critique the theory of Self-Efficacy using the internal and external criticism evaluation process.

 My task is only to give a positive opinion of these 2 discussions. In total, I need 2 replies. The 2 discussions are these:

Discussion # 1 :  

The Theory of Self-Efficacy Critique

If one has a high level of self-efficacy, they tend to feel they will succeed in their endeavors. According to Albert Bandura, self-efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to plan and carry out the actions required to manage potential occurrences (Bahari et al., 2019). These concepts have an impact on how people feel, act, and think. Self-efficacy affects the goals we set, how we accomplish them and assess our achievement. Our self-belief in our ability to succeed affects how we perceive, behave, and react to our place in society.

Self-efficacy may be developed and affected by experiences and responses, although it is still widely thought to be intrinsic. For instance, mastering experiences can promote a high sense of effectiveness because when we perform a task well, we feel more self-sufficient. However, self-efficacy can be hindered and diminished if a task or challenge is not handled properly. Social influence may also be used to enhance self-efficiency. For instance, witnessing what people who are similar to themselves can do via effort “raises viewers’ notions that they too possess the skills to master parallel activities to succeed,” according to Bandura (Bahari et al., 2019). Social influence has the power to persuade individuals that they have the skills and information needed to succeed. People are able to overcome self-doubt and focus on providing the task at hand with their best effort when they hear verbal praise from others. Moreover, since psychological responses dictate how we react to situations and how we feel emotionally, they substantially impact self-efficacy as well. For instance, how someone perceives their abilities in a certain situation might be influenced by their degree of stress, physical reactions, cognitive factors, and attitudes.

The theory of Self-Efficacy states that people have a self-efficacy belief in a given ability. In this regard, I contend that there is a lack of predictive power in the hypothesis. Besides, it has been discovered that task approaches, learning, and motivation have little to do with self-efficacy. Moreover, I think there is a lack of logical development and coherence in the self-efficacy thesis. For example, how self-efficacy beliefs are formed, or how they affect action needs to be better explained by the theory clearly and consistently. The theory also does not always make sense in relation to other ideas or reality. Self-efficacy theory has been subject to external criticism centered on complexity and real convergence (Toledano et al., 2019). The complexity of the self-efficacy hypothesis has been criticized since the theory does not provide a concise and obvious explanation of the development of self-efficacy beliefs or how they affect behavior. The theory may not also be consistent with facts or with alternative theories.

References

Bahari, G., Scafide, K., Krall, J., Mallinson, R. K., & Weinstein, A. A. (2019). Mediating role of self‐efficacy in the relationship between family social support and hypertension self‐care behaviours: A cross‐sectional study of Saudi men with hypertension. International journal of nursing practice, 25(6), e12785.

Toledano-González, A., Labajos-Manzanares, T., & Romero-Ayuso, D. (2019). Well-being, self-efficacy and independence in older adults: a randomized trial of occupational therapy. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 83, 277-284.

Discussion # 2 : 

Internal and External Criticism of Self-Efficacy Theory

       Self-Efficacy theory explains an individual’s belief in their abilities to execute an activity successfully. The theory states that if a person has a strong belief in their ability to perform a task, then that person will be more likely to perform the task with success. Self-efficacy can also be thought of as having a “can do” attitude and having confidence in one’s abilities. During the development of this theory, Bandura wished to examine the factors that contribute to different individual abilities when conducting an activity or a decision (Klassen & Klassen, 2018). The theory of self-efficacy has been criticized for using both internal and external evaluation processes. 

        Based on internal criticism, self-efficacy theory has been shown to be very important in determining an individual’s abilities. For example, the theory can be used in nursing to understand a nurse’s strengths and determine the areas they need to improve. In addition, the theory has been clearly defined due to its high levels of conceptual clarity. Research by Klassen and Klassen (2018) posited that the concept of self-efficacy theory is clearly defined, which offers limited time for a person to understand their goal. In addition, the theory is supported by adequate empirical support due to different studies and supplements on the same. Nonetheless, the theory has been criticized for its risk of confusion regarding confidence and self-esteem. Since the theory of efficacy is used in understanding an individual’s ability, it may hinder the understanding of a person’s self-esteem levels.

