school in the learning process, it is
only natural that it will have a minimal effect on it. Nevertheless, SSE did show a small, but continu-
ous decrease starting from 7th grade. This led to a significant decrease between 6th and 9th grades.
As there is no definite science curriculum, in general and specifically for each grade level, and each
school and teacher is autonomous in choosing the content of their classes (Hecht, 2005; Vedder-
Weiss, 2012), the influence of the curriculum cannot be taken into account in explaining the decrease.
Moreover, SSE and GASE in democratic schools did not significantly differ from each other in their
level or in the way they changed between grades. These similarities between the two constructs imply
that the causes driving the changes in SE are not necessarily specific to science learning.
Despite the different grade-related changes to SSE in democratic and Waldorf schools, in both
SSE was at its lowest in 9th grade. One possible explanation is the forthcoming transition to high
school that was mentioned in the interviews. Some democratic and Waldorf students expressed a feel-
ing that they learned and knew less science than students in traditional schools and some referred spe-
cifically to this transition. The transition of democratic and Waldorf schools' students to high school
is accompanied by changes in school culture and in the social reference group which are more
extreme than those experienced by traditional schools' students moving between schools. Research
18 DORFMAN AND FORTUS

has indicated that SE is influenced by social comparisons, as students often evaluate their own ability
to succeed by comparisons with others, especially during adolescence (Bouchey & Harter, 2005;
Butz & Usher, 2015; Pajares & Schunk, 2001b; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002). Therefore, it is possible
that in 9th grade, as they compare themselves to their new reference group, democratic and Waldorf
students start doubting their own abilities.

5.3 | The influence of three sources of self-efficacy on science self-efficacy

5.3.1 | Mastery experiences
Mastery experiences which previously was identified as the strongest source of SE (e.g., Britner &
Pajares, 2006; Butz & Usher, 2015; Usher & Pajares, 2008), was found to be the strongest predictor
of SSE in the current study as well. Furthermore, the influence of mastery experiences was found to
be domain specific. In all school types, science SE was influenced primarily by science mastery expe-
riences. Successful mastery experiences develop SE, but what is perceived as success? The same
experiences may be translated into different SE beliefs as a result of different measures of success
(Bandura & Locke, 2003). Although in all school types SSE was similarly influenced by mastery
experiences, such as succeeding in exams, level of understanding and participation in class, those
experiences were viewed differently according to the educational environment. In different types of
school, different emphasis was given to each of those experiences. Students in traditional schools
emphasized primarily grades, while those in Waldorf and democratic schools emphasized mainly
understanding. An in depth qualitative study should be done to confirm these notions.
Not only the type of experience, but also its difficulty was mentioned in the interviews as affect-
ing the level of SSE. Students from democratic schools viewed their studies as too easy, with no chal-
lenges, and explicitly said it did not allow them to feel real success. Students in Waldorf schools felt
their studies were challenging, but had the feeling that it was not as difficult as science learning in tra-
ditional schools—a feeling that may have lowered their SSE, as mastery experiences are more power-
ful when students overcome difficulties or succeed on tasks that are difficult for others (Schunk &
Zimmerman, 2012; Usher & Pajares, 2009a). These imagined comparisons may prevent mastery
experiences from being perceived as successes in alternative schools.

5.3.2 | Vicarious experiences

Only in Waldorf schools were there significant relations between friends' success and SSE. These dif-
ferences may be related to the emphasis on individualism and the culture of social comparisons in
each educational environment. Although we are not aware of published studies regarding sources of
SSE and individualism in different school cultures, this hypothesis is supported by findings regarding
sources of academic SE in different cultures. For example, the mathematics SE of students from indi-
vidualist cultures (e.g., Anglo-Canadian) is less influenced by vicarious experiences and social per-
suasions than students from collectivist (e.g., East-Asian) or mixed (e.g., South-Asian) cultures
(Klassen, 2004). Traditional, democratic, and Waldorf schools differ in the emphases they put on
individualism. Democratic schools, by definition, emphasize individualism as a value, throughout all
school years (Hecht, 2005; Vedder-Weiss, 2012). Traditional schools emphasize individual perfor-
mance on common standards (Benavot & Resh, 2004; Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999; Resh & Benavot,
2009). In Waldorf schools, until 6th grade learning is perceived as a common process of the whole
class; only in 7th grade does it start being more individual. These different emphases on comparison
were apparent in the interviews. Therefore, our results suggest that vicarious experiences are a
weaker source of SSE in educational environments that emphasize individualism. Our interviews
revealed that seeing another person succeed may influence a student in different directions—it may
DORFMAN AND FORTUS 19

make him feel he can succeed as well, or it can make him feel bad about his own lack of success.
Similar findings were found in previous studies and may have led to inconclusive results regarding
vicarious experiences (Butz & Usher, 2015).

