Fifth-grade self-efficacy is associated with later math and reading growth (.15 and .19 standardized units per SD), mediating ELL status's indirect negative association with growth¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · checked against its sources 2026-10-19 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? ELL status has a significant negative indirect association with math growth via the self-efficacy intercept (-.233 x .153 = -.036, significant at the .01 level) and on reading growth (-.244 x .187 = -.046, also significant at the .01 level); these are computed indirect-effect coefficients, not printed effect size statistics. → Soland 2019

Evidence¶

Soland 2019¶

Soland, J. (2019). English Language Learners, Self-efficacy, and the Achievement Gap: Understanding the Relationship between Academic and Social-emotional Growth (The Collaborative for Student Growth at NWEA Working Paper). https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/english-language-learners-self-efficacy-and-the-achievement-gap-understanding-the-relationship-between-academic-and-social-emotional-growth/ (published as Soland, J., & Sandilos, L. E. (2020), Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,)

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Indirect-effect decomposition in the math model (Question 3), significant at the .01 level. The reading model's indirect effect is reported as -.244 x .187 = -.046 standard deviations, also significant at the .01 level, tempering ELLs' reading gains. These are products of path coefficients in standard-deviation units, not a d/g/r effect size, so no impact code is assigned (i?); this is not a null finding.

"The indirect effect can be calculated as -.233 x .153 = -.036. In practical terms, given that being an ELL is negatively associated with self-efficacy in 5th grade, and self-efficacy at that time point is positively associated with growth in math, ELL status has a strong negative indirect association with growth in math estimated at .036 standard deviations."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• English-Learner Status — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Self-Efficacy — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Learners' task-specific self-efficacy beliefs predict whether they initiate, persist through, and recover from difficulty on academic tasks. — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• ELLs start middle school roughly .6 SD lower in math and .65 SD lower in reading, with faster reading growth (.13 SD) but no significantly faster math or self-efficacy growth — related
• Non-ELLs outscore ELLs in math, reading, and self-efficacy at every timepoint, with a 2015 self-efficacy gap exceeding .35 standard deviations — related
• A companion working paper examines the relationship between academic and social-emotional growth for English Language Learners — related
• Self-efficacy declines steadily for all students between 5th and 8th grade even while math and reading achievement grow — related
• Growth in academic self-efficacy is significantly associated with growth in mathematics achievement when modeled jointly — related
• Self-efficacy is related to the achievement gap for English Language Learners — a broader claim this one bears on
• Within-person deviations from math and self-efficacy growth trajectories at a given time point are not related across constructs — related
• Teacher emotional support buffers the negative association between low math self-efficacy and low engagement — related
• The institutionalized “ELL” label positioned labelled students as the Other, depriving them of access to agentive participation in the unit — related
• Daily SR of students is positively associated with their perceived daily academic success at the within-person level — related
• Expectancies of success and intrinsic task value positively predict achievement test scores, but language-related variables show no indirect effects on achievement via these beliefs — related