        The external criticism of the theory focuses on the authenticity of the theory and how genuine the theory is. According to Schweder and Raufelder, D. (2022), the self-efficacy theory is generalized across different demographics. This indicates that many studies have found the theory applicable to different ethnicities and cultural contexts, enhancing its reliability. The theory has also been used in different research fields, such as education and nursing, explaining the different behaviors portrayed in such settings. Specifically, it is used in monitoring and explaining healthy behavior such as medication adherence, smoking cessation and active participation in physical activity. In addition, the theory has quality predictive validity, which makes it easier to establish an effective way of predicting human behavior based on different circumstances (Schweder & Raufelder, 2022). This increases the reliability of the information offered by this theory and helps make better and more reliable conclusions about human behavior. Nonetheless, the mechanism of the theory is weak as it barely explains the underlying process used in the making of the theory. Even the mechanism used barely explains all the concepts of the theory. 

References

Klassen, R. M., & Klassen, J. R. (2018). Self-efficacy beliefs of medical students: a critical

             review. Perspectives on medical education, 7, 76-82.

Schweder, S., & Raufelder, D. (2022). Students’ interest and self-efficacy and the impact of

            changing learning environments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 70, 102082.

MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric

1

Criteria Does Not Meet (0%) Approaches (60%) Meets 80% Exceeds (100%) Total

Initial Post
relevance to the
topic of
discussion,
applicability,
and insight.
(20%)

0

The student does not
provide coverage of
the discussion topic
(s); the student does
not address the
requirements of the
weekly discussion.
Provide redundant
information. The
posting does not
apply to the course
concepts, or no
example provided
from the material
explored during the
weekly reading or
from other relevant
examples from the
clinical practice.
The student does not
show applied

1

2

The student provides
partial coverage of
the discussion topic
(s), does not
provide clarity on
the key concepts, the
student does not
address all of the
requirements of the
weekly discussion.
Provide redundant
information. The
posting does not
apply to the course
concepts, or no
example provided
from the material
explored during the
weekly reading or
from other relevant
examples from the

1

6

The student provides
complete coverage of
the discussion topic
(s) and clarifies the
critical concepts
demonstrated in the
information
presented; the student
addresses all of the
requirements of the
weekly
discussion question
with adequate
attention to detail
with some
redundancy. The
posting applies course
concepts without
examples learned
from the material
provided during the

20

The student provides
in-depth coverage of
discussion topic (s),
outstanding clarity, and
explanation of concepts
demonstrated in the
information presented;
approaches the weekly
discussion with depth
and breadth, without
redundancy, using clear
and focused details.
The posting directly
addresses critical
issues, questions, or
problems related to the
topic of discussion.
The posting applies
course concepts with
examples learned from
the material provided

MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric

2

knowledge and
understanding of the
discussion topic. The
student’s initial thread
response does not
reflect
critical thinking.

clinical practice.
The student shows
some applied
knowledge and
understanding of the
discussion topic.
The student’s initial
thread response does
not reflect
critical thinking.
The discussion topic
is vaguely covered
and does not
adequately
demonstrate an
accurate
understanding of
concepts.

weekly reading or
other relevant
examples from the
clinical practice. The
student is still
showing applied
knowledge and
understanding of the
topic. Also, the
posting offers original
and thoughtful
insight, synthesis, or
observation that
demonstrates an
understanding of the
concepts and ideas
about the discussion
topic (no use of
example). The
student’s initial thread
response reflects
critical thinking and
contains thought,
insight, and analysis.

during the weekly
reading or other
relevant examples from
the clinical practice;
the student shows
applied knowledge and
understanding of the
topic. Also,
the posting offers
original and thoughtful
insight, synthesis, or
observation that
demonstrates a strong
understanding of the
concepts and ideas on
the discussion topic
(use of examples). The
student’s initial thread
response is rich in
critical thinking and
full of thought, insight,
and analysis; the
argument is clear and
concise.

MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric

3

Quality of
Written
Communication

Appropriateness
of audience and
word choice is
specific,
purposeful,
dynamic, and
varied—
grammar,
spelling,
punctuation.
(20%)

0
The student uses a
style and voice
inappropriate or does
not address the given
audience, purpose,
etc. Word choice is
excessively
redundant, clichéd,
and unspecific.
Inconsistent
grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and
paragraphing (More
than five grammatical
errors). Surface errors
are pervasive enough
that they impede the
communication of
meaning.

