literature review on self efficacy

The effects of students’ self-efficacy, self-regulated learning strategy, perceived and actual learning effectiveness: A digital game-based learning system

Published: 08 May 2024

Cite this article

Ying-Lien Lin 1 ,
Wei-Tsong Wang ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1448-7433 1 &
Min-Ju Hsieh 1

141 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies have been identified as a valuable component of digital game-based learning system (GBLS) activities. However, few studies have focused on the effects of information feedback on self-efficacy, SRL strategies, and perceived and actual learning effectiveness. Social cognitive and SRL theories describe the learning process of monitoring, controlling, and evaluating individual behavior and the corresponding environment. Insufficient information feedback hinders learning using GBLS and results in weak perceived and actual learning effectiveness. Some researchers have investigated the information feedback intervention mechanism and its significance. The partial least square method was used to investigate a convenience sample of 240 undergraduate students to test the proposed hypotheses. The research results indicated that information feedback significantly affects self-efficacy, SRL strategy, and perceived and actual learning effectiveness. Surprisingly, the SRL strategy does not significantly affect actual learning effectiveness. The theoretical and practical implications of this study are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Investigating effects of perceived technology-enhanced environment on self-regulated learning

Acceptance of and self-regulatory practices in online learning and their effects on the participation of Hong Kong secondary school students in online learning

Self-regulation in Three Types of Online Interaction: How Does It Predict Online Pre-service Teachers’ Perceived Learning and Satisfaction?

Data availability.

The data supporting the conclusions of this paper will be made available by the authors upon reasonable request.

Al-Haddad, S. S., Afari, E., Khine, M. S., & Eksail, F. A. A. (2023). Self-regulation, self-confidence, and academic achievement on assessment conceptions: An investigation study of pre-service teachers. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 15 (3), 813–826. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-09-2021-0343

Article Google Scholar

Alvarez-Risco, A., Estrada-Merino, A., Anderson-Seminario, M. D. L. M., Mlodzianowska, S., García-Ibarra, V., Villagomez-Buele, C., & Carvache-Franco, M. (2021). Multitasking behavior in online classrooms and academic performance: Case of university students in Ecuador during COVID-19 outbreak. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18 (3), 422–434. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-08-2020-0160

Armah, B., & Baek, S. J. (2019). Prioritising interventions for sustainable structural transformation in Africa: A structural equation modelling approach. Review of Social Economy, 77 (3), 297–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2019.1602277

Azmat, G., & Iriberri, N. (2010). The importance of relative performance feedback information: Evidence from a natural experiment using high school students. Journal of Public Economics, 94 , 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.04.001

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action (pp. 390–453). Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Google Scholar

Biesinger, K., & Crippen, K. (2010). The effects of feedback protocol on self-regulated learning in a web-based worked example learning environment. Computers & Education, 55 (4), 1470–1482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.013

Cai, Z., Gui, Y., Mao, P., Wang, Z., Hao, X., Fan, X., & Tai, R. H. (2023). The effect of feedback on academic achievement in technology-rich learning environments (TREs): A meta-analytic review. Educational Research Review , 100521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100521

Chang, C. C., Liang, C., Chou, P. N., & Liao, Y. M. (2018). Using e-portfolio for learning goal setting to facilitate self-regulated learning of high school students. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37 (12), 1237–1251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1496275

Chen, J. (2022). The effectiveness of self-regulated learning (SRL) interventions on L2 learning achievement, strategy employment and self-efficacy: A meta-analytic study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13 , 1021101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1021101

Chen, C. C., & Tu, H. Y. (2021). The effect of digital game-based learning on learning motivation and performance under social cognitive theory and entrepreneurial thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 750711. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.750711

Chen, Y. J., & Hsu, L. (2022). Enhancing EFL learners’ self-efficacy beliefs of learning English with emoji feedbacks in CALL: Why and how. Behavioral Sciences, 12 (7), 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12070227

Chen, C. H., Koong, C. S., & Liao, C. (2022). Influences of integrating dynamic assessment into a speech recognition learning design to support students’ English speaking skills, learning anxiety and cognitive load. Educational Technology & Society, 25 (1), 1–14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48647026 . Accesssed 16 Oct 2023.

Chen, C. M., Ming-Chaun, L., & Kuo, C. P. (2023). A game-based learning system based on octalysis gamification framework to promote employees’ Japanese learning. Computers & Education , 104899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104899

Chenoweth, T., Dowling, K. L., & St. Louis, R. D. (2004). Convincing DSS users that complex models are worth the effort. Decision Support Systems, 37 (1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(03)00005-8

Chou, S. W., Hsieh, M. C., & Pan, H. C. (2023). Understanding the impact of self-regulation on perceived learning outcomes based on social cognitive theory. Behaviour and Information Technology, 1–20 , 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2023.2198048

Cohen, I., Brinkman, W., & Neerincx, M. A. (2016). Effects of different real-time feedback types on human performance in high-demanding work conditions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 91 (Supplement C), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.03.007

Deng, X., Wang, C., & Xu, J. (2022). Self-regulated learning strategies of Macau English as a foreign language learners: Validity of responses and academic achievements. Frontiers in Psychology, 13 , 976330. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.976330

DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications . Sage publications.

Diamantopoulos, A. (2006). The error term in formative measurement models: Interpretation and modeling implications. Journal of Modelling in Management, 1 (1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465660610667775

Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 , 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.2.269.18845

ElSayad, G. (2024). Drivers of undergraduate students’ learning perceptions in the blended learning environment: The mediation role of metacognitive self-regulation. Education and Information Technologies , 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12466-9

Esnaashari, S., Gardner, L. A., Arthanari, T. S., & Rehm, M. (2023). Unfolding self-regulated learning profiles of students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39 , 1116–1131. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12830

Faber, J. M., Luyten, H., & Visscher, A. J. (2017). The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation: Results of a randomized experiment. Computers & Education, 106 , 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.001

Feng, C. Y., & Chen, M. P. (2014). The effects of goal specificity and scaffolding on programming performance and self-regulation in game design. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45 (2), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12022

Foo, S. Y. (2021). Analysing peer feedback in asynchronous online discussions: A case study. Education and Information Technologies, 26 (4), 4553–4572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10477-4

Guo, L. (2022). Using metacognitive prompts to enhance self-regulated learning and learning outcomes: A meta‐analysis of experimental studies in computer‐based learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38 (3), 811–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12650

Guo, W., & Wei, J. (2019). Teacher feedback and students’ self-regulated learning in mathematics: A study of Chinese secondary students. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28 (3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.07.001

Article MathSciNet Google Scholar

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective . Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.

HairJr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.) . Sage publications. (2022).

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

He, J., Liu, Y., Ran, T., & Zhang, D. (2022). How students’ perception of feedback influences self-regulated learning: The mediating role of self-efficacy and goal orientation. European Journal of Psychology of Education , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-022-00654-5

Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., & Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17 (2), 182–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114526928

Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y., Tai, K. H., & Lin, P. H. (2017). Intrinsic motivation of Chinese learning in predicting online learning self-efficacy and flow experience relevant to students’ learning progress. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30 (6), 552–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1329215

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Hu, P. J. H., & Hui, W. (2012). Examining the role of learning engagement in technology-mediated learning and its effects on learning effectiveness and satisfaction. Decision Support Systems, 53 (4), 782–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.014

Huang, C. F., Nien, W. P., & Yeh, Y. S. (2015). Learning effectiveness of applying automated music composition software in the high grades of elementary school. Computers & Education, 83 , 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.01.003

Hung, C. M., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). Effects of digital game-based learning on students’ self-efficacy, motivation, anxiety, and achievements in learning mathematics. Journal of Computers in Education, 1 , 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0008-8

Hunsu, N. J., Olaogun, O. P., Oje, A. V., Carnell, P. H., & Morkos, B. (2023). Investigating students’ motivational goals and self-efficacy and task beliefs in relationship to course attendance and prior knowledge in an undergraduate statics course. Journal of Engineering Education, 112 , 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20500

Kauffman, D. F. (2004). Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30 (1–2), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.2190/AX2D-Y9VM-V7PX-0TAD

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs: The four levels (2nd ed.)., pp. 19–66). Berrett-Koehler.

Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2009). The Kirkpatrick four levels: A fresh look after 50 years 1959–2009 [White paper]. Kirkpatrick Partners LLC. Retrieved from http://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/Portals/0/Resources/Kirkpatrick%20Four%20Levels%20white%20paper.pdf . Accessed 16 Oct 2023.

Lee, B. W., Lee, M. K., & Fredendall, L. (2022). Response to relative performance feedback in simulation games. The International Journal of Management Education, 20 (3), 100698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100698

Lee, D., Watson, S. L., & Watson, W. R. (2020). The relationships between self-efficacy, task value, and self-regulated learning strategies in massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21 (1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4389

Li, C. T., Hou, H. T., Li, M. C., & Kuo, C. C. (2022). Comparison of mini-game-based flipped classroom and video-based flipped classroom: An analysis of learning performance, flow and concentration on discussion. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00573-x

Li, S., & Zheng, J. (2018). The relationship between self-efficacy and self-regulated learning in one-to-one computing environment: The mediated role of task values. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27 , 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0405-2

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114

Liu, M., Gorgievski, M. J., Qi, J., & Paas, F. (2022). Increasing teaching effectiveness in entrepreneurship education: Course characteristics and student needs differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 96 , 102147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102147

Liu, Y. C., Wang, W. T., & Lee, T. L. (2021). An integrated view of information feedback, game quality, and autonomous motivation for evaluating game-based learning effectiveness. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59 (1), 3–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120952044

Lu, S., Cheng, L., & Chahine, S. (2022). Chinese university students’ conceptions of feedback and the relationships with self-regulated learning, self-efficacy, and English language achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 13 , 1047323. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1047323

Maier, U., Wolf, N., & Randler, C. (2016). Effects of a computer-assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different feedback types. Computers & Education, 95 , 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.002

Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52 (12), 1865–1883. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597

Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation . Sage Publications.

Ouyang, F., Wu, M., Zheng, L., Zhang, L., & Jiao, P. (2023). Integration of artificial intelligence performance prediction and learning analytics to improve student learning in online engineering course. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20 (1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00372-4

Öztürk, M. (2022). The effect of self-regulated programming learning on undergraduate students’ academic performance and motivation. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 19 (3), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-04-2021-0074

Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31 (4), 623–656. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148814

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53 (3), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024

Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50 (4), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Ramsin, A., & Mayall, H. J. (2019). Assessing ESL learners’ online learning self-efficacy in Thailand: Are they ready? Journal of Information Technology Education, 18 , 467–479. https://doi.org/10.28945/4452

Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2017). Can clicking promote learning? Measuring student learning performance using clickers in the undergraduate information systems class. Journal of International Education in Business, 10 (2), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-06-2016-0010

Reid, A. J., Morrison, G. R., & Bol, L. (2017). Knowing what you know: Improving metacomprehension and calibration accuracy in digital text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65 , 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9454-5

Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Pick, M., Liengaard, B. D., Radomir, L., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade. Psychology & Marketing, 39 (5), 1035–1064. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21640

Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects on self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (6) 848–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.6.848

Schunk, D. H. (2013). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. 119–144). Routledge.

Stevenson, M. P., Hartmeyer, R., & Bentsen, P. (2017). Systematically reviewing the potential of concept mapping technologies to promote self-regulated learning in primary and secondary science education. Educational Research Review, 21 , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.002

Strelan, P., Osborn, A., & Palmer, E. (2020). Student satisfaction with courses and instructors in a flipped classroom: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36 (3), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12421

Su, C. H., & Cheng, C. H. (2015). A mobile gamification learning system for improving the learning motivation and achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31 (3), 268–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12088

Theobald, M. (2021). Self-regulated learning training programs enhance university students’ academic performance, self-regulated learning strategies, and motivation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 66 , 101976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101976

Tsai, C. H., Cheng, C. H., Yeh, D. Y., & Lin, S. Y. (2017). Can learning motivation predict learning achievement? A case study of a mobile game-based English learning approach. Education and Information Technologies, 22 , 2159–2173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9542-5

Tsai, F. H., Tsai, C. C., & Lin, K. Y. (2015). The evaluation of different gaming modes and feedback types on game-based formative assessment in an online learning environment. Computers and Education, 81 , 259–269.

Van Laer, S., & Elen, J. (2019). The effect of cues for calibration on learners’ self-regulated learning through changes in learners’ learning behaviour and outcomes. Computers & Education, 135 , 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.016

Vattøy, K. D., & Gamlem, S. M. (2023). Students’ experiences of peer feedback practices as related to awareness raising of learning goals, self-monitoring, self-efficacy, anxiety, and enjoyment in teaching EFL and mathematics. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1–15 , 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2023.2192772

Wang, C. J. (2023). Learning and academic self-efficacy in self-regulated learning: Validation study with the BOPPPS model and IRS methods. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 32 , 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00630-5

Wang, W. T., Lin, Y. L., & Lu, H. E. (2023). Exploring the effect of improved learning performance: A mobile augmented reality learning system. Education and Information Technologies, 28 (6), 7509–7541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11487-6

Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33 (1), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.2307/20650284

Wirth, J., Stebner, F., Trypke, M., Schuster, C., & Leutner, D. (2020). An interactive layers model of self-regulated learning and cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 32 (4), 1127–1149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09568-4

Xu, Z., Zdravkovic, A., Moreno, M., & Woodruff, E. (2022). Understanding optimal problem-solving in a digital game: The interplay of learner attributes and learning behavior. Computers and Education Open, 3 , 100117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100117

Yan, Y., Zhang, X., Zha, X., Jiang, T., Qin, L., & Li, Z. (2017). Decision quality and satisfaction: The effects of online information sources and self-efficacy. Internet Research, 27 (4), 885–904. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-04-2016-0089

Yang, H. H., Chen, L., Jia, K., Qu, Z., & Shi, Y. (2023). The effects of tablet PC-based instruction on junior high school students’ self-regulated learning and learning achievement. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 34 (2), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2023.132746

Yang, J. C., Quadir, B., & Chen, N. S. (2016). Effects of the badge mechanism on self-efficacy and learning performance in a game-based English learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54 (3), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115620433

Yeh, Y. C., & Ting, Y. S. (2023). Comparisons of creativity performance and learning effects through digital game-based creativity learning between elementary school children in rural and urban areas. British Journal of Educational Psychology , e12594. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12594

Yu, Z., Xu, W., & Sukjairungwattana, P. (2022). A meta-analysis of eight factors influencing MOOC-based learning outcomes across the world. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2096641

Zhao, J. H., Panjaburee, P., Hwang, G. J., & Wongkia, W. (2023). Effects of a self-regulated-based gamified virtual reality system on students’ English learning performance and affection. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–28 , 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2219702

Zheng, X., Luo, L., & Liu, C. (2022). Facilitating undergraduates’ online self-regulated learning: The role of teacher feedback. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00697-8

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan [grant number: NSTC 112-2410-H-006 -052 -MY3].

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Industrial and Information Management, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City, 701, Taiwan

Ying-Lien Lin, Wei-Tsong Wang & Min-Ju Hsieh

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei-Tsong Wang .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests.