5.3.3 | Social persuasions

Studies have shown that SE is influenced by what others, such as teachers, parents, and friends say
(e.g., Ahn, Bong, & Kim, 2017; Butz & Usher, 2015) about one's competence. Bouchey and Harter
(2005) showed that SE is influenced by what one perceives others as thinking regarding one's compe-
tence. This study looked at the influence of both on SSE, what significant others say and what they are
perceived as thinking, and compared their relative influence. In this study, while friends were only
weakly influential as a source of vicarious experiences, what they were perceived to be thinking about
the student's success in science had a strong influence on SSE in all school types. This finding is not
very surprising, because adolescents are concerned with their peer relationships and seek approval from
their peers (Urdan & Maehr, 1995). Perceived parents' thoughts about the child's competence in science
was a strong predictor of SSE in all school types. What parents said was a weaker predictor or was
insignificant. Naturally, the longer you know someone, the better you get at perceiving what they think
and distinguishing it from what they say. Parents' expectations from their child also predicted SSE, but
not in democratic schools. In the interviews, democratic students said that their parents do not have any
science specific or achievements expectations from them. These findings are in line with results of pre-
vious studies (e.g., Ahn et al., 2017; Bouchey & Harter, 2005; Butz & Usher, 2015) but refine the dis-
tinction between the influence of different types of messages parents convey to their children.
Science teachers' social persuasions were also found to be an influential source of SSE, but only
if these were directed personally at individual students. In the interviews, students expressed how
much the teacher's personal feedback was important to them and made them feel good about their
performance, when it was given. The regression results indicate that in traditional schools, as opposed
to parents, what the teachers said influenced students' SSE more than what they were perceived to be
thinking. This could be because the students do not know their teachers as deeply as they know their
parents and it is harder for them to interpret their non-verbal messages and know what they think,
leaving them primarily verbal massages to rely upon. In each alternative school, the teacher's influ-
ence seemed to match the school's educational philosophy. In Waldorf schools, what the teacher was
perceived to be thinking (rather than saying, as was in traditional schools) was the strongest predictor
of SSE among the teacher's social persuasions. These results are indicative of close relationship
between the students and the teacher, which is a central theme in Waldorf education, where the
teacher is central to the process of learning, seen as a father/mother-figure and a key supporter of the
students' development. Homeroom teachers (class-teachers) accompany their classes for 8 years,
from 1st to 8th grade. They are the ones who teach science up to 8th grade (in some schools 7th and
in some schools 9th) (Alfasi, 2014; OECD, 2008). Waldorf students know their teachers for many
years, so what Waldorf teachers think is a stronger predictor than what they say, just like with par-
ents. However, in light of the perception of teachers as surrogate father/mother figures in Waldorf
schools, we would expect the teachers in Waldorf schools to have more influence on their students'
SSE, relative to the influence teachers have in traditional schools. Reasons for this gap should be fur-
ther investigated. In democratic schools, none of the teachers' social persuasions predicted SSE. In
the interviews, although teachers were described by the students as supportive and caring, students
saw the science teachers as less central figures in the process of learning. This is in accordance with
the democratic education's philosophy, in which the teacher's role is the least interventionist as possi-
ble and his authority is limited, to allow autonomy (AERO website, 2017).
20 DORFMAN AND FORTUS

When put all together, despite the differences between the school types that were presented
above, results indicated that in all schools the relations between the sources themselves are roughly
the same. Mastery experiences, which were identified in prior studies as the strongest predictor of
SSE (Usher & Pajares, 2008), were found to be the strongest influence on students' SSE in this study
as well. In all schools, the second most influential source was the way friends think about the stu-
dents' ability to succeed. The similarities between the schools may indicate that the influence of mas-
tery experiences and friends' persuasions on SSE in adolescence depend less on the educational
environment. The influence of those factors may be rooted in internal psychological processes that
are common to humans' development, while social persuasions from teachers and vicarious experi-
ences are affected by the educational environment.
To conclude, school systems differ in the way they shape SSE and in the relative influence of the
sources of SSE. Different standards and definitions of success, levels of individualism, and teacher–
student relationships may affect the way SSE is developed. While SSE has been studied in traditional
schools, there is a gap in the literature regarding these constructs in other school systems. This study
not only fills this gap, but also contributes to understanding the influence of school systems on SSE
in a wider global context. Although we investigated specific school systems, the way SSE develops
in other schools around the globe is likely influenced by the school's culture. Considering the impor-
tance of SSE to students' achievements and engagement in science learning, it is important to bear in
mind the influence of different educational environments when considering interventions to enhance
students' SSE.