12
The student uses a
style and voice that
is somewhat
appropriate to the
given audience and
purpose. Word
choice is often
unspecific, generic,
redundant, and
clichéd. Repetitive
mechanical errors
distract the reader
(More than two
grammatical errors).
Inconsistencies in
language, sentence
structure, and/or
word choice are
present.

16
The student uses a
style and voice
appropriate to the
given audience and
purpose. Word choice
is specific and
purposeful, and
somewhat varied
throughout. Minimal
mechanical or
typographical errors
are present but are not
overly distracting to
the reader (Less than
two grammatical
errors). Correct
sentence structure and
audience-appropriate
language are used.

20
The student uses a
style and voice that
are appropriate to
the given audience
and purpose and
shows originality
and creativity.
Word choice is
specific,
purposeful,
dynamic, and
varied. Free of
mechanical and
typographical
errors. A variety of
sentence structures
are used. The
student is clearly in
command of
standard, written,
academic English.

Inclusion of the
student
learning
outcomes
explored in the

0
The student does not
explain how the
Student Learning
Outcomes were

6
The student does not
explain how the
Student Learning
Outcomes were

8
The student does not
explain how the
Student Learning
Outcomes were

10
The student explains
how the applicable
Student Learning
Outcomes were

MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric

4

discussion
(10%)

explored or related to
the weekly discussion
topic.

explored or related
to the weekly
discussion topic.
Instead, the
student only
provides a list of
the applicable
Student Learning
outcomes.

explored or related to
the weekly discussion
topic.

explored or related to
the weekly discussion
topic.

Rigor,
currency, and
relevance of the
scholarly
references.
(20%)

0
The student does not
provide any
supporting scholarly
references that are
current or relevant to
the weekly discussion
topic.

12
The student provides
supporting scholarly
references that are
not current but
relevant to the
weekly discussion
topic. The student
provides only one
scholarly reference.

16
The student provides
supporting scholarly
references that are not
current or relevant
to the weekly
discussion topic. In
addition, the student
provides at least two
scholarly references.

20
The student provides
robust support from
credible, current (less
than five years old),
and relevant scholarly
references (at least
two). The supporting
evidence meets or
exceeds the minimum
number of required
scholarly references.

Peer &
Professor
Responses.
Number of
responses,

0
The student did not
make an effort to
participate in the
learning discussion

12
The student does not
provide substantive
interaction relevant
to the weekly topic

16
The student provides
substantive
interaction relevant to
the weekly topic. The

20
The student
provides
substantive
interaction relevant

MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric

5

quality of
response posts.
(20%)

board. The student
did not meet the
answer post
requirements, and the
posts, if submitted,
the posts reflect a
lack of engagement
or provide a vague
answer to the weekly
topic. The student
does not answer the
professor’s
feedback/question.

or provide vague
responses. The
answer provided by
the student does not
build on the
discussion question
and ideas of others,
utilizing course
content with
appropriate
citation/references.
The student does not
motivate and
encourage the
group. The student
does not respond to
two peers. The
student does not
answer the
professor’s
feedback/question.

answer provided by
the student builds on
the discussion
question and ideas of
others, utilizing
course content with
appropriate
citations/references.
The student provides
frequent attempts to
motivate and
encourage the group.
The student responds
to at least two peers.
The student does not
answer the
professor’s
feedback/question.

to the weekly topic.
The answer
provided by the
student builds on
the discussion
question and ideas
of others, utilizing
course content with
appropriate
citations/references.
The student
provides frequent
attempts to
motivate and
encourage the
group. The student
responds to at least
two peers and
answers the
professor’s
feedback/question.

Timeliness of
the initial post
and the answers

0
The student was late
for the initial post

6
The student posted
the initial thread on

8
The student posted
the initial tread on

10
The student posted the
initial thread and both

MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric

6

to the peers.
(10%)

and the answer to
peers or absence of
submissions.

time by 11:59 PM
on Wednesday, or
the student
submitted the initial
thread late and
submitted the
answers to peers on
time.

time by 11:59 PM on
Wednesday and one
answer to a peer by
Saturday 11:59 PM.

answers to peers on
time (Initial post by
Wednesday 1159 PM
and two replies to peers
by Saturday 11:59
PM).