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

1.1 Appendix A. supplementary GBLS graphics

1.2 Appendix B. The questions of pretest and posttest

1.3 Appendix C. The results of the CMV-adjusted path coefficient estimation

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Lin, YL., Wang, WT. & Hsieh, MJ. The effects of students’ self-efficacy, self-regulated learning strategy, perceived and actual learning effectiveness: A digital game-based learning system. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12700-4

Download citation

Received : 18 October 2023

Accepted : 08 April 2024

Published : 08 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12700-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Information feedback
Self-efficacy
Self-regulated learning strategy
Perceived learning effectiveness
Actual learning effectiveness
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Role of self-efficacy and resistance to innovation on the demotivation and insufficient learning capabilities of preservice english normal students in china.

$\r\nTuanhua Lu*$

1 School of Foreign Languages, Xianyang Normal University, Xianyang, China
2 School of Education, Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia

Learning capabilities among students are the crucial element for the student’s success in learning a particular language, and this phenomenon needs recent studies. The current study examines the impact of self-efficacy and resistance to innovation on the demotivation and insufficient learning capabilities of preservice English normal students in China. The current research also investigates the mediating impact of demotivation among self-efficacy, resistance to innovation, and insufficient learning capabilities. The questionnaires were employed by the researchers to gather the data from chosen respondents. The preservice English students are the respondents of the study. These are selected using purposive sampling. These questionnaires were forwarded to them by personal visits. The researchers have sent 690 surveys but only received 360 surveys and used them for analysis. These surveys represented a 52.17% response rate. The SPSS-AMOS was applied to test the relationships among variables and also test the hypotheses of the study. The results revealed that self-efficacy and resistance to innovation have a significant and a positive linkage with demotivation and insufficient learning capabilities. The findings also indicated that demotivation significantly mediates self-efficacy, resistance to innovation, and insufficient learning capabilities. The article helps the policymakers to establish the regulations related to the improvement of learning capabilities using innovation adoption and motivation of the students.

Introduction

China has the greatest number of English learners ( Rose et al., 2020 ). Recently, the intervention of the English language in the Chinese education system accelerated at a rapid pace ( Cheng and Chen, 2021 ). One of the reasons is the increasing interest of the world in China due to different reasons like education, business, jobs, etc. English has become a compulsory part of the Chinese curriculum for all levels like elementary, middle, high school, colleges, and universities. The preschool in China is adding English to their curriculum. The time the Chinese students graduate from the universities they have at least studied English for about 2,000 h over the duration of 10 years. The requirement to study English is defined in a true manner in an article titled Crazy English: Good or Bad: “Whether [English] is helpful or not, you must learn it; whether you learn it or not, you will never be able to utilize it.” In China, it appears that learning English has hit a snag. Despite putting in a lot of effort to study the language, English learners have not gained the ability to use it. One key factor for Chinese learners’ lack of communicative competency has been identified in the school’s teaching method. In China, English language instruction is frequently oriented on the instructor, the textbook, and grammar. In other words, English instruction in China is primarily concerned with mastery of grammar and vocabulary as taught by the teacher through the use of a textbook. This form of teaching strategy fails the generation of appropriate teaching skills in students. In this context: the Chinese government has attempted to strengthen English education in the school system in the 21st century.

The literature strongly proposed that educational institution plays a vital role in the betterment of English language learning in China ( Liu et al., 2021 ). The Chinese education sector introduced the New English Curriculum (NEC) for elementary and secondary schools in 2001. The NEC argues for pedagogical reform to address the dilemma in which teachers stress linguistic knowledge while ignoring students’ actual proficiency in using English. It states that when teaching, English teachers should take into account their students’ interests, experiences, and cognition. To improve English learners’ synthesis skills in using the language, the NEC suggests a variety of instructional approaches, such as participation, cooperation, and discussion. In a nutshell, the NEC encourages communicative language teaching. Teachers play an important part in this pedagogy change because they determine if curricular innovations can be successfully implemented in the classroom as desired by legislators ( Chien et al., 2021a ). Teachers are the key to the deliverance of the right knowledge at the right time in the right way to the right people. The teacher’s method of teaching results in students’ motivation of demotivation. The educational institution leads to implement the new way of teaching to meet the world. The teachers make it enable to not only accept but also educate the students to absorb this change. Many times this change in terms of innovation leads to students’ demotivation which directly affects the learning of a second language ( Gao and Ren, 2019 ; Chien et al., 2021b ; Liu et al., 2021 ). This is one of the reasons to check the reason for insufficient learning capabilities in Chinese second language learning schools.

The present study will address some gaps does exist in the literature like (1) being one of the important topics like linguistic along with learning capabilities although researched although but still not reached its peak, (2) Wu et al. (2021) worked on the students learning capabilities development whereas the present study will work on insufficient learning capabilities along with mediation effect of demotivation in China, (3) Jamil et al. (2021) checked the computer interference in enhancement of students capabilities whereas the present study will work on insufficient learning capabilities along with self-efficacy, resistance to innovation, and demotivation in China, (4) Amarakoon et al. (2018) worked on the learning capabilities along with innovation whereas the present study will test the insufficient learning capabilities along with number of other variables in Chinese perspective with a new data set, (5) the present study will check the model in Chinese perspective with new data set, and (6) Bonal and González (2020) worked on the lockdown and learning whereas the present study will investigate the insufficient learning capabilities with mediation effect of demotivation in China. The contributions of the study are (1) highlight the importance of preservice English learning capabilities in China, (2) help professionals revamp their policies for the betterment of the learning capabilities of preservice individuals, (3) help the researchers to identify and explore the more aspects of the lack of learning capabilities, (4) it provides the help to the policymakers in developing the policies related to the learning capabilities, and (5) it facilities the relevant authorities to implement the effective policies to improve the learning capabilities.

The study structure is divided into five phases. The first phase will present the introduction. In the second phase of the study, the pieces of evidence regarding low self-efficacy, low self-esteem, resistance to innovation, and self-demotivation will be discussed in the light of past literature. The third phase of the study will shine the spotlight on the methodology employed for the collection of data regarding low self-efficacy, low self-esteem, resistance to innovation, and self-demotivation and its validity will be analyzed. In the fourth phase, the results of the study will be compared with the pieces of evidence reviewed from the literature. In the last phase, the study implications along with the conclusion and future recommendations will be presented which will conclude the article.

Literature Review

Self-efficacy, proposed by Albert Bandura, refers to an individual’s belief in their capability to perform behaviors essential to produce definite performance achievements ( Gielnik et al., 2020 ). In addition, demotivation refers to the lack of one’s interest, enthusiasm, and willingness to perform an action due to specific negative influences ( Albalawi and Al-Hoorie, 2021 ). Moreover, the learning capabilities and innovation encompass skills, knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Learners develop capability when they apply skills and knowledge effectively in changing circumstances in their learning ( Lee and Falahat, 2019 ).

The performance of learning capabilities and academic performance are dependent on the important factors of self-efficacy. Learning capabilities among students are the crucial element for the student’s success in learning a particular language, and this phenomenon needs recent studies. For the improvement of learning capabilities, it is most important for educational institutions to promote the factors of self-efficacy. Gundel et al. (2019) elaborated on the simulations of mixed reality in self-efficacy for the preservice of education of teachers for learning capabilities. Self-efficacy leads to the individual that entails higher beliefs in their performance and the commitments in China. Any sort of lower self-efficacy leads to failures in lack of attempts and the lack of abilities. Ulenski et al. (2019) assessed the validating and developing literacy that coaches the survey of self-efficacy influencing the learning capabilities of students. Through effective perseverance, endeavors, and commitments, self-efficacy leads to the excellent performance of individuals. The students that entail higher self-efficacy are significant and positive in influencing the insufficient learning capabilities. For the fulfillment of academic tasks and educational performance, the factors related to self-efficacy must be promoted in the educational sectors of China. van Rooij et al. (2019) enumerated the sources of teachers’ self-efficacy with the teaching careers influencing the demotivation. Among the students of preservice English learning, the role of self-efficacy determines higher values for the elimination of demotivation. To overcome the challenges and attain higher values and objectives, the students are required to acquaint themselves with self-efficacy. Harrison et al. (2018) investigated the capabilities, participation, and access of self-efficacy that are important for the flourishment of learning capabilities. Academic self-efficacy involves a greater role and has a significant and positive impact on the demotivation of students. The probable and effective entailment of self-efficacy in the students leads to effective student learning, academic performance, and motivation. The considerable involvement and inducement of self-efficacy is especially the integrated and dominant mean for the students which influences the demotivation. Afshari and Hadian Nasab (2021) examined the learning capabilities by the managing talent of intellectual capital and self-efficacy that enhances the organizational environment. The effective mechanisms and modes endorse motivational and cognitive approaches to the self-efficacy that speak emotions of Chinese students in their achievements and motivation. Learning strategies must be organized in such a way that self-efficacy must be uplifted. The uplifting of self-efficacy facilitates the students and individual learning of normal students to eradicate the insufficient learning capabilities. Thus, the below-given hypothesis is derived from the above debate.

H1: Self-efficacy significantly influences insufficient learning capabilities.

H2: Self-efficacy significantly influences demotivation.

Countries that are developing and developed have certain barriers to innovation and insufficient learning ( Chien et al., 2021c ). This is due to the lack of facilities and lack of technological introduction in educational institutions. There are many barriers to innovation that lead to insufficient learning capabilities. Park et al. (2018) narrated the resistance, perceived attributes, and system quality necessary in education to provide sufficient learning capabilities. Mostly, the busy parents and lack of money is also considered the main element that leads to the resistance to innovation. This also states the involvement of backward areas of China which are not fond of technology and are not acquainted with its use of it. Caiazza and Volpe (2017) discussed the actions, actors, and process of diffusion of resistance narratives and uplifting the innovation for learning capabilities. Therefore, the resistance to innovation leads to many other circumstances which are negative for the learning capabilities. In the preservice English normal students, the resistance to innovation is encouraging a lack of education and a lack of curriculum of innovation. This depicts the image of disadvantage to the innovation which is a better model for the English learners of China. Pedler and Brook (2017) analyzed the innovation and action learning that requires implementation, engagement, and elimination of resistance. As the English language is considered a global language all over the world and lack of facilities could lead to insufficient learning. The lack of insufficient learning not only distracts the abilities of students but also depicts the damaging circumstances toward the learning capabilities. Dejaeghere (2020) investigated the concept and capabilities that are related to the equalities and inequalities due to the resistance to innovation. Students are inspired by the examples and technology that is the better tool for them to attain sufficient learning. Sufficient learning not only enhances the capabilities of students but also poses a dominant image of the resistance to innovation in China. Presbitero et al. (2017) narrated various dynamics of organizational learning capabilities by the knowledge sharing capabilities after removing barriers to innovation. The resistance to innovation is considered a curriculum barrier to the innovation which eliminates the creative environments for enhancing the learning capabilities. The resistance to innovation majorly dominates the educational learning and preservice English students could not attain sufficient learning.

The perceptions of personal efficacy refer to the individual capabilities and self-efficacy which entails the involvement of demotivation. Demotivation is promotive in the educational sector of China that states the elements in students learning which can be destructive. Demotivation among the students leads to a lack of self-efficacy that enumerates the capabilities related to insufficient learning. Pathan et al. (2021) investigated the demotivation factors associated with language learning among university students due to the resilience and matter of personality. The factors associated with demotivation entail mediating impact on the preservice students learning. Many normal students in the schools, colleges, and universities when demotivated by the lack of educational facilities depicts the insufficient learning capabilities. It is important for the institutions to develop certain capabilities which are deemed requirements to enhance English learning in China. Kiel et al. (2020) enumerated the inclusiveness of classes by the teachers and students’ self-efficacy and its role toward learning capabilities with institutional support. Various preservice English normal students are required to develop the capabilities of motivation that also increases the element of self-efficacy among them. Whitfield and Staritz (2021) discussed various traps of learning that arise due to the factors of demotivation and insufficient materials for learning. The increasing trend of demotivation has a dominant impact on the relationship between insufficient learning capabilities and self-efficacy. When there is a lack of self-efficacy there could be insufficient learning capabilities. It is only due to the demotivation which is increased in the students due to unfortunate learning capabilities and abilities of the teachers. Usually, the students are when demotivated by the learning facilities and the distraction among them could be negative to their upbringing. Ghanizadeh and Jahedizadeh (2017) examined the relationship between motivational facts and metacognitive and emotional facts that arise after the demotivation in university students. Not only in the educational sectors but also in the communities of China, creative approaches and innovation must be promoted. The promotion of innovation and creativity enables the communities in discovering new markets and strategies. While the students could also be enabled with taking up new ideas and development of skills and knowledge, especially in the English. Thus, the below-given hypothesis is derived from the above debate.

H3: Resistance to innovation significantly influences insufficient learning capabilities.

H4: Resistance to innovation significantly influences demotivation.

The establishment of different platforms and programs for English learners is encouraged by the effective use of innovative techniques. The tools and technology that are resisted while providing English learning to the preservice students also denominate the insufficient learning capabilities. Rizvi and Nabi (2021) emphasized the transformation of learning capabilities by the existence of challenges and issues that states the prevalence of demotivation. Among the students of English, the inspiration of technology and the motivation to deal with risk and ideas not only enhances their capabilities but also raises their independency. It is necessary for the educational sectors to induce certain changes and encourage motivation to enable the elements toward resistance to innovation. This resistance to innovation somehow leads to insufficient learning capabilities and the demotivation extended the central role among them. Dakka (2020) investigated the diversity, innovation, and competition in higher education where the resistance dominates with higher values with the involvement of demotivation. Some creative approaches to the development of technology and innovation are important in uplifting learning capabilities. The preservice English normal students in China are when demotivated the students then have insufficient learning capabilities. Self-determination is promotive and positive for the endorsement and raising of independency and determination in preservice English normal students. Wilson-Strydom (2017) assessed the inequalities and equalities with the capabilities and resilience to innovation that could be disrupting the learning capabilities with the involvement of demotivation. Students are required to be well-acquainted with the creative curriculum innovation and technology. This technological advancement, however, increases the elimination of factors that are associated with demotivation and insufficient learning capabilities. The innovative learning environment for the preservice students of English is enhanced with the wider support of motivation. Inan and Karaca (2021) narrated different practices of quality assurance in the learning capabilities of young learners due to the presence of demotivation. The learning capabilities could attain significant enhancement when the students are self-determined and motivated by their teachers and educational facilities in China. Mostly the learning abilities and capabilities are dependent on digital innovation because feasible innovation provides more education in a short time. The certain and fortunate mediating impact of demotivation is bringing a narrative of centered role in self-efficacy and insufficient learning capabilities. Thus, the below-given hypothesis is derived from the above debate.

H5: Demotivation significantly and positively mediates the relationship between self-efficacy and insufficient learning capabilities.

H6: Demotivation significantly and positively mediates the relationship between resistance to innovation and insufficient learning capabilities.

Research Methodology

Figure 1. Theoretical model.