E ND N OT E
1
In traditional schools: SSE = β0 + β1parents_think_exp + β2teacher_says_exp + β3friends_think_exp + β4 vicarious_every-
body_succeeds_exp + β5masteryexp_science_exp; in democratic schools: SSE = β0 + β1parents_think_exp + β2teacher_say-
s_exp + β3friends_think_exp + β4 vicarious_everybody_succeeds_exp + β5masteryexp_science_exp; in Waldorf schools:
SSE = β0 + β1parents_expect_exp + β2teacher_thinks_exp + β3friends_think_exp + β4 vicarious_friends_succeed_exp +
β5masteryexp_science_exp

ORC ID
Bat-Shahar Dorfman https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7727-7436
David Fortus https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6157-4505

REFERENCES
Addi-Raccah, A., Biran, H., & Freedman-Goldberg, S. (2011). Middle Schools: Characteristics and Challenges. Review Commissioned
by the Language and Literacy Committee, The Initiative for Applied Education Research, Israel.
Alternative Education Resource Organization (AERO) website. (2017). The education revolution. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from
http://www.educationrevolution.org/store/findaschool/democraticschools/
Ahn, H. S., Bong, M., & Kim, S. I. (2017). Social models in the cognitive appraisal of self-efficacy information. Contemporary Educa-
tional Psychology, 48, 149–166.
Ahn, H. S., Usher, E. L., Butz, A., & Bong, M. (2016). Cultural differences in the understanding of modelling and feedback as sources
of self-efficacy information. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 112–136.
Alfasi, R. (2014). Characterizing of science teaching in Israeli Waldorf education in grades 6–9 (PhD) [in Hebrew]. Weizmann Insti-
tute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.
Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in personal achievement goals and the perceived goal structures across the transition
to middle schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 269–298.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. Annals of Child Development, 6, 1–60.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 4, 71–81.
DORFMAN AND FORTUS 21

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New-York, NY: Freeman.

Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87–99.
Barth, J., Todd, B., McCallum, D. M., Goldston, M., Guadagno, R. E., Roskos, B., & Burkhalter, C. (2011). Effects of engaging class-
room strategies and teacher support on student outcomes over school transitions. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engi-
neering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Benavot, A., & Resh, N. (2004). What schools teach: Uniformity and diversity in the implementation of the school curriculum in junior
high schools in three sectors. Research, Policy and Politics in Education, 43(1), 109–144 in Hebrew.
Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. Reigeluth
(Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 269–292). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bong, M. (2006). Asking the right question: How confident are you that you could successfully perform these tasks. In F. Pajares & T.
Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 287–305). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology
Review, 15(1), 1–40.
Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. New York, NY: Springer.
Bouchey, H. A., & Harter, S. (2005). Reflected appraisals, academic self-perceptions, and math/science performance during early ado-
lescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 673–686.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 43(5), 485–499.
Butz, A. R., & Usher, E. L. (2015). Salient sources of early adolescents' self-efficacy in two domains. Contemporary Educational Psy-
chology, 42, 49–61.
Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2011). The contribution of personality traits and self-
efficacy beliefs to academic achievement: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 78–96.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1),
62–83.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. (1984). Grade-related changes in the school environment. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), The develop-
ment of achievement motivation (pp. 238–331). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology Social,
emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, 5th ed., pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.
Fan, W., & Williams, C. M. (2010). The effects of parental involvement on students' academic self-efficacy, engagement and intrinsic
motivation. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 53–74.
Feldman, D. B., & Kubota, M. (2015). Hope, self-efficacy, optimism, and academic achievement: Distinguishing constructs and levels
of specificity in predicting college grade-point average. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 210–216.
Fortus, D., & Daphna, L. (2017). Adolescents’ goal orientations for science in single-gender Israeli religious schools. International
Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 86–103.
Fortus, D., & Vedder-Weiss, D. (2014). Measuring students' continuing motivation for science learning. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 51(4), 497–522.
Friedel, J. M., Cortina, K. S., Turner, J. C., & Midgley, C. (2010). Changes in efficacy beliefs in mathematics across the transition to
middle school: Examining the effects of perceived teacher and parent goal emphases. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1),
102–114.
Götz, T., Haag, L., Lipnevich, A. A., Keller, M. M., Frenzel, A. C., & Collier, A. (2014). Thinking impacts feeling: Judgments of
school domain similarity and between-domain relations of students’ academic emotions. In 2014 Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association (AERA). Philadelphia, PA.
Harter, S. (1998). The development of self-representations. In W. Damon, R. M. L. , & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psy-
chology: Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, pp. 553–617). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Harter, S., Whitesell, N. R., & Kowalski, P. (1992). Individual differences in the effects of educational transitions on young adoles-
cent's perceptions of competence and motivational orientation. American Educational Research Journal, 29(4), 777–807.
Hecht, Y. (2005). Democratic education: A beginning of a story. Jerusalem, Israel: Keter and the Institute for Democratic Education.
Honicke, T., & Broadbent, J. (2016). The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educa-
tional Research Review, 17, 63–84.
Hoy, W. K., Smith, P. A., & Sweetland, S. R. (2002). The development of the organizational climate index for high schools: Its mea-
sure and relationship to faculty trust. The High School Journal, 86(2), 38–49.
Jansen, M., Scherer, R., & Schroeders, U. (2015). Students' self-concept and self-efficacy in the sciences: Differential relations to ante-
cedents and educational outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 13–24.
Joët, G., Usher, E. L., & Bressoux, P. (2011). Sources of self-efficacy: An investigation of elementary school students in France.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 649–663.
Karabenick, S. A., Woolley, M. E., Friedel, J. M., Ammon, B. V., Blazevski, J., Bonney, C. R., … Kelly, K. L. (2007). Cognitive pro-
cessing of self-report items in educational research: Do they think what we mean? Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 139–151.
Klassen, R. M. (2004). A cross-cultural investigation of the efficacy beliefs of south Asian immigrant and Anglo Canadian nonimmi-
grant early adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 731–742.
22 DORFMAN AND FORTUS