The questionnaires were taken from the past studies, like self-efficacy is the independent variable that has four items taken from Yavuzalp and Bahcivan (2020) . In addition, resistance to innovation has also been taken as a predictor that has eight items extracted from Mani and Chouk (2018) . Moreover, the current article has used demotivation as the mediating variable with five items taken from Pillny et al. (2018) . Finally, insufficient learning capabilities have been used as a dependent variable that has three items taken from Gieske et al. (2019) . In addition, the preservice English students are the respondents of the study. These are selected using purposive sampling. The study selected only those students who are near to joining the professional life. Figure 2 show the content validity and the figures indicated that the factor loading values are larger than 0.50 and exposed valid content validity. These questionnaires were forwarded to them by personal visits. The researchers have sent 690 surveys but only received 360 surveys and used them for analysis. These surveys represented a 52.17% response rate. Moreover, the SPSS-AMOS was applied to test the relationships among variables and also test the hypotheses of the study. It is the best estimation tool that provides the best findings even the large sample sizes used by the authors or complex model has been selected by the researchers ( Hair et al., 2020 ). The measurement model exposed the construct validity and reliability that is checked using average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR), and factor loadings. The minimum threshold for AVE is that it should be greater than 0.50 ( Nasution et al., 2020 ), while the minimum threshold for CR is that it should be greater than 0.70 ( Kamis et al., 2020 ), and the minimum threshold for factor loadings is that it should be greater than 0.50 ( Dai et al., 2019 ). Finally, the structural model exposed the associations among the variables. Figure 3 indicated that the self-efficacy and resistance to innovation have positive association with insufficient learning capabilities and demotivation significantly mediates among them.

Figure 2. Measurement model assessment. Indicated that the factor loadings of the items are larger than 0.50 and indicated valid convergent validity.

Figure 3. Structural model assessment.

Research Findings

The current article has examined the content validity with the help of factor loadings. The results indicated that the values are not less than 0.50. These values reported that the content validity proved as valid. In addition, the current article has examined the convergent validity with the help of AVE. The results indicated that the values are not less than 0.50. These values reported that the convergent validity proved as valid. Moreover, the current article has examined the reliability with the help of CR. The results indicated that the values are not less than 0.70. These values reported that the reliability proved as valid. Table 1 shows the convergent validity results.

Table 1. Convergent validity.

The current article has also examined the discriminant validity with the help of Fornell Larcker. The results indicated that the first value in the column is higher than the other values in the same column. These values reported that the stronger nexus with the variable itself and discriminant validity proved as valid. Table 2 shows the discriminant validity results.

Table 2. Discriminant validity.

Table 3. A path analysis.

The findings also indicated that demotivation significantly mediates self-efficacy, resistance to innovation, and insufficient learning capabilities and accept H5 and H6. Table 4 shows the indirect association among variables results.

Table 4. Mediation analysis.

The study examines the impact of self-efficacy and resistance to innovation on the demotivation and insufficient learning capabilities and also investigates the mediating impact of demotivation among self-efficacy, resistance to innovation, and insufficient learning capabilities of preservice English normal students in China. The results indicated that self-efficacy has a significant and a positive association with the insufficient learning capabilities among preservice English normal students in China. The students that are considered self-efficient and have self-efficacy are not competent enough and have insufficient learning capabilities, which is the reason for the positive association between self-efficacy and insufficient learning capabilities. This outcome is in line with Hatlevik and Hatlevik (2018) , who also investigated the nexus between self-efficacy and insufficient learning capabilities and revealed that self-efficacy among the students does not always work positively on the learning capabilities. Sometimes students have enough self-efficacy but fail to attain sufficient learning capabilities. In addition, a study by Zamani-Alavijeh et al. (2019) also examined the self-efficacy role on the learning capabilities and revealed that the self-efficacy among students had put a negative impact on the learning capabilities because the self-efficacy among students miss interpret their qualities and fail to gain sufficient learning capabilities and this outcome is similar to the current study findings. Moreover, this output is also same as the Kuyini et al. (2020) , who also exposed the self-efficacy impact on the learning capabilities and exposed that the self-efficacy among students makes them selfish and they put lack of effort results in insufficient learning capabilities.

The outcome also exposed that the resistance to innovation has a positive role on the insufficient learning capabilities among preservice English normal students in China. The lack of focus on innovation leads the students to a less attractive environment, which creates insufficient learning capabilities among students. Innovation adoption always brings new ideas that polish the students and enhance their learning capabilities and vice versa. This result is matched with Kim et al. (2018) , who also analyzed the innovation impact on the learning capabilities and revealed that the innovation adoption always changes the existing processes and enables the student to gain sufficient learning capabilities and vice versa. In addition, this result is also the same as Shahbaz et al. (2019) , who also investigated the resistance to change impact on the learning abilities and exposed that the learning abilities could be enhanced by the adoption of new technology in the existing process, but resistance toward change always restrict the students and face insufficient learning capabilities. In addition, this outcome is in line with Choi and Chandler (2020) , who also analyzed the association between resistance to change and learning abilities and indicated that the high learning capabilities could be achieved by adopting innovation in the process, but if the students are reluctant to adopt innovation, then they faced insufficient learning abilities.

The results also indicated that self-efficacy has a significant and a positive association with the demotivation among preservice English normal students in China. The students who are considered self-efficient and have self-efficacy are sometimes demotivated by the existing way of working, which is the reason for the positive association between self-efficacy and demotivation. This outcome is in line with Tannady et al. (2019) , who also investigated the nexus between self-efficacy and motivation and revealed that self-efficacy among the student does not always work positively on the motivation. Sometimes students have enough self-efficacy but fail to get motivation. In addition, a study by Rhew et al. (2018) also examined the self-efficacy role in motivation. It revealed that self-efficacy among students has a negative impact on motivation because self-efficacy among students misses interpreting their qualities and fails to gain motivation. This outcome is similar to the current article outcomes. Moreover, the results are in line with Torres and Alieto (2019) , who indicated that the self-efficacy among students makes them selfish, and they put lack of effort and demotivated in the existing way of workings.

The outcome also exposed that the resistance to innovation positively affects the demotivation among preservice English normal students in China. The lack of focus on innovation leads the students to a less attractive environment, which creates demotivation among students. Innovation adoption always brings new ideas that polish the students and enhance their motivation and vice versa. This result is matched with Bonta (2019) , who also analyzed the innovation impact on the motivation and revealed that the innovation adoption always brings the changes in the existing processes and creates motivation among the students. In addition, this result is also the same as Hashimy et al. (2021) , who also investigated the resistance to change impact on the motivation and exposed that the motivation could be enhanced by the adoption of new technology in the existing process, but resistance toward change always restrict the students and face lack of motivation among them. In addition, this outcome is in line with Fischer et al. (2019) , who also analyzed the association between innovation and motivation and indicated that the high motivation could be achieved by adopting innovation in the process, but if the students are reluctant to adopt innovation then they are demotivated and fail to achieve the desired goals.

The results also revealed that demotivation significantly and positively mediates self-efficacy and insufficient learning capabilities among preservice English normal students in China. The students who have self-efficacy but are not interested in a particular field create demotivation among them and lead to insufficient learning capabilities. This outcome is in line with Shin (2018) , who also examines the self-efficacy and motivation role in learning capabilities and revealed that sometimes self-efficacy does not work to motivate the students in a particular task, leading to insufficient abilities to perform that task. This result is also similar to the Haerazi and Irawan (2020) , who also investigated the self-efficacy role in motivation that lead to learning abilities and indicated that the self-efficacy among students sometimes has a negative impact on the motivation and also has a negative influence on the learning capabilities of the students.

The findings also revealed that the demotivation significantly and positively mediates resistance to innovation and insufficient learning capabilities among preservice English normal students in China. This outcome is in line with Oke and Fernandes (2020) , who also examined the innovation and motivation role in the learning capabilities and revealed that the resistance to innovation creates demotivation among the students, and this also creates insufficient learning abilities among them. This result is also similar to the Amarakoon et al. (2018) , who also investigated the innovation role in motivation that lead to learning abilities and indicated that the adoption of innovation creates motivation among students and that gain sufficient learning capabilities, but if they resist adopting innovation then it creates demotivation among students and put a negative influence on the learning capabilities of the students.

The study concluded that the students in the education sector of China lack self-efficacy, which is the reason for their demotivation and insufficient learning capabilities among them. In addition, the study also concluded that the students also have the behavior of resistance to innovation in the Chinese education institution and produce insufficient learning capabilities among the students. Moreover, the students are demotivated in the English language learning institutions that produce insufficient learning capabilities among students. Finally, the article also concluded that the lack of self-efficacy and resistance to innovation nature reduce the motivation and enhance the insufficient learning capabilities among students.

Implications and Limitations

This article has several theoretical contributions and also significant implications. The current article contributes to the literature by conducting an examination of self-efficacy and insufficient learning capabilities. In addition, the article also contributes to the existing literature by providing the investigation of resistance to innovation and self-learning capabilities. Moreover, the demotivation is used as the mediating variable among self-efficacy, demotivation, and insufficient learning capabilities are significant contributions in the existing literature. In addition, the current article also provides the contribution to the literature on self-efficacy and demotivation and resistance to innovation and demotivation. This study provides help to the upcoming literature while examining this topic in the future. This study helps the policymakers to establish the regulations related to the improvement of learning capabilities. This study also guides the relevant authorities while implementing the policies related to attaining sufficient learning capabilities.

This article has several limitations that also the recommendations for the upcoming literature. The current study has taken two independent constructs to predict the insufficient learning capabilities and suggested that future articles should add more factors to predict the insufficient learning capabilities. In addition, the present research has also used the mediating analysis in the framework but ignores the moderating impact and recommended that the upcoming studies add moderating variables in the framework. Moreover, the current study examines China’s second language learning institutions and ignores the other institutions and suggests that future studies should add other institutions to their studies. Finally, the present article has used the questionnaires to collect the data and applied the SPSS-AMOS to analyze the association among variables and ignore the other data collection and analyzing techniques and tools and recommended that future studies incorporate this aspect into their studies.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author Contributions

YH generated the article idea. MS and YH analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. TL read and approved the final version. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Afshari, L., and Hadian Nasab, A. (2021). Enhancing organizational learning capability through managing talent: mediation effect of intellectual capital. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 24, 48–64. doi: 10.1080/13678868.2020.1727239

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Albalawi, F. H., and Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2021). From demotivation to remotivation: a mixed-methods investigation. SAGE Open 11, 2–11.

Google Scholar

Amarakoon, U., Weerawardena, J., and Verreynne, M.-L. (2018). Learning capabilities, human resource management innovation and competitive advantage. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manage. 29, 1736–1766. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00723.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bonal, X., and González, S. (2020). The impact of lockdown on the learning gap: family and school divisions in times of crisis. Int.Rev. Educ. 66, 635–655. doi: 10.1007/s11159-020-09860-z

Bonta, E. (2019). Demotivation-triggering factors in learning and using a foreign language–an empirical study. J. Innov. Psychol. Educ. Didactics 23, 177–198.

Caiazza, R., and Volpe, T. (2017). Innovation and its diffusion: process, actors and actions. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage. 29, 181–189. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2016.1211262

Cheng, M., and Chen, P. (2021). Applying PERMA to develop college students’ english listening and speaking proficiency in china. Int. J. Engl. Lang. Lit. Stud. 10, 333–350.

Chien, F., Kamran, H. W., Nawaz, M. A., Thach, N. N., Long, P. D., and Baloch, Z. A. (2021a). Assessing the prioritization of barriers toward green innovation: small and medium enterprises Nexus. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 24, 1897–1927. doi: 10.1007/s10668-021-01513-x

Chien, F., Pantamee, A. A., Hussain, M. S., Chupradit, S., Nawaz, M. A., and Mohsin, M. (2021b). Nexus between financial innovation and bankruptcy: evidence from information, communication and technology (ict) sector. Singapore Econ. Rev.

Chien, F., Sadiq, M., Nawaz, M. A., Hussain, M. S., Tran, T. D., and Le Thanh, T. (2021c). A step toward reducing air pollution in top asian economies: the role of green energy, eco-innovation, and environmental taxes. J. Environ. Manage. 297:113420. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113420

Choi, T., and Chandler, S. M. (2020). Knowledge vacuum: an organizational learning dynamic of how e-government innovations fail. Gov. Inf. Q. 37, 101–116.

Dai, C., Lu, K., and Xiu, D. (2019). Knowing factors or factor loadings, or neither? Evaluating estimators of large covariance matrices with noisy and asynchronous data. J. Econom. 208, 43–79.

Dakka, F. (2020). Competition, innovation and diversity in higher education: dominant discourses, paradoxes and resistance. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 41, 80–94. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2019.1668747

Dejaeghere, J. G. (2020). Reconceptualizing educational capabilities: a relational capability theory for redressing inequalities. J. Hum. Dev. Capabil. 21, 17–35. doi: 10.1080/19452829.2019.1677576

Fischer, C., Malycha, C. P., and Schafmann, E. (2019). The influence of intrinsic motivation and synergistic extrinsic motivators on creativity and innovation. Front. Psychol. 10:137–149. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00137

Gao, X., and Ren, W. (2019). Controversies of bilingual education in China. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling. 22, 267–273.

Ghanizadeh, A., and Jahedizadeh, S. (2017). The Nexus between emotional, metacognitive, and motivational facets of academic achievement among Iranian university students. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 9, 598–615. doi: 10.1108/JARHE-05-2017-0060

Gielnik, M. M., Bledow, R., and Stark, M. S. (2020). A dynamic account of self-efficacy in entrepreneurship. J. Appl. Psychol. 105, 487–496. doi: 10.1037/apl0000451

Gieske, H., Van Meerkerk, I., and Van Buuren, A. (2019). The impact of innovation and optimization on public sector performance: testing the contribution of connective, ambidextrous, and learning capabilities. Public Perform. Manage. Rev. 42, 432–460.

Gundel, E., Piro, J. S., Straub, C., and Smith, K. (2019). Self-Efficacy in mixed reality simulations: implications for preservice teacher education. Teach. Educ. 54, 244–269. doi: 10.1080/08878730.2019.1591560

Haerazi, H., and Irawan, L. (2020). The effectiveness of ECOLA technique to improve reading comprehension in relation to motivation and self-efficacy. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (IJET) 15, 61–76.

Hair, J. F. Jr., Howard, M. C., and Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J. Bus. Res. 109, 101–110.

Harrison, N., Davies, S., Harris, R., and Waller, R. (2018). Access, participation and capabilities: theorising the contribution of university bursaries to students’ well-being, flourishing and success. Cambridge J. Educ. 48, 677–695. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2017.1401586

Hashimy, L., Treiblmaier, H., and Jain, G. (2021). Distributed ledger technology as a catalyst for open innovation adoption among small and medium-sized enterprises. J. High Technol. Manage. Res. 32, 100–115.

Hatlevik, I. K., and Hatlevik, O. E. (2018). Examining the relationship between teachers’ ICT self-efficacy for educational purposes, collegial collaboration, lack of facilitation and the use of ICT in teaching practice. Front. Psychol. 9:935–947. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00935

Inan, S., and Karaca, M. (2021). An investigation of quality assurance practices in online English classes for young learners. Qual. Assur. Educ. 29, 332–343. doi: 10.1108/QAE-12-2020-0171

Jamil, N., Belkacem, A. N., Ouhbi, S., and Guger, C. (2021). Cognitive and affective brain–computer interfaces for improving learning strategies and enhancing student capabilities: a systematic literature review. IEEE Access 9, 134122–134147. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3115263

Kamis, A., Saibon, R. A., Yunus, F., Rahim, M. B., Herrera, L. M., and Montenegro, P. (2020). The SmartPLS analyzes approach in validity and reliability of graduate marketability instrument. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 57, 987–1001.

Kiel, E., Braun, A., Muckenthaler, M., Heimlich, U., and Weiss, S. (2020). Self-efficacy of teachers in inclusive classes. How do teachers with different self-efficacy beliefs differ in implementing inclusion? Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 35, 333–349. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2019.1683685

Kim, M.-K., Park, J.-H., and Paik, J.-H. (2018). Factors influencing innovation capability of small and medium-sized enterprises in Korean manufacturing sector: facilitators, barriers and moderators. Int. J. Technol. Manage. 76, 214–235.

Kuyini, A. B., Desai, I., and Sharma, U. (2020). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, attitudes and concerns about implementing inclusive education in Ghana. Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 24, 1509–1526.

Lee, Y. Y., and Falahat, M. (2019). The impact of digitalization and resources on gaining competitive advantage in international markets: mediating role of marketing, innovation and learning capabilities. Technol. Innov. Manage. Rev. 9, 89–97.

Liu, Y., Mishan, F., and Chambers, A. (2021). Investigating EFL teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching in higher education in China. Lang. Learn. J. 49, 131–146. doi: 10.1080/09571736.2018.1465110

Mani, Z., and Chouk, I. (2018). Consumer resistance to innovation in services: challenges and barriers in the internet of things era. J. Product Innov. Manage. 35, 780–807.

Nasution, M. I., Fahmi, M., and Prayogi, M. A. (2020). “The quality of small and medium enterprises performance using the structural equation model-part least square (SEM-PLS),” in Paper Presented At The Journal Of Physics: Conference Series. (Bristol: IOP Publishing).

Oke, A., and Fernandes, F. A. P. (2020). Innovations in teaching and learning: exploring the perceptions of the education sector on the 4th industrial revolution (4IR). J. Open Innov. 6, 31–42.

Park, S. Y., Lee, H. D., and Kim, S. Y. (2018). South Korean university students’ mobile learning acceptance and experience based on the perceived attributes, system quality and resistance. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 55, 450–458. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2016.1261041

Pathan, Z. H., Ismail, S. A. M. M., and Fatima, I. (2021). English language learning demotivation among Pakistani university students: do resilience and personality matter? J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 13, 1024–1042. doi: 10.1108/JARHE-04-2020-0087

Pedler, M., and Brook, C. (2017). The innovation paradox: a selective review of the literature on action learning and innovation. Act. Learn. 14, 216–229. doi: 10.1080/14767333.2017.1326877

Pillny, M., Krkovic, K., and Lincoln, T. M. (2018). Development of the demotivating beliefs inventory and test of the cognitive triad of amotivation. Cogn. Therapy Res. 42, 867–877.

Presbitero, A., Roxas, B., and Chadee, D. (2017). Effects of intra- and inter-team dynamics on organisational learning: role of knowledge-sharing capability. Knowl. Manage. Res. Pract. 15, 146–154. doi: 10.1057/kmrp.2015.15

Rhew, E., Piro, J. S., Goolkasian, P., and Cosentino, P. (2018). The effects of a growth mindset on self-efficacy and motivation. Cogent Educ. 5, 149–157.

Rizvi, Y. S., and Nabi, A. (2021). Transformation of learning from real to virtual: an exploratory-descriptive analysis of issues and challenges. J. Res. Innov. Teach. Learn. 14, 5–17. doi: 10.1108/JRIT-10-2020-0052

Rose, H., McKinley, J., Xu, X., and Zhou, S. (2020). Investigating Policy And Implementation Of English Medium Instruction In Higher Education Institutions In China. London: British Council, 1–20.

Shahbaz, M., Gao, C., Zhai, L., Shahzad, F., and Hu, Y. (2019). Investigating the adoption of big data analytics in healthcare: the moderating role of resistance to change. J. Big Data 6, 1–20.

Shin, M.-H. (2018). Effects of project-based learning on students’ motivation and self-efficacy. Engl. Teach. 73, 95–114. doi: 10.1348/000709907X218160

Tannady, H., Erlyana, Y., and Nurprihatin, F. (2019). Effects of work environment and self-efficacy toward motivation of workers in creative sector in province of Jakarta, Indonesia. Calitatea 20, 165–168.

Torres, J., and Alieto, E. (2019). English learning motivation and self-efficacy of Filipino senior high school students. Asian EFL J. 22, 51–72.

Ulenski, A., Gill, M. G., and Kelley, M. J. (2019). Developing and validating the elementary literacy coach self-efficacy survey. Teach. Educ. 54, 225–243. doi: 10.1080/08878730.2019.1590487

van Rooij, E. C. M., Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., and Goedhart, M. (2019). Preparing science undergraduates for a teaching career: sources of their teacher self-efficacy. Teach. Educ. 54, 270–294. doi: 10.1080/08878730.2019.1606374

Whitfield, L., and Staritz, C. (2021). The learning trap in late industrialisation: local firms and capability building in ethiopia’s apparel export industry. J. Dev. Stud. 57, 980–1000. doi: 10.1080/00220388.2020.1841169

Wilson-Strydom, M. (2017). Disrupting structural inequalities of higher education opportunity: “grit”, resilience and capabilities at a south african university. J. Hum. Dev. Capabil. 18, 384–398. doi: 10.1080/19452829.2016.1270919

Wu, X. M., Dixon, H. R., and Zhang, L. J. (2021). Sustainable development of students’ learning capabilities: the case of university students’ attitudes towards teachers, peers, and themselves as oral feedback sources in learning English. Sustainability 13, 5211–5231.

Yavuzalp, N., and Bahcivan, E. (2020). The online learning self-efficacy scale: its adaptation into Turkish and interpretation according to various variables. Turkish Online J. Distance Educ. 21, 31–44.

Zamani-Alavijeh, F., Araban, M., Harandy, T. F., Bastami, F., and Almasian, M. (2019). Sources of health care providers’ self-efficacy to deliver health education: a qualitative study. BMC Med. Educ. 19:16. doi: 10.1186/s12909-018-1448-z

Keywords : self-efficacy, resistance to innovation, demotivation, insufficient learning capabilities, preservice English normal students

Citation: Lu T, Sanitah MY and Huang Y (2022) Role of Self-Efficacy and Resistance to Innovation on the Demotivation and Insufficient Learning Capabilities of Preservice English Normal Students in China. Front. Psychol. 13:923466. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.923466

Received: 19 April 2022; Accepted: 16 June 2022; Published: 29 July 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Lu, Sanitah and Huang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Tuanhua Lu, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
My Account Login
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 14 May 2024

Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of the self-amplifying mRNA ARCT-154 COVID-19 vaccine: pooled phase 1, 2, 3a and 3b randomized, controlled trials

Nhân Thị Hồ 1 ,
Steven G. Hughes 2 ,
Van Thanh Ta 3 ,
Lân Trọng Phan 4 ,
Quyết Đỗ 5 ,
Thượng Vũ Nguyễn 4 ,
Anh Thị Văn Phạm 3 ,
Mai Thị Ngọc Đặng 3 ,
Lượng Viết Nguyễn 5 ,
Quang Vinh Trịnh ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4548-104X 3 ,
Hùng Ngọc Phạm 5 ,
Mến Văn Chử 5 ,
Toàn Trọng Nguyễn 4 ,
Quang Chấn Lương 4 ,
Vy Thị Tường Lê 4 ,
Thắng Văn Nguyễn 5 ,
Lý-Thi-Lê Trần 6 , 7 ,
Anh Thi Van Luu 7 ,
Anh Ngoc Nguyen 7 ,
Nhung-Thi-Hong Nguyen ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0008-8462-4860 1 ,
Hai-Son Vu 1 ,
Jonathan M. Edelman 8 ,
Suezanne Parker 2 ,
Brian Sullivan ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4277-6037 2 ,
Sean Sullivan 2 ,
Qian Ruan 2 ,
Brenda Clemente 2 ,
Brian Luk 2 ,
Kelly Lindert 2 ,
Dina Berdieva 2 ,
Kat Murphy 2 ,
Rose Sekulovich 2 ,
Benjamin Greener 2 ,
Igor Smolenov ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7075-9827 2 ,
Pad Chivukula ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6017-2267 2 ,
Vân Thu Nguyễn 7 &
Xuan-Hung Nguyen ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2216-8598 1 , 6 , 9

Nature Communications volume 15 , Article number: 4081 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

3592 Accesses

185 Altmetric

Metrics details

Randomized controlled trials
RNA vaccines
Viral infection

Combination of waning immunity and lower effectiveness against new SARS-CoV-2 variants of approved COVID-19 vaccines necessitates new vaccines. We evaluated two doses, 28 days apart, of ARCT-154, a self-amplifying mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, compared with saline placebo in an integrated phase 1/2/3a/3b controlled, observer-blind trial in Vietnamese adults (ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT05012943). Primary safety and reactogenicity outcomes were unsolicited adverse events (AE) 28 days after each dose, solicited local and systemic AE 7 days after each dose, and serious AEs throughout the study. Primary immunogenicity outcome was the immune response as neutralizing antibodies 28 days after the second dose. Efficacy against COVID-19 was assessed as primary and secondary outcomes in phase 3b. ARCT-154 was well tolerated with generally mild–moderate transient AEs. Four weeks after the second dose 94.1% (95% CI: 92.1–95.8) of vaccinees seroconverted for neutralizing antibodies, with a geometric mean-fold rise from baseline of 14.5 (95% CI: 13.6–15.5). Of 640 cases of confirmed COVID-19 eligible for efficacy analysis most were due to the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant. Efficacy of ARCT-154 was 56.6% (95% CI: 48.7– 63.3) against any COVID-19, and 95.3% (80.5–98.9) against severe COVID-19. ARCT-154 vaccination is well tolerated, immunogenic and efficacious, particularly against severe COVID-19 disease.

A phase I/II randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of a self-amplifying Covid-19 mRNA vaccine

Safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 variant mRNA vaccine boosters in healthy adults: an interim analysis

Safety and immunogenicity of Ad5-nCoV immunization after three-dose priming with inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in Chinese adults

Introduction.

The global COVID-19 pandemic disease is now largely under control and no longer considered a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) 1 . The unprecedented rapid development and distribution of several highly effective vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus (SARS-CoV-2) has limited the advance of the global pandemic. However, a major public health burden remains due to outbreaks of COVID-19 caused by new SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern 2 . Accumulation of mutations in the spike glycoprotein (S protein), the main antigenic target, has made each successive new variant less susceptible to vaccine-induced immunity 3 , which combined with waning vaccine immunity has contributed to declining effectiveness of the currently available vaccines against new variants 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 . Vaccine effectiveness against the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 of two doses of either of the two main licensed mRNA vaccines, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, has been calculated to decline to 50.8% (95% CI: 19.7, 69.8) by 7 months after the second dose 9 . Further, the most recently emerged Omicron variants cause less severe disease but are more infectious and easily transmissible 10 , 11 , leading to concerns that future variants may combine their high transmissibility with the severe disease of the original virus. These concerns are driving development of new vaccines that can elicit both greater breadth against new variants and longer duration of humoral immunity before antibodies wane to maintain protection against future COVID outbreaks.

One technology being applied in this development is the use of self-amplifying mRNA (sa-mRNA) that allows host cells to make copies of the vaccine mRNA, increasing the amount of protein produced with lower doses of administered mRNA 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 . Preclinical studies have shown sa-mRNA vaccines elicit a durable and broader activation of the immune response 16 . sa-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were safe and immunogenic in human phase 1 studies – a dose-ranging primary vaccination study 17 and a small booster study in older adults 18 . Arcturus Therapeutics, Inc (Arcturus, San Diego, CA, USA) has developed a group of sa-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, including ARCT-154, which encode the SARS-CoV-2 S glycoprotein 19 . Preclinical toxicology studies and an interrupted phase 2 clinical study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04668339) of the predecessor vaccine, ARCT-021, which encodes the Wuhan-Hu-1 strain S-protein, showed it was safe. In three phase 1/2 clinical trials involving >500 treated adults ARCT-021 had acceptable safety and tolerability profiles and two doses of 5 µg or more were shown to be immunogenic when administered 4 weeks apart 19 . ARCT-154 was then developed based on the S-protein with the D614G mutation, a proline substitution resulting in the S-protein being expressed in the prefusion conformation and furin cleavage site modification to improve stability. Additional changes include optimization of the replicon and modification of the vaccine impurity profile which were associated with increased immunogenicity and an improved tolerability profile compared with the parent vaccine in preclinical studies. Based on the human clinical experience with ARCT-021 we initiated the present accelerated, integrated phase 1/2/3a/3b study, designed following EMA, FDA and WHO guidance, to evaluate the safety, reactogenicity, immunogenicity, and efficacy of ARCT-154. We present the first study results up to three months after the first vaccination of human volunteers with this vaccine.

Study participants

This randomized, double-blind, controlled phase 1, 2, 3a, and 3b integrated study is ongoing at 16 study centers in Vietnam (Supplementary Table 1 ) where all study participants are being monitored until one year after their second vaccination; those results will be reported separately. This report covers data obtained from enrolment of the first phase 1 participant on 15 August 2021 until 12 January 2023, the cut-off for data extraction for interim safety and per protocol efficacy analyzes from phase 3b. Basic details of the four phases integrated into the whole study are illustrated in Fig. 1 . Enrollment was sequential from phase 1, approval for enrollment into subsequent phases only being given following analysis of initial safety data by an independent data safety monitoring board (DSMB). Demographics of participants in each study phase were generally similar across study groups in terms of gender, weight and BMI (Table 1 ). Median age was lowest in phase 1 in which only 18–60 years olds were enrolled, and highest in the phase 3b efficacy study as those ≥ 60 years of age were included. Study compliance was excellent across all phases, particularly in phases 1, 2, and 3a in which 99 of 100 (99%), 300 of 301 (99.7%), and 579 of 600 (96.5%) received their second dose, respectively (Table 1 ). In phase 3b, 7869 of 8056 (97.6%) received their second dose of ARCT-154 compared with 7831 of 8044 (97.3%) placebo recipients. At Day 1 in phases 1, 2, and 3a all participants were negative for anti-nucleocapsid antibody while in phase 3b, 99.4% of participants were negative (Table 1 ).

The different phases (1, 2, 3a and 3b) of the study are shown with randomization of ARCT-154 and placebo groups, and timings of interventions.

Numbers and percentages are based on those randomized; participants could be excluded from the analysis sets for more than one reason. Analysis sets: ITT, Intent-to-treat; mITT, modified Intent-to-treat; PP, Per protocol set; RAS, Reactogenicity analysis set; SAS, Safety analysis set; IAS, immunogenicity analysis set. In Phase 1/2/3a 1 participant randomized to ARCT-154 received Placebo as Dose 1 giving 748 receiving ARCT-154 and 253 receiving Placebo as Dose 1. Phase 3b: 7 participants randomized to Placebo did not receive Dose 1 giving 8041 in the SAS Placebo group; two participants who received ARCT-154 as Dose 1 but placebo as Dose 2 were removed from the ARCT-154 Dose 2 SAS arm giving 7867, and 6 participants randomized to Placebo received incorrect investigational product and were removed from the Placebo Dose 2 SAS arm giving 7822.