Lau, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students' situational engagement and
achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 8(2), 139–162.
Lee, C. S., Hayes, K. N., Seitz, J., DiStefano, R., & O'Connor, D. (2016). Understanding motivational structures that differentially pre-
dict engagement and achievement in middle school science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 192–215.
Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). The general self-efficacy scale: Multicultural validation studies. The Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 139(5), 439–457.
Maehr, M. L., & Anderman, E. M. (1993). Reinventing schools for early adolescents: Emphasizing task goals. The Elementary School
Journal, 93, 593–610.
Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in
STEM among US students. Science Education, 95(5), 877–907.
Masters, B. (Ed.). (1992). Science in education—Waldorf curriculum studies. UK: Lanthorn Press.
Michaeli, N. (2015). Privatization in The Education System [in Hebrew]. In I. Galnoor, A. Paz-Fuchs, & N. Zion (Eds.), Privatization
Policy in Israel: State Responsibility and the Boundaries between the Public and the Private [in Hebrew] (pp. 183–237).
Tel-Aviv: The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute and Hakibbutz Hameuchad.
Midgley, C., Middleton, M., Gheen, M., & Kumar, R. (2014). Stage-environment fit revisited: A goal theory approach to examining
school transitions. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 109–144). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ministry of Education. (2016). Director General’s Circular 3.11-18 [in Hebrew]. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from http://cms.educa-
tion.gov.il/EducationCMS/Applications/Mankal/EtsMedorim/3/3-11/HoraotKeva/K-2016-12-3-11-18.html
Ministry of Education. (2018a). National Science Curriculum, Israel—Elementary schools [in Hebrew]. Retrieved from http://cms.
education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Mazkirut_Pedagogit/MadaTechnologya/tochnitLimudim/yesodi+tl.htm
Ministry of Education. (2018b). National Science Curriculum, Israel—Middle schools [in Hebrew]. Retrieved from http://cms.
education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Mazkirut_Pedagogit/MadaTechnologya/tochnitLimudim/hatab+tl.htm
Moran, E., Carlson, J. S., & Tableman, B. (2012). School Climate and Learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of
Learning (pp. 2962–2966). Boston, MA: Springer.
National Science Board. (2018). Science and Engineering Indicators 2018. Alexandria, VA. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.
gov/statistics/indicators/
OECD. (2008). Innovating to Learn, Learning to Innovate. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264047983-en
OECD. (2015). Education at a glance 2015: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2017). Education at a glance 2017: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Oettingen, G. (1995). Cross-cultural perspectives on self efficacy. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 149–
176). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International
Journal of Science and Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001a). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement. In R. Riding
& S. Rayner (Eds.), International perspectives on individual differences (Vol. 2: Self Perception, pp. 239–266). London: Ablex
Publishing.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001b). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development
of achievement motivation (Vol. 7, pp. 15–31). San Diego: Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Randoll, D., & Peters, J. (2015). Empirical research on Waldorf education. Educar Em Revista, (56), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1590/
0104-4060.41416
Resh, N., & Benavot, A. (2009). Educational governance, school autonomy, and curriculum implementation: Diversity and uniformity
in knowledge offerings to Israeli pupils. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(1), 67–92.
Rice, L., Barth, J. M., Guadagno, R. E., Smith, G. P. A., & McCallum, D. M. (2013). The role of social support in students' perceived
abilities and attitudes toward math and science. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(7), 1028–1040.
Rittmayer, A. D., & Beier, M. E. (2008). Overview: Self-efficacy in STEM. In B. Bogue & E. Cady (Eds.). Applying Research to Prac-
tice (ARP) Resources. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from http://www.engr.psu.edu/AWE/ARPresources.aspx
Romppel, M., Herrmann-Lingen, C., Wachter, R., Edelmann, F., Düngen, H.-D., Pieske, B., & Grande, G. (2013). A short form of the
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE-6): Development, psychometric properties and validity in an intercultural non-clinical sample
and a sample of patients at risk for heart failure. GMS Psycho-Social-Medicine, 10, 1–7.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educa-
tional Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
Sada, Y. H., Street, R. L., Singh, H., Shada, R. E., & Naik, A. D. (2011). Primary care and communication in shared cancer care: A
qualitative study. The American Journal of Managed Care, 17(4), 259–265.
Salleh, M. F. M., Abdullah, N., Alias, N. A., Ismail, M. H., Alam, S., & Ehsan, S. D. (2014). Malaysian and Steiner Waldorf science
curricular practices: A comparative study and implications for the design of science teacher education. STEM Planet Journal,
1, 1–12.
DORFMAN AND FORTUS 23