Safety and reactogenicity

Across phases 1, 2, and 3a 1001 participants received at least one dose of their allocated study treatment; of these 670 of 748 (89.6%) ARCT-154 vaccinees and 136 of 253 (53.8%) placebo recipients reported at least one adverse event after the first dose (Table 2 ). These rates declined slightly after the second dose but remained higher in vaccinees than placebo recipients. The majority of reported adverse events were solicited local reactions, mainly mild or moderate injection site pain or tenderness with few reports of swelling, induration or erythema (Fig. 3 ). Most local reactions occurred within three days of vaccination and resolved within 2-4 days after either dose (Supplementary Fig. 1 ). Solicited systemic adverse events were mainly mild or moderate in severity and also occurred within days 1–3 post-dose 1 or 2 and resolved within the follow-up period. Rates of most solicited systemic adverse events were higher in vaccinees than placebo recipients, the most frequent being fatigue, myalgia, headache, arthralgia and chills; unlike local reactions, rates of systemic adverse events were not markedly lower after the second dose compared with the first dose for both groups. In the larger phase 3b, rates of solicited AEs were higher in vaccinees than placebo recipients but lower than in phases 1, 2, and 3a (Fig. 4 ), and declined slightly after the second dose. For all doses AEs were mainly composed of mild to moderate local pain and tenderness, headache, fatigue and myalgia.

Solicited reactogenicity during 7 days after Doses 1 and 2 of ARCT-154 or placebo in the combined phase 1, 2 and 3a studies, with highest severity indicated as mild (Grade 1), moderate (Grade 2) or severe (Grade 3).

Solicited reactogenicity during 7 days after Doses 1 and 2 of ARCT-154 or placebo in the phase 3b study, with highest severity indicated as mild (Grade 1), moderate (Grade 2) or severe (Grade 3).

Incidences of unsolicited adverse events up to 28 days after each dose were similar in vaccinees and placebo recipients (Table 2 ). In phases 1, 2, and 3a rates were lower after the second dose than the first, but in phase 3b rates were similar after doses 1 and 2. Incidence rates of AEs considered related to study injections were all below 5% and rates of severe AEs were generally below 1% and similar in vaccine and placebo groups.

There were 30 serious adverse events reported in phases 1, 2, and 3a combined; 14 in 748 (1.9%) vaccinees and 16 in 253 (6.3%) placebo recipients; only two, both in placebo recipients, were considered to be related to study injections and led to discontinuation from the study. In the larger phase 3b study there were 319 serious adverse events, 118 in 8059 (1.5%) vaccinees and 201 in 8041 (2.5%) placebo controls. Fifteen serious adverse events were related to study injections, 10 (0.1%) to vaccine and 5 (0.1%) to placebo. There were no deaths in phases 1, 2, and 3a, but 21 deaths occurred in phase 3b, of 5 vaccinees and 16 placebo recipients. Of these, none were related to vaccination but 10 were considered to be associated with COVID-19 infection, one in a vaccinee and nine in placebo recipients.

Immunogenicity

Baseline immune responses assessed in 965 participants in phases 1, 2, and 3a, showed similar levels of surrogate virus neutralization antibody titers (sVNT) in ARCT-154 ( n = 723) and placebo ( n = 242) groups before vaccination (Fig. 5 ). Geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) in placebo recipients did not change by Days 29 or 56; 4 had seroconverted by Day 29 and 1 by Day 57. In contrast, ARCT-154 was highly immunogenic, with 386 of 717 (53.8%) vaccinees seroconverting by Day 29, four weeks after the first dose, and 658 of 699 (94.1%) seroconverting by Day 57, four weeks after the second dose. sVNT GMCs increased at each time point, with geometric mean-fold rises (GMFR) of 4.0 (95% CI: 3.7–4.2) at Day 29 and 14.5 (13.6–15.5) at Day 57. These sVNT immune responses were confirmed by the validated D614G microneutralization assay. This showed 375 of 391 (95.9%) vaccinees seroconverted by Day 57 after two doses of ARCT-154 compared with 3 of 131 (2.3%) placebo recipients (Fig. 5 ). The GMFR was 20.9 (95% CI: 19.2–22.9) in the ARCT-154 group and 1.2 (1.1–1.3) in the placebo group.

Responses shown Geometric mean concentrations of neutralizing antibodies (with 95% CI bars) and with seroconversion rates (SCR) and geometric mean-fold rises (GMFR) from baseline indicated below. Values shown are for N participants (indicated in each column) at each timepoint.

Vaccine efficacy (VE)

In Phase 3b there were 3632 (1652 ARCT-154, 1980 placebo) suspected cases of COVID-19 reported from Day 1 to Day 92. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from 1920/3632 (52.9%) cases within 3 days, 978/3632 (26.9%) within 4–7 days and 438/3632 (12.1%) within 8–14 days of symptom onset. An independent expert Event Adjudication Committee (EAC) adjudicated 836 virologically-confirmed cases and assessed 734 cases as COVID-19 disease (including 48 cases of severe COVID-19 and 10 deaths attributed to COVID-19), and 102 cases as asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these confirmed COVID-19 cases, 643 occurred from Day 36 to Day 92, but in three cases participants had received a non-study COVID-19 vaccine so were excluded from the modified Intention to Treat (mITT) set for analysis, leaving 640 eligible mITT cases (200 vaccinees and 440 placebo recipients), including 43 severe cases and 10 deaths attributed to COVID-19 (Table 3 , Fig. 6 ). The primary vaccine efficacy (VE) objective was met as two doses of ARCT-154 had an efficacy of 56.6% (95% CI: 48.7–63.3) against COVID-19 disease of any severity with the lower bound of the CI above the prespecified success threshold of 30%. Secondary analyses showed high efficacies against severe COVID-19 (95.3% [80.5–98.9]) and death due to COVID-19 (86.5% [-7.4–98.3]). Efficacy against any severity of COVID-19 was similar in male and female participants (Table 3 ). Efficacy against severe COVID-19 was 100% in healthy 18–59-year-olds and 91.9% (37.9–98.9) in “at-risk” participants in the same age group. In adults aged 60 years or older efficacy was 54.3% (28.2–70.9) against COVID-19 of any severity and 94.4% (58.2–99.3) against severe COVID-19.

Cumulative incidence curves of COVID-19 of any severity ( A ), and severe COVID-19 ( B ) in vaccine and placebo groups from Day 36 (per protocol).

In the mITT set 537 cases were analyzed to identify the responsible SARS-CoV-2 variant, revealing 477 (88.8%) were Delta (B.1.617.2) variant (164 and 313 in vaccine and placebo groups), two were Alpha (both placebo) one was Beta (placebo) and two were Omicron (one each vaccine and placebo) variants; viral variant was not determined in 55 (10.2%) cases (Supplementary Table 5 ). When assessed in only mITT cases in which Delta (B.1.617.2) was the identified variant two doses of ARCT-154 had 49.8% (95% CI: 39.3–58.4) efficacy against COVID-19 of any severity and 94.3% (57.4–99.2) against severe COVID-19 (Supplementary Table 6 ).

An additional 52 COVID-19 cases observed from Day 1 through Day 35, including three severe cases, were adjudicated to be eligible for secondary analyses of efficacy in the phase 3b Intention to Treat (ITT) set in which efficacy after any dose of ARCT-154 from Day 1 to Day 92 was similar to the mITT analyses (Table 3 , Supplementary Fig. 2 ); observed efficacy against COVID-19 of any severity was 56.6% (95% CI: 49.0–63.1) and 95.6% (81.5–98.9) against severe COVID-19. Finally, calculated efficacies against any severity of COVID-19 in the pooled phase 1, 2, and 3a participants were consistent with the observations in the phase 3b study as efficacy against any severity of COVID-19 from Day 36 to Day 92 (mITT) was 56.3% (95% CI: 18.2–76.7) and from Day 1 to Day 92 (ITT) was 58.9% (95% CI: 23.8–77.8) in that population (Supplementary table 7 ).

As new variants of SARS-CoV-2 virus continue to emerge approved mRNA vaccines have been found to have lower effectiveness estimates compared with the efficacy rates measured in their pivotal studies 6 , 7 , 8 . We achieved the primary objectives of phases 1, 2, and 3a of this integrated study, successful demonstrating acceptable safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of ARCT-154, with 95·9% seroconversion for neutralizing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 D614G variant. Demonstration of safety in these initial phases allowed recruitment into the larger phase 3b study population in which we show that two doses of ARCT-154 had a vaccine efficacy (VE) of 56.6% (95% CI: 48.7–63.3) against any severity of COVID-19 and more notably 95.3% (80.5–98.9) against severe COVID-19 in a background of predominantly Delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variant which caused 88.8% of infections where the variant was identified. This is the first published demonstration of the clinical efficacy of an sa-mRNA vaccine. ARCT-154 had > 90% efficacy against severe COVID-19 in those at risk for severe disease, those aged over 60 years, and adults from 18 to 59 years of age with underlying co-morbidities. Efficacy against death due to COVID-19 was 86.5% (−7.4–98.3); the wide confidence limits reflecting that there were only 10 deaths, one vaccinee and nine placebo recipients.

Efficacy of the first approved mRNA vaccines was demonstrated at a time when relatively low proportions of the study populations had been exposed to the circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus, and efficacy was measured against the prototype Wuhan-Hu-1 strain or one of the first variants to emerge which had only minor changes in the antigenic structure of the S protein target of these vaccines, rather than Delta (B.1.617.2). Hence, the original efficacy estimates of these vaccines against COVID-19 illness, including severe disease, were higher than that observed for ARCT-154, e.g., 95% (95% CI: 90.3–97.6) for BNT162b2 20 and 94·1% (89.3–96.8) for mRNA-1273 21 . However, the effectiveness of these first approved mRNA vaccines was observed to decline against emerging variants of concern, exacerbated by waning immunity following the initial vaccination series 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 . The effectiveness of a completed primary vaccination series of authorized COVID-19 vaccines against infection by the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant has been shown to range between 46% and 91%, and from 47% to 97% against severe COVID-19 disease due to Delta (B.1.617.2) variant 22 .

The lower VE of the ARCT-154 vaccine we observed may be a consequence of the definition of COVID-19 disease used in the trial, being based on presence of a single symptom in combination with positive RT-PCR. This allows the inclusion of a significant number of mild and marginally symptomatic cases in the analysis, and it is acknowledged that the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination increases with the severity of COVID-19 and decreases with time since vaccination. Effectiveness of a 3-dose series of BNT162b2 vaccine against mild, moderate and severe COVID-19, caused by the Omicron variant within 31 to 60 days after the last vaccination, was 7.9% (95% CI: 2.3–13.1), 49.2% (95% CI: 46.8–51.4) and 76.4% (95% CI: 72.4–79.8), respectively 23 . It was notable that ARCT-154 was much more efficacious against severe COVID-19 than disease of any severity. As such, the case definition used for primary efficacy analysis has a significant impact on the efficacy point estimate. Clinical studies with other vaccines have generally used a ‘more symptomatic’ definition of COVID-19 disease (a positive RT-PCR in combination with at least two systemic symptoms or at least one the respiratory signs or symptom).

Safety and reactogenicity in all phases indicate the vaccine is well tolerated, with mainly mild or moderate adverse events, most of which were transient local reactions. The most frequent solicited systemic adverse events were transient fatigue, myalgia, headache, and chills which resolved more quickly than the local reactions. All adverse events were more frequent after vaccine than placebo. Although trials were not identical in design so not directly comparable, reporting methods are sufficiently similar to allow us to note that overall systemic AEs and local reactions were similar or less frequent in recipients of ARCT-154 than licensed mRNA vaccines 24 . Although differences in reactogenicity might also be associated with cultural differences in the reporting of subjective adverse events when used a booster dose in mRNA-primed adults ARCT-154 had an almost identical reactogenicity profile as the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, when observed in a head-to-head comparison in Japan adults 25 .

Assessment of vaccinee immunogenicity against SARS-CoV-2 ancestral strain using the sVNT assay showed 94.1% seroconversion in vaccinees four weeks after the second dose, which was confirmed using the validated microneutralization assay which showed 95.9% seroconversion. There is currently no serologic correlate for protection by anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, but neutralizing antibody levels are highly predictive of immune protection 26 . This study probably represents the last opportunity to assess the efficacy of ARCT-154 in a SARS-CoV-2 naïve population as the global pandemic has resulted in most people having some exposure either through vaccination, natural infection, or both leading to hybrid immunity 27 . Due to the high level of vaccination coverage with waning immunity, the current need for COVID-19 vaccines is to re-establish population immunity to protect against the emerging variants still causing outbreaks 4 . As such, ARCT-154 is most likely to be used as a booster dose, rather than for primary immunization, to enhance and broaden the level of immunity against circulating variants. A parallel study in Japan has shown that in adults fully immunized with mRNA vaccines, mainly BNT162b2, as the primary vaccine, the immune response to a booster dose of ARCT-154 was superior to that of a booster dose of BNT162b2 when measured as neutralizing antibodies against Wuhan-Hu-1 and the Omicron 4/5 subvariant 25 . Further, the persistence of the response to ARCT-154 was better than to BNT162b2 up to 6 months after boosting 28 . The licensed vaccines have now been adapted to reflect the changing epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 including formulations based on the S-protein of the latest Omicron XBB.1.5 variant which are the currently recommended vaccines in the United States 29 .

Preclinical animal studies with the same proprietary technology as ARCT-154 have shown that it provides a durable immune response that includes the induction of neutralizing antibodies, and the activation of cell-mediated responses including CD4 + T cell interferon-γ and interleukin-4 secretion, antigen-specific CD8 + T cell responses, and an anti-spike protein IgG2: IgG1 ratio indicating a Th1-type dominant response 30 . It remains to be seen whether ARCT-154 induces similar responses in humans. In adults from 18-75 years of age Szubert et al. found 1 μg and 10 μg doses of an investigational lipid encapsulated SARS-CoV-2 sa-RNA vaccine induced neutralizing and anti-spike-IgG antibodies although there was only a modest correlation between the two measures 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 .

The study has recently completed and some of the limitations in this report, such as 12-month safety results and further investigations into the immunogenicity are being analyzed and will be disclosed in separate papers. Notably, long-term safety up to one year after vaccination and further investigations of the humoral and cellular immunogenicity to elucidate the nature of the immune response. Follow-up will also allow assessment of the durability of this response and levels of cross-neutralizing antibodies against newly emerged variants. Limited cross-neutralization data are available, but results from the already mentioned booster study in Japan show that ARCT-154 induces a superior cross-neutralizing response against Omicron BA.4/5 than a comparator mRNA vaccine both in magntiude 25 and persistence 28 . Updated formulations will also be required based on the latest variants, such as Omicron XBB.1.5 as already mentioned. If sa-mRNA vaccines do provide equivalent protective efficacy as the licensed mRNA vaccines, but with a lower amount of mRNA, there is potential to decrease the manufacturing cost per dose or to allow production of more doses which may be important factors in a future pandemic 30 .

This first demonstration of the clinical efficacy of the ARCT-154 sa-mRNA vaccine against COVID-19, together with acceptable safety and reactogenicity in a large study population, establishes the potential of sa-mRNA vaccines for future clinical use, and complements the other study that showed boosting with ARCT-154 provides superior immunogenicity against Omicron than an mRNA vaccine 25 , 28 . This supports the further development of sa-mRNA vaccines to augment the armamentarium against future COVID-19 outbreaks.

The protocol was approved by the ethics committee (EC) of each of the 16 study centers and the Vietnam National EC in Biomedical Research and Ministry of Health. All participants provided informed consent before enrolment, and the study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of Good Clinical Practice, the Declaration of Helsinki and International Council for Harmonisation (ICH E6R2), and applicable local regulatory and bioethics requirements. Primary objectives of phase 1, 2, and 3a studies were to assess in comparison with placebo the safety and reactogenicity of two ARCT-154 doses administered four weeks apart, and the immunogenicity four weeks after the second dose. Primary objectives of the phase 3b study were to assess the safety and reactogenicity of two doses of ARCT-154 and their efficacy against COVID-19 disease from 7 (Day 36) to 63 (Day 92) days after the second vaccination. An exploratory assessment of efficacy from Day 1 to Day 92 was done in all participants who had received at least one dose of ARCT-154 in any phase of the study. An independent data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) had full oversight over the study, including assessment of blinded data on safety and confirmed COVID-19 cases, and made recommendations to continue enrolment or the study.

Participants and study design

Study designs for individual study phases are illustrated in Fig. 1 . In phase 1 eligible participants were healthy adults > 18 to <60 years of age; in phases 2/3a/3b eligible participants were adults > 18 years of age. Enrolled volunteers in phases 1/2/3a were randomized 3:1 and those in phase 3b 1:1 to receive ARCT-154 or placebo. Phase 3b included volunteers at increased risk of severe COVID-19 due to their comorbidity status 31 or being ≥ 60 years old, and randomization included stratification of these at-risk participants. Phase 1 participants were recruited and treated first, parallel enrolment for phases 2 and 3a was only allowed after the DSMB and Vietnam MoH had reviewed all safety data collected up to 7 days after the second vaccination (Day 36) in phase 1. Similarly, enrolment for phase 3b was only approved following review of all safety data collected through Day 7 following the first dose in phases 2 and 3a.

Other than the above age restrictions, eligible participants were male or female adults who could consent to participate, agreed to comply with all required study visits and procedures, and were willing to provide required blood and nasal swab samples. Major exclusion criteria were evidence of an acute infection at the time of enrolment, pregnancy or breastfeeding, previous COVID-19 infection (including a positive result of RT-PCR), close contact with a person known to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 or any known history of anaphylactic reactions to vaccines. Detailed exclusion criteria are shown in Supplementary Table 2 .

At enrolment volunteers were allocated to ARCT-154 or placebo groups using an interactive response technology (IRT) system which provided a unique identifying study code and the allocated study intervention for each participant. Codes were accessible only to unblinded study personnel who prepared and administered the vaccine/placebo but played no other role in the study. All other study personnel and participants were blinded to study allocation. A nasal swab was collected for SARS-CoV-2 testing by RT-PCR at screening on or within 5 days of Day 1. On Day 1, after a baseline blood draw for testing for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid-specific antibodies and negative urine or blood pregnancy test for females of child-bearing potential, the first assigned vaccine or placebo injection was administered; a second dose was given in the same manner on Day 29. To ensure all participants received immunization against COVID-19 there was as switchover at Day 92 when placebo recipients from all phases were offered ARCT-154 as two doses four weeks apart. Vaccinees from the different phases received either a third dose of ARCT-154 or two doses of placebo. This report only presents data acquired up to Day 92, data from the switchover will be presented separately.

ARCT-154 consists of a replicon based upon Venezuela equine encephalitis virus in which RNA coding for the virus structural proteins has been replaced with RNA coding for the full-length spike (S) glycoprotein of the SARS-CoV-2 D614G variant, encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles. 100 μg active ingredient, stored in vials at -20 °C or lower, was dissolved in 10 mL sterile saline immediately before use and 0.5 mL doses containing 5 μg were administered by intramuscular injection in the deltoid. Placebo was sterile saline.

After 30 minutes monitoring for any immediate reactions, all participants completed electronic or paper study diaries for 7 days starting on the day of each study injection. Diaries solicited local reactions (injection site erythema, pain, induration/swelling, and tenderness) and systemic adverse events (AEs; arthralgia, chills, diarrhea, dizziness, fatigue, headache, myalgia, nausea/vomiting and fever). Unsolicited AEs were recorded up to 28 days after each vaccination. Any adverse event leading to discontinuation or withdrawal from the study, any medically attended adverse event (MAAE) or serious adverse event (SAE) was to be documented for one year of follow-up after the completion of the initial vaccination series. Here we present general safety data including MAAEs, SAES and withdrawals up to six months (Day 210). Participants were contacted through weekly telephone calls to ensure compliance with completing the study diaries, which were collected on Days 8 and 36, 7 days after each vaccination, and at a follow-visit on Day 57. Adverse event data was entered into the case report form, and the causal relationship of events was established by the reporting investigator.

Sera for immunogenicity analyses were collected on Days 1, 29 and 57. The primary immunogenicity objective was the response at Day 57 in all sera available from eligible phase 1/2/3a participants as measured at the Vietnamese National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology Laboratory using the SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test (sVNT) kit (GenScript, Piscataway, NJ, USA). This kit is a functional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for qualitative or semiquantitative detection of antibodies (Nabs) that block the binding of SARS-CoV-2 to the human ACE2 receptor of host cells. Antibodies were expressed as group geometric mean concentrations (GMC), seroconversion rates (SCR), and geometric mean fold rises (GMFR) from Day 1. Results were expressed in units per mL (U/mL) calibrated with the WHO standard serum.

To confirm observations from the exploratory assay, immunogenicity was also assessed in a validated 293T-ACE2 cell-based microneutralization assay by the Pharmaceutical Product Development Bioanalytical Laboratory (PPD, Richmond, VA, USA). This measured neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in sera from Days 1 and 57 from all phase 1 participants, the first 150 samples from phase 2, and randomly selected samples from the other participants in phase 2, and all available samples from phase 3a.

Evaluation of participants with suspected COVID-19

For efficacy assessments, participants with suspected COVID-19 were evaluated for the presence of potential symptoms and clinical signs of COVID-19 including fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion or runny nose, nausea, vomiting or diarrhea. Any of these symptoms occurring after 3 days post-vaccination triggered COVID-19 diagnostic testing. Where possible, participants visited their respective study clinic where nasal swabs were taken for RT-PCR, with documentation of medical history and medications taken. A protocol-defined COVID-19 case had to have virological confirmation (by RT-PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 and at least one of the symptoms or clinical findings listed above.

Case definitions for evaluations of COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 were based on US FDA recommendations in line with similar clinical trials, which for severe COVID-19 included any of the following: acute pulmonary, cardiac, renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; shock; death; or admission to an intensive care unit (Supplementary table 3 ). All suspected COVID-19 cases underwent blinded tiered review by an independent Event Adjudication Committee (EAC) composed of clinical experts experienced in the diagnosis, care, and treatment of COVID-19. The EAC reviewed blinded data from each case and concluded on whether the case met the protocol-defined COVID-19 case criteria, and severity according to the US FDA and WHO classifications. Only virologically confirmed, protocol-defined cases adjudicated by the EAC are included in the primary vaccine efficacy (VE).

Statistical analysis

Primary safety endpoints were evaluated in the Safety Analysis Set (SAS; all participants who received any study injection) and Reactogenicity Analysis Set (RAS; all participants who received any study injection and provide at least one diary report). Statistical analysis of safety and reactogenicity data was descriptive with frequency and percentage for participants analyzed according to study group.

Primary immunogenicity analysis in the Immunogenicity Analysis Set (IAS) included all participants who received both assigned study injections by the evaluated timepoint with no evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection at Day 1 (i.e., were seronegative for N-antibody) and at least one valid post-vaccination immunogenicity assay result. GMCs were calculated as the mean of log-transformed results and then exponentiating the mean (in order to present the results on the original scale). GMFR was calculated as the mean of the difference after log-transformed results (post baseline minus baseline) and exponentiating the mean. Two-sided 95% CI for GMCs and GMFRs were obtained by taking log-transformation of the antibody results; the 95% CI was calculated based on Student’s t-distribution for the mean difference, then exponentiating the confidence limits. Seroconversion was defined as 4-fold increase in titer from baseline and its two-sided 95% CI was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.

The primary efficacy objective was assessed in the modified Intention to Treat (mITT) set composed of all participants who received both assigned study injections and had no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection on Day 1 and up to Day 36, 7 days after the second study injection. The first primary endpoint was defined as the first occurrence of confirmed, protocol-defined COVID-19 with onset between Days 36 and 92 inclusive. For the overall primary efficacy objective of the study, the null hypothesis was that the vaccine efficacy (VE) of ARCT-154 to prevent COVID-19 was ≤ 30% (i.e., H0 efficacy : VE ≤ 0.3). Vaccine efficacy was calculated from 1-hazard ratio, where the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI are estimated by Cox proportional hazard regression. The primary efficacy objective would be met if the lower limit of the 95% CI for VE exceeded 30%; a total of 372 COVID-19 cases were needed to provide approximately 90% power to detect a 50% reduction in hazard rate (50% VE). Factors used as covariates in Cox proportional hazard regression included: Risk group: ≥ 18 to <60 years and “healthy”, ≥ 18 and <60 years and “at risk” and ≥ 60 years and study site region. If the primary efficacy objective was met, following a hierarchical approach, the null hypothesis that the vaccine efficacy to prevent occurrence of confirmed severe COVID-19 was ≤ 0% (i.e., H0 efficacy : VE severe ≤ 0) was also tested. A secondary efficacy assessment was done in the ITT set, comprising all participants who received at least one study injection, in which the secondary endpoint was the occurrence of confirmed, protocol-defined COVID-19 with onset at any time after the Dose 1 up to Day 92, inclusive.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

After the final study report is prepared, including the 12-month safety follow-up period, the data generated in this study will be made available to suitably qualified scientific researchers who make a request to the senior investigator or study sponsor with a appropriate protocol for a valid research project.

Lenharo M. WHO declares end to COVID-19's emergency phase. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01559-z (2023).

Jacobs, J. L., Haidar, G. & Mellors, J. W. COVID-19: challenges of viral variants. Ann. Rev. Med. 74 , 31–53 (2023).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Shao, W. et al. Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in real-world: a literature review and meta-analysis. Emerg. Microbes. Infect. 11 , 2383–2392 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Cocherie, T. et al. Epidemiology and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern: the impacts of the Spike mutations. Microorganisms 11 , 30 (2022).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Bernal, J. L. et al. Effectiveness of covid-19 vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. N. Engl. J. Med. 385 , 585–594 (2021).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Buchan, S. A. et al. Estimated effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron or Delta symptomatic infection and severe outcomes. JAMA Netw. Open 5 , e2232760 (2022).

Risk, M. et al. Comparative effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines against the Delta variant. Clin. Infect. Dis. 75 , e623–e629 (2022).

Tseng, H. F. et al. Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta variants. Nat. Med. 28 , 1063–1071 (2022).

Andrejko, K. L. et al. Waning of 2-dose BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection accounting for depletion-of-susceptibles bias. Am J Epidemiol 192 , 895–907 (2023).

Wolter, N. et al. Early assessment of the clinical severity of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant in South Africa: a data linkage study. Lancet 399 , 437–446 (2022).

He, X., Hong, W., Pan, X., Lu, G. & Wei, X. SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant: characteristics and prevention. MedComm 2 , 838–845 (2021).

Lundstrom, K. Self-replicating RNA viruses for vaccine development against infectious diseases and cancer. Vaccines (Basel) 9 , 1187 (2021).

Bloom, K., van den Berg, F. & Arbuthnot, P. Self-amplifying RNA vaccines for infectious diseases. Gene Ther. 28 , 117–129 (2021).

Lundstrom, K. The potential of self-amplifying RNA vaccines for infectious diseases and COVID-19. Vaccine Res. 7 , 25–37 (2020).

Vogel, A. B. et al. Self-amplifying RNA vaccines give equivalent protection against influenza to mRNA vaccines but at much lower doses. Mol. Ther. 26 , 446–455 (2018).

Komori, M. et al. saRNA vaccine expressing membrane-anchored RBD elicits broad and durable immunity against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Nat. Commun. 14 , 2810 (2023).

Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Pollock, K. M. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a self-amplifying RNA vaccine against COVID-19: COVAC1, a phase I, dose-ranging trial. EClinicalMedicine 44 , 101262 (2022).

Palmer, C. D. et al. GRT-R910: a self-amplifying mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine boosts immunity for ≥6 months in previously-vaccinated older adults. Nat. Commun. 14 , 3274 (2023).

Low, J. G. et al. A phase I/2 randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled ascending dose trial to assess the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of ARCT-021 in healthy adults. npj Vaccines 7 , 161 (2022).

Polack, F. P. et al. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. 383 , 2603–2615 (2020).

Baden, L. R. et al. Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. 384 , 403–416 (2021).

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). COVID-19 vaccine efficacy summary, November 18, 2022. Available at: https://www.healthdata.org/research-analysis/diseases-injuries/covid/covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-summary Accessed on November 14, 2023.

Tsang, N. N. Y., So, H. C., Cowling, B. J., Leung, G. M. & Ip, D. K. M. Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccination against asymptomatic and symptomatic infection of SARS-CoV-2 omicron BA.2 in Hong Kong: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 23 , 421–434 (2023).

Walsh, E. E. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of two RNA-based Covid-19 vaccine candidates. N. Engl. J. Med. 383 , 2439–2450 (2020).

Oda, Y. et al. Immunogenicity and safety of a booster dose of a self-amplifying RNA COVID-19 vaccine (ARCT-154) versus BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: a double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect. Dis. 24 , 351–360 (2024).

Khoury, D. S. et al. Neutralizing antibody levels are highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nat. Med. 27 , 1205–1211 (2021).

Jones, J. M. et al. Estimates of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and incidence of primary SARS-CoV-2 infections among blood donors, by COVID-19 vaccination status - United States, April 2021-September 2022. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 72 , 601–605 (2023).

Oda, Y. et al. Comment: persistence of immune responses of a self amplifying RNA COVID-19 vaccine (ARCT-154) versus BNT162b2. Lancet Infect. Dis. 24 , 341–343 (2024).

Regan, J. J. et al. Use of updated COVID-19 vaccines 2023–2024 formula for persons aged ≥6 Months: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — United States, September 2023. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 72 , 1140–1146 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

de Alwis, R. et al. A single dose of self-transcribing and replicating RNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine produces protective adaptive immunity in mice. Mol. Ther. 29 , 1970–1983 (2021).

Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Szubert, A. J. et al. COVAC1 phase 2a expanded safety and immunogenicity study of a self-amplifying RNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. eClinicalMedicine 56 , 101823 (2023).

CDC. Underlying medical conditions associated with higher risk for severe COVID-19: information for healthcare professionals/Summary of Conditions with Evidence. 13 May 2021. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-care/underlyingconditions.html (updated Feb 9, 2023) Accessed on August 1, 2023.

Pagano, M. & Gauvreau, K. Principles of Biostatistics 2nd edn (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018).

Deeks, J. J. & Higgins J. P. T. Statistical algorithms in Review Manager 5. Available from https://training.cochrane.org/ (2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the study staff at Hanoi Medical University, Pasteur Institute Hochiminh City, and Vietnam Military Medical University for assisting with study conduct; Hang Thi Vi, Trang Thu Hoang, Huong Vu Quynh Ngo, Ha Thai Pham, and Ngan Thi Le (Vietnam Biocare Biotechnology Jointstock Company) for contributing to study oversight; Lan Quynh Phan (Vinmec Healthcare System) for investigational product oversight; Anh-Tien Ngo (Hi-Tech Center, Vinmec Healthcare System) for sample processing and storage; Prof. Duc-Anh Dang, Thi-Khanh-Hang Le, NIHE and Vu-Tien Phan (Pasteur Institute Nha Trang) for immunogenicity assays; VietStar Biomedical Research for participating in study conduct and management. Hongfan Jin co-ordinated laboratory testing, Cindy Fisher, Ye Zhang and Pamela Resch participated in discussions with regulatory authorities regarding the protocol and development plan, and Deep Patel, Mukunda Krishna, Charles Cabral, and Claudia Averbuj provided expert support in drug product development, manufacturing and supply. We thank Keith Veitch (keithveitch communications, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) for editorial assistance in the preparation of the manuscript. The study was co-funded by Vinbiocare Biotechnology Joint Stock Company (Hanoi, Vietnam) and Arcturus Therapeutics Inc. (CA, USA), with no particular grants accorded to any specific researchers.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Vinmec-VinUni Institute of Immunology, Vinmec Healthcare System, Hanoi, Vietnam

Nhân Thị Hồ, Nhung-Thi-Hong Nguyen, Hai-Son Vu & Xuan-Hung Nguyen

Arcturus Therapeutics, Inc, San Diego, CA, USA

Steven G. Hughes, Suezanne Parker, Brian Sullivan, Sean Sullivan, Qian Ruan, Brenda Clemente, Brian Luk, Kelly Lindert, Dina Berdieva, Kat Murphy, Rose Sekulovich, Benjamin Greener, Igor Smolenov & Pad Chivukula

Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam

Van Thanh Ta, Anh Thị Văn Phạm, Mai Thị Ngọc Đặng & Quang Vinh Trịnh

Pasteur Institute, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Lân Trọng Phan, Thượng Vũ Nguyễn, Toàn Trọng Nguyễn, Quang Chấn Lương & Vy Thị Tường Lê

Vietnam Military Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam

Quyết Đỗ, Lượng Viết Nguyễn, Hùng Ngọc Phạm, Mến Văn Chử & Thắng Văn Nguyễn

Hi-tech Center, Vinmec Healthcare System, Hanoi, Vietnam

Lý-Thi-Lê Trần & Xuan-Hung Nguyen

Vietnam Biocare Biotechnology Jointstock Company, Hanoi, Vietnam

Lý-Thi-Lê Trần, Anh Thi Van Luu, Anh Ngoc Nguyen & Vân Thu Nguyễn

CSL Sequiris Inc, New Jersey, USA

Jonathan M. Edelman

College of Health Sciences, Vin University, Hanoi, Vietnam

Xuan-Hung Nguyen

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

N.T.H., X.-H.N., L.T.L.T., V.T.N., S.G.H. and K.L. participated in the design, protocol development and conduct of the study. N.T.H., S.G.H., B.G. and I.S. participated in verifying the underlying data reported in the manuscript. J.M.E. reviewed the study results and provided critical review of the manuscript. S.P., B.S., S.S., Q.R., B.C., P.C. and B.L. participated in vaccine development, optimization, manufacturing control, and vaccine release for clinical use. B.G., I.S., N.T.H. and P.C. oversaw and participated in the data analysis plan, data analysis and manuscript preparation. V.T.N., X.-H.N., K.M. and D.B. had overall management of the study. X.-H.N., N.T.H.N., H.-S.V. and R.S. oversaw laboratory testing and analyses. L.T.L.T., A.T.V.L. and A.N.N. oversaw study operations. V.T.T., A.T.V.P., T.Vu.N., L.P.T., H.N.P., M.V.C., M.T.N.D., Q.V.T., Q.C.L., T.T.N., V.T.T.L., Q.D., L.V.N. and T.Van.N. oversaw study conduct at sites.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xuan-Hung Nguyen .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

S.H., S.P., B.S., S.S., Q.R., B.C., B.L., K.L., D.B., K.M., R.S., B.G. and I.S. were all full-time employees of the vaccine manufacturer and study sponsor, Arcturus Therapeutics, Inc., at the time of the study. T.T.L.L. and N.T.V. are employees of the vaccine licensee, Vietnam Biocare Biotechnology Joint Stock Company. Other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Communications thanks Hannah Cheeseman, Sheena McCormack and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, peer review file, reporting summary, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hồ, N.T., Hughes, S.G., Ta, V.T. et al. Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of the self-amplifying mRNA ARCT-154 COVID-19 vaccine: pooled phase 1, 2, 3a and 3b randomized, controlled trials. Nat Commun 15 , 4081 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47905-1

Download citation

Received : 05 September 2023

Accepted : 16 April 2024

Published : 14 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47905-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
ScientificWorldJournal
v.2012; 2012

Self-Efficacy as a Positive Youth Development Construct: A Conceptual Review

Sandra k. m. tsang.

1 Department of Social Work and Social Administration, Faculty of Social Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong

Eadaoin K. P. Hui

2 Division of Learning Development and Diversity, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong

Bella C. M. Law

Self-efficacy denotes people's beliefs about their ability to perform in different situations. It functions as a multilevel and multifaceted set of beliefs that influence how people feel, think, motivate themselves, and behave during various tasks. Self-efficacy beliefs are informed by enactive attainment, vicarious experience, imaginal experiences, and social persuasion as well as physical and emotional states. These beliefs are mediated by cognitive, motivational, affective, and selection processes to generate actual performance. Self-efficacy development is closely intertwined with a person's experiences, competencies, and developmental tasks in different domains at different stages in life. This paper reviews the literature to outline the definition and theoretical conceptualizations of the construct originally devised by Bandura that have flourished since the 1990s. Drawing from the studies of the construct to assess self-efficacy, and to inform positive youth development, the paper will present the determinants of the development of self-efficacy beliefs and identify the connection between self-efficacy and adolescent developmental outcomes. The paper will conclude with strategies to enhance youth self-efficacy and proposals for future research directions.

1. Background

Since the 1970s, the social cognitive theory proposed by Bandura [ 1 – 3 ] has been one of the most influential theories used to guide the understanding of human behavior and the motivational determinants of such behavior. The theory advocates a theme of “triadic reciprocity” which asserts that a person's behavior is constantly under the reciprocal influence of the environment and personal cognitions. When applied in the context of adolescent development, such as academic performance, this theory suggests that an adolescent's academic performance (behavior) is influenced by how this adolescent's beliefs (cognitions) are affected by the support provided by his or her significant others, including parents, teachers, and peers (the environment). Bandura argues that self-efficacy is the most pivotal factor affecting a person's cognition, and his assertion has popularized self-efficacy studies since the 1990s.

The following sections aim to present findings and observations from a review of the literature on the definition, assessment, theoretical conceptualizations, adolescent development outcomes, and promotion strategies of self-efficacy, with specific reference to positive youth development. Identified research gaps and suggestions for future research will also be presented.

2. Definition of Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to one's beliefs in one's capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to achieve given results [ 4 ]. In the 1994 Encyclopedia of Human Behavior [ 5 ], Bandura emphasized that “self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave” (p.71). The concept has been used in research in two different ways: as “task self-efficacy” denoting the perceived ability to perform a particular behavior and as “coping self-efficacy” denoting the perceived ability to prevent, control, or cope with potential difficulties that might be encountered when engaged in a particular performance [ 6 , 7 ]. In the context of seeking evidence-informed ways to promote positive youth development, these two perspectives are both very useful because adolescents enjoy optimal physical growth and energy and are open to the formulation of their self-identity [ 8 ]. They actively address the potentials and possibilities as well as the challenges and crises of their adolescent developmental stage [ 9 ]. Their beliefs in their self-efficacy for different tasks and the cumulative effects of such beliefs will significantly influence their immediate and long-term development.

Self-efficacy is experimentally validated through substantial causality-testing research projects involving “different modes of efficacy induction, diverse populations, using both inter-individual and intra-individual verification, in all sorts of domains of functioning, and with micro level and macro level relations” (Bandura, 1997, as cited in p.18 [ 10 ]). Results suggest that self-efficacy functions as a multilevel and multifaceted set of beliefs, each differing in level, strength, and generativity [ 11 ].

That means, aside from a general perception of self-efficacy, there can be very specific beliefs in self-efficacy regarding different domains of oneself (e.g., physical strength in soccer, or the stamina to prepare for a difficult mathematics test). Self-efficacy beliefs also vary in level, strength, and generativity across different domains.

Using language self-efficacy for an illustration, the self-efficacy level refers to variations of self-efficacy beliefs across the mastery of a first and second language; the strength of perceived self-efficacy is indicated by the degree of certainty in using the language in social or formal occasions, while generativity refers to the transfer of self-efficacy beliefs across different language assignments (e.g., written or oral presentations). Each belief and its impact are sensitive to variations in situation, context, and task, and they orchestrate and steer a person's course of actions (performance) that generate outcomes in the form of positive or negative physical, social, and self-evaluation effects [ 4 ].

3. Assessment of Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy assessment is needed for understanding the nature and strength of beliefs that influence performance. Quantitative and qualitative assessment measures and strategies have been devised to assess general self-efficacy, as well as sources and processes of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is best assessed within the consideration of contextual factors in order to discern whether it plays a mediating, moderating, or other role in a behavioral performance. In the case of secondary school students' development, contextual factors like gender, ethnicity, academic ability, and academic domain should be priority concerns.

Usher and Pajares [ 12 ] described and critically reviewed both quantitative and qualitative means to assess sources of self-efficacy in school. They found that scales using Likert-type items have been created to assess sources like mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasions, and physiological state. These sources have varied psychometric properties when tested with construct or explanatory factor analysis, or construct validity and internal reliability. However, they also found that the reliability measures on vicarious experiences have consistently been notably low, and more studies are needed to strengthen such measures.

Usher and Pajares [ 12 ] also identified some qualitative methods that can be used to assess self-efficacy and sources of self-efficacy under different personal, social, situational, and temporal conditions. Methods include grounded theory, ethnography, classroom observations, case studies, interviews, self-reports on recalled reasons for self-efficacy judgments, and self-assigned weights of self-efficacy regarding academic performance. It was found that the semistructured interview is most useful for capturing both the objective and subjective aspects of self-efficacy beliefs, and the nature and processes of the influence of these beliefs on performance.

Qualitative methods are particularly useful for studying cases where individuals still harbor disabling self-doubts even though they have been recognized to have more than adequate competence in performing the task in question. Thus, it is important to synthesize the assessment of such sources with an assessment of psychological processes like motivation, emotion management, strategies in task selection, and problem-solving resourcefulness.

In view of the fact that self-efficacy is complex and context specific, there is a need for researchers to develop thorough measures that effectively assess the multidimensionality of the hypothesized sources and processes of self-efficacy, together with the strengths and dynamic interactions of these sources and processes. O'Sullivan and Strauser [ 13 ] once stated that “It should be noted that for almost any behavior that can be imagined an efficacy scale has been developed” (p.257) (e.g., diabetes management efficacy scale, science-teacher efficacy scale, internet use efficacy scale, etc.).

While it appears that great advancement has been achieved in the assessment of self-efficacy, it has to be noted that generating some very task-specific assessment measures in the changing world where young people learn and live can be a time-consuming and even endless pursuit. It seems that while striking the right balance between generality and specificity, future research should still try to find the core elements of self-efficacy beliefs that are sensitive to intervention and that can be reliably and validly measured and compared for changes.

In Hong Kong, attempts to develop a self-efficacy scale for Chinese junior secondary school students have been made [ 14 ], and the psychometric properties of that scale are satisfactory. The scale consists of 7 items including statements like “When I face life difficulties, I feel helpless” that are to be answered in a 6-point Likert format. It is still a rather general self-efficacy scale for youths, but it is a big step forward in devising ways to measure culture-specific self-efficacy in young people in China. This is important as China is having an increasing influence on the world both in terms of the size of its population and its resource potentials. There is also evidence showing that because Chinese parents and children still value academic achievement as the most important facilitator for upward social mobility, they assert so much concern on academic performance that often high academic achievers still suffer from low academic self-efficacy [ 15 – 17 ].

All these things suggest that for Chinese, in addition to a general self-efficacy scale, other scales focusing on more specific domains like academic, social, sports, moral, information technology management, and social services also need to be developed in order to fully address the different aspects of youth talents and performance and to yield information on possible means of intervention.

4. Theories on Self-Efficacy

Research-informed theoretical formulations of self-efficacy drew from learning, cognitive, and social cognitive theories and were able to shed light on the nature, sources, and psychological processes involved in the formation of self-efficacy beliefs. Learning theories attempting to explain the emergence of behavior first focused on conditioning, and then on the consequences of behavior. Cognitive theories of learning introduced cognition into the behavior generation process and emphasized the consideration of gains or losses resulting from performing the said behavior as significant deciding factors. According to Klassen and Usher [ 18 ], “Bandura's Social Cognition Theory marks human functioning as the product of a dynamic interplay of personal, behavioral and environmental influences. These factors exert their influence through a process of reciprocal determinism, by which (a) personal factors in the form of cognition, affect, and biological events, (b) behavior, and (c) environmental influences interact” (p.3).

Research along this line shows that people's self-efficacy beliefs about their capabilities and about the outcomes of their efforts are particularly predictive of actual behavior, like academic performance and even vocational choices. Self-efficacy is also “associated with key motivational constructs like causal attributions, self-concept, optimism, achievement goal orientation, academic help-seeking, anxiety, and value” (p.751) [ 12 ] and is thus the most important construct of the social cognitive theory.

The theory asserts that self-efficacy beliefs work through the four major psychological processes listed below to produce actual performance.

Cognitive processes: these include self-appraisal of capabilities, skills, and resources; goal selection; construction of success and failure scenarios in the goal accomplishment processes; generation and selection of problem-solving options; sustaining the necessary attention and functioning for task completion.
Motivational processes: self-efficacy beliefs affect one's self-regulation of motivation. Three cognitive motivators, namely, “attribution,” “value of expected outcomes,” and “clarity and value of goals” have been identified as being influenced by self-efficacy beliefs.
Affective processes: a person's self-perception of coping abilities affects the person's arousal threshold and their tolerance of emotional threats like anxiety and depression [ 11 ]. Even the process and outcome of threat management can be affected by procedures like guiding imagery to adjust anxiety symptoms when encountering stressors [ 19 ].
Selection processes: decisions on choice of residence, career, family setup, and even use of time can directly influence a person's functioning. In order to attain the outcomes they are interested in, people with high self-efficacy are more proactive in selecting and creating a physical and social environment that matches their perceived capabilities and resources. Their chances of successful goal attainment and personal development are also maximized in the process.

According to Bandura [ 4 ] and Maddux and Gosselin [ 7 ], self-efficacy beliefs formed through the above processes are not static. They are constantly informed, energized, or depleted through at least five identifiable primary sources that are affected by a person's interpretations of former and current experiences.

Mastery experiences: cognitive processes working on the previous experience of mastery or success in an actual task performance will raise self-efficacy. Successful perseverance through some hardship in the task completion process can even reinforce the durability of self-efficacy. That explains why the adventure-based type of experiential training is both welcomed by young people and found to have a positive impact on their growth and development.
Vicarious experience: observation of successful task performance by social models (like parents and teachers), and by those whose capabilities are similar to oneself (like peers for young people), generates a strong sense of self-efficacy. Effective mastery and coping models, such as parents, teachers, or peers who cope competently with challenges, can demonstrate and stimulate the learning of skills and strategies [ 20 ]. These models can also promote the readiness of young people to put ideas into action, thus creating more chances for success that will further enhance self-efficacy.
Social persuasion: convincing verbal persuasion given by significant others, like parents and teachers [ 21 , 22 ], can enhance a young person's self-efficacy, provided that the youth really possesses the capabilities in question. Failure to complete a task that was based on false expectations can do more to damage self-efficacy beliefs than to build them up. Successful social persuasion should include manipulation of all variables in the triadic reciprocity process: expansion of the behavior repertoire through skills training and environmental control to facilitate successful performance, as well as convincing persuasion of the desirability of the outcome. In recent years, there has been an emerging trend to introduce mature and successful adults from the community to serve as mentors for young people in order to expand the social capital of young people beyond family and school boundaries. The role modeling and guidance of these mentors should provide useful self-efficacy sources for young people.
Physiological and affective states: actual and perceived physiological and emotional conditions work directly through the affective processes described in the above section to influence a person's self-efficacy beliefs. These physiological and emotional conditions include physical and mental readiness for action, vulnerability to fatigue, and susceptibility to a decision to continue or give up. These states also influence the person's subscription to different ways of interpreting and handling all this information. These are particularly important for young people because young people possess important developmental resources like physical energy and emotional accessibility and can benefit greatly if such sources are optimized in time.
Imaginal experiences: imaginal rehearsal of successful or unsuccessful performance, be it deliberate or while ruminating, can improve coping strategy and enhance self-efficacy [ 7 ]. Examples include imagination-based interventions such as systematic desensitization and covert modeling [ 23 ]. In promoting youth self-efficacy, the use of experiential exercises and role playing in skills practice has been found to be helpful in expanding youth experience and preparation [ 24 ].

Careful understanding and manipulation of the above psychological processes and sources that influence the formation and functioning of self-efficacy beliefs should create promising avenues for the promotion of self-efficacy. In the context of positive youth development, Usher and Pajares [ 12 ] critically reviewed the literature on the sources of self-efficacy in school and proposed directions for research and enhancement strategies.

Suggestions include (a) paying attention to both a quantitative and a qualitative assessment of self-efficacy in order to fine-tune the theory and the conceptualization of the nature and the function of its sources and processes; (b) making self-efficacy considerations more context, task, age, gender, academic domain, academic level, and culture sensitive, while also examining their generalizability; (c) utilizing the relationship between the sources of self-efficacy to introduce even more creative enhancement strategies; (d) identifying if there are other sources of self-efficacy in addition to the four proposed by Bandura.

Specifically, Usher and Pajares identified an invitational approach [ 25 ] that suggests that the beliefs people develop about themselves and about others jointly form the perceptual lenses through which people view the world and appreciate new experiences. The messages (or invitations) that people receive and send are pivotal in creating self-efficacy beliefs. Bandura also stated that the interplay amongst the self-efficacy sources can be additive, relative, multiplicative, or configurative.

While Bandura nearly exclusively emphasizes the causal importance of self-efficacy beliefs in influencing final behavior, there is also increasing evidence drawing due attention to the importance of outcome expectancies in producing behavior. Some of the recent applications on young people include expectancy studies on indulgent behavior, like gambling, smoking [ 26 ], and cyber addiction [ 27 ]. There should also be more discussion on how to manage possible mismatches between self-efficacy and the knowledge and skills necessary for task performance, and how to help youths with low competence and inadequate work attitudes but high self-efficacy buildup functional competence and attitude. More studies are still needed to establish the specific role of each self-efficacy source and process and the role they play in informing and enhancing actual performance.

In recent years, self-efficacy studies have been giving more attention to the environmental variable, and to discussing individual versus collective self-efficacy. In a context like secondary schools where adolescents are constantly in close interaction with their peers and teachers, research should go beyond individual efficacy studies and examine the collective efficacy of the whole class, subgroups in the class, teachers and students as subgroups in a school, or one school versus others in open competitions with other schools [ 18 ].

As adolescents are still mainly under the influence of families and schools in their development, attempts to theorize and enhance adolescent development and performance should also give more attention to the efficacy beliefs of parents and teachers. The quality of the role performance of parents and teachers should be examined together with the impact of such on the development of young people's study habits, values and attitudes, health and social habits, and how they can avoid risky behavior.

5. Self-Efficacy and Adolescent Developmental Outcomes

Pajares [ 28 ] reviewed over 20 years of self-efficacy research and identified two main lines of study: (a) connecting self-efficacy beliefs with college major and vocational choices and (b) surveying the connections amongst self-efficacy, other psychological constructs, and academic performance. There are numerous research studies showing that self-efficacy beliefs help determine both task performance (whether people choose to attempt certain tasks, how they attempt the tasks) and coping (how people tackle challenges arising from trying to complete the task, the degree of anxiety and frustration they experience in the process). In the case of adolescents, Pajares and Urdan [ 29 ] showed that self-efficacy predicts academic areas and levels, while Brown and Lent [ 30 ] identified that self-efficacy predicts students' college major and career choices. In their 2008 review of the literature since 1977 on the sources of self-efficacy in school, Usher and Pajares [ 12 ] observed that self-efficacy is “associated with key motivational constructs such as causal attributions, self-concept, optimism, achievement goal orientation, academic help-seeking, anxiety, and value” (p.751). Self-efficacy is also connected to self-regulated learning, including students' decision to stay in school [ 31 ], and academic procrastination [ 32 ].

Aside from academic performance and study style, self-efficacy also has an impact on adolescents' performance in extracurricular activities like soccer [ 19 ]. A review of two school intervention projects aiming to promote students' self-efficacy and school mental health in Germany found that individualized task demands and specific teacher feedback enhance student self-efficacy, while social self-efficacy is fostered through a positive class climate with mutual support amongst students, and when teachers are sensitive to the individual needs of the students [ 24 ]. The students who finished the projects reported improved motivational orientations, coping with stress, and conflict solving. Cicognani [ 33 ] studied 342 adolescents and found that coping resources like self-efficacy helped them survive minor stressors and fostered psychological well-being and social support.

In recent years, research into the role of self-efficacy in the regulation of involvement in peer aggression and defending the victim [ 34 ], or in indulgent behavior like smoking [ 35 ], drinking [ 36 ], drug addiction [ 37 ], and internet usage [ 38 ] has also produced very promising results.

6. Promotion of Self-Efficacy in Adolescents

There is plenty of research evidence indicating that timely and strategic cultivation of positive self-efficacy in early adolescence is important and possible. In 1998, Richard Catalano and his colleagues in the University of Washington reviewed 25 effective “Positive Youth Development Programs in the United States” and found that each of these programs included a component to promote self-efficacy [ 39 ]. Popular themes included the enhancement of skills, responsibility, supportive relationships, and belonging. There is also an increased indication that the promotion strategies have to be age, gender, task, and culture specific to show the best results, and using self-efficacy evaluation measures tailored for the task to be mastered will also show the clearest intervention effect [ 18 ]. These findings have informed teaching in Hong Kong and research demonstrating their usefulness is just beginning to build up. Some of the strategies found useful for Chinese school children were competitions in vicarious learning for writing tasks [ 40 ], and delivering individual and formative evaluative feedback to foster self-efficacy in English vocabulary acquisition [ 41 ].

Aside from work done with individual adolescents, increasing attention is being paid to cultivate collective self-efficacy [ 18 ]. A whole class in a secondary school, or a group in a team project, or even a whole school, can also be used as a collective unit, depending on whether it is a class, group, or school-based task. Inclusion of the belief in efficacy, be it the team leader, a fellow student, or the responsible teacher or trainer, is also found to be useful in appreciating the full sources and dynamics of self-efficacy.

Since most children stay at home and then go to primary and secondary school for education before they enter tertiary education, parents and teachers should be important contextual agents to be included in studies of social cognitive theory. Surprisingly, a review of 244 articles on self-efficacy from the period 2000–2009 found that some 40% studied teachers while only 2% studied parents [ 18 ]. Fan and Williams [ 21 ] found that parental advising on study in English and family rules for watching television were positively linked to students' engagement and intrinsic motivation towards both English and mathematics. As most Chinese parents put a very high priority on supporting their children to achieve academically, and as home-school cooperation has been found to provide useful support for adolescent development [ 22 ], it is important that self-efficacy studies draw adequately from these two important contextual agents.

7. Research Gaps and Future Research Directions

Considering the current literature, and the review of self-efficacy studies from 1977 up to 2007 by Usher and Pajares [ 12 ] (Usher and Pajares used sources, antecedents, self-efficacy, and development in various combinations as search items), as well as the review by Klassen and Usher on 244 articles from 65 journals of self-efficacy studies [ 18 ], the following is recommended for future self-efficacy research, especially where adolescent positive development is concerned:

refine the measurement of the self-efficacy sources: each of the four named self-efficacy sources differs in nature, and they vary according to the task and the context in question, so that there should be source and task-specific assessments to detect any changes with adequate sensitivity;
foster new methods of inquiry: aside from purely quantitative measures, qualitative and mixed method assessment should also be used. In addition to self-administered questionnaires, interviews, and self-reported recall tasks, innovative research design should also be developed to capture the full interplay amongst the person, their behavior, and the environment in human functioning;
consider new elements and paths in social cognition theory: this might include new sources of self-efficacy like the invitational approach [ 25 ], optimism, and positive psychology, as well as the role of outcome expectancy [ 42 ]. There should be more investigation into the transformative experience in the formation of self-efficacy. Exploration into the neurobiological basis of self-efficacy, in adolescence and across the human life-span, should also be another productive agenda;
attend to collective efficacy: Klassen and Usher [ 18 ] found that during the period 2000–2009, education-related studies on collective efficacy were few and focused on teachers rather than students. It is high time such collective beliefs were better understood, and that individual and collective efficacies were put into proper perspective;
attend to gender, age, and cultural variations: according to a ten-year review [ 18 ], over 60% of the 244 articles reviewed were on N. America, with only 20% on Asia. With the growing impact of globalization, and communication without borders on the internet, more attention should be paid to different forms of culture when trying to understand the nature and dynamics of self-efficacy. Aside from describing the effects of gender, age, and cultural differences on self-efficacy, it is also important to find out the causes for such differences. As an example, the roles of an individual's gender orientation and personal style, as well as the role of the home, culture, school, and the mass media, should all be clearly discerned to sharpen the effectiveness of interventions. With a growing number of children with special educational needs, and the effect the complex interplay of challenges to their learning has on their self-efficacy and performance, due attention must be paid to understanding how to support such children, parents, and teachers in the best way.

4 Ways To Improve And Increase Self-Efficacy

Many years and several thousand studies’ worth of research have demonstrated how critical this belief is for helping us to achieve our goals.

This remains true whether we are planning out an entirely new career trajectory or determining the odds of burning our dinner on the stove.

So how do we develop this central belief in our capabilities?

In this article, we’ll walk you through the four key sources of self-efficacy and provide you with a range of strategies to increase your or others’ self-efficacy across different facets of life.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Goal Achievement Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients create actionable goals and master techniques to create lasting behavior change.

This Article Contains

How self-efficacy develops, what is low self-efficacy, 3 examples of low self-efficacy in research, 4 ways to increase self-efficacy, how to best promote self-efficacy in education, 2 worksheets designed to build self-efficacy, 3 self-efficacy scales, a take-home message, frequently asked questions.

Self-efficacy is defined as…

“… an individual’s belief in his or her capacity to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainments.”

Carey & Forsyth (2009)

Bandura (1977) recognized four salient sources of self-efficacy and asserted that it is by the interplay of these factors that we develop significant belief or disbelief in our abilities.

1. Mastery Experiences

Among the four sources of self-efficacy, Bandura identified mastery experiences as the most powerful driver of self-efficacy (1977).

Mastery experiences are the experiences we gain when taking on new challenges and succeeding (Akhtar, 2008). For instance, a person who does not consider him or herself very skilled at cooking may increase their self-efficacy in this area by successfully cooking different dishes for several nights.

According to Smith (2002), there are two reasons why mastery experiences may have the greatest benefits for self-efficacy.

First, mastery experiences are based on direct, personal experience rather than secondhand accounts. Therefore, by drawing on this direct evidence of our performance from the past, we become able to infer our capabilities in the future.

Secondly, mastery experiences allow us to observe direct links between an investment of effort and successful performance, thereby increasing expectancy judgments about our ability to perform well in particular situations (Vroom, 1964).

2. Vicarious Experiences

The second source of self-efficacy is vicarious experiences. Bandura (1977) argued that when we observe others succeeding (or failing) at activities, we can estimate our own likelihood of success or failure when performing similar activities based on the similarity or difference we perceive between ourselves and the person we are observing (Wood & Bandura, 1989).

To illustrate, imagine a young man who observes a man of similar age on the television lifting enormous dumbbells. Given that the man on the television is of a similar age to him, the viewer might reasonably expect that he, too, could lift dumbbells of similar weight, motivating him to work out harder at the gym.

An eighty-year-old man watching the weightlifter, on the other hand, is more likely to perceive a greater discrepancy between himself and the weightlifter. Therefore, watching the weightlifter is less likely to increase his self-efficacy about his ability to lift weights than it is for the younger man.

3. Verbal Persuasion

Next is verbal persuasion. According to (Wood & Bandura, 1989):

“… if people receive realistic encouragement, they will be more likely to exert greater effort and to become successful than if they are troubled by self-doubts.”

Wood & Bandura, 1989 (p. 365)

In sum, a few words of encouragement will rarely go amiss.

To illustrate, imagine a vocalist who is about to take the microphone but is feeling nervous. If that vocalist’s friend were to remind her of all the practice she’s undertaken recently, as well as how wonderful she sounds each time she sings, it is likely the vocalist’s self-efficacy would increase, and she’d feel a little less nervous.

4. Physiological Arousal

The final source of self-efficacy is physiological arousal, otherwise known as affective or emotional arousal. This final driver recognizes the association between fatigue or tiredness and a lack of capacity to perform (Bandura, 1986).

Likewise, unpleasant emotional states like fear, anxiety, and depression can have the global effect of making us feel less competent overall, thereby filtering down to affect our more specific self-efficacy judgments in particular situations (Conger & Kanungo, 1988).

For instance, drawing on an example from research (Jones, Mace, Bray, MacRae, & Stockbridge, 2002), imagine a novice climber preparing to scale a cliff face. A climber experiencing more physiological stress (e.g., weariness, tension) is likely to have less belief in their ability to execute the correct climbing technique than a climber not experiencing physiological stress.

Overall, physiological arousal is sometimes argued to be the least powerful driver of self-efficacy (Chowdhury, Endres, & Lanis, 2002), given that it is usually only distally related to our ability to perform. For instance, whether or not we are more tired than usual shouldn’t bear as significant an impact on our belief about whether we can write a 1000-word essay in the same way that our previous experiences of writing will.

Therefore, those who exhibit high self-efficacy generally will hold optimistic beliefs about their ability to cope with stress, resist temptations, and persist in the face of challenges.

In contrast, people with low self-efficacy will be more pessimistic about their ability to tolerate stress, give up on goals more quickly, and draw on less adaptive coping strategies when experiencing stress (Bandura, 1997).

As a consequence, people with low self-efficacy are more likely to avoid challenges. They are also vulnerable to self-fulfilling prophecies of failure and learned helplessness (Margolis & McCabe, 2006).

Download 3 Free Goals Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients create actionable goals and master techniques for lasting behavior change.

Download 3 Free Goals Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Email Address *
Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Self-efficacy has been shown to be a critical determinant of wellbeing and effective functioning across a range of domains.

To illustrate, let’s take a closer look at three examples of low self-efficacy and its correlates in research.

1. Low self-efficacy and depression

Findings have shown that low self-efficacy can predict symptoms of depression in certain populations suffering from disease. One study published in the Annals of Behavioral Medicine (Shnek et al., 1997