Scholz, U., Dona, B. G., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from
25 countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 242–251.
Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57(2), 149–174.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 71–86.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26((3–4)), 207–231.
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2016). Self-efficacy theory in education. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of
motivation at school (2nd ed., p. 34). New York, NY: Routledge.
Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy development in adolesences. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs
of adolescents (pp. 71–96). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Sha, L., Schunn, C., Bathgate, M., & Ben-Eliyahu, A. (2016). Families support their children's success in science learning by influenc-
ing interest and self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 450–472.
Sommer, W. (2010). Upper-School Teaching at Steiner Waldorf Schools: Cognitive Challenges for The Embodied Self. RoSE–
Research on Steiner Education, 1(1), 19–32.
Steiner, R. (1997). The roots of education (Vol. 19). New York: SteinerBooks.
Thomas, G., Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2008). Development of an instrument designed to investigate elements of science students'
metacognition, self-efficacy and learning processes: The SEMLI-S. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13),
1701–1724.
Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of
Educational Research, 65(3), 213–243.
Usher, E. L., Ford, C. J., Li, C. R., & Weidner, B. L. (2018). Sources of Math and Science Self-Efficacy in Rural Appalachia: A Con-
vergent Mixed Methods Study. Contemporary Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.
10.003
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of
Educational Research, 18(4), 751–796.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2009a). Math and science engagement: Identifying the processes and psychological theories that underlie
successful social-psychological interventions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 89–101.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2009b). Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A validation study. Contemporary Educational Psychol-
ogy, 34(1), 89–101.
Valentine, J. C., DuBois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A meta-analytic
review. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 111–133.
Vedder-Weiss, D. (2012). Characterizing environmental factors that are associated with adolescents' motivation to learn Science in
and out of school (PhD). Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.
Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: Inevitable or not? Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 48(2), 199–216.
Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2012). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 49(9), 1057–1095.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Students' motivation during the middle school years. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic
achievement: Contributions of social psychology (pp. 159–184). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Woltman, H., Feldstain, A., MacKay, J. C., & Rocchi, M. (2012). An introduction to hierarchical linear modeling. Tutorials in Quanti-
tative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 52–69.
Zeidner, M., Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1993). Hebrew adaptation of the general self-efficacy scale. Health Psychology, 12,
102–104.

SU PPORTI NG IN FOR MATION

Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the
end of this article.

How to cite this article: Dorfman B-S, Fortus D. Students' self-efficacy for science in differ-
ent school systems. J Res Sci Teach. 2019;1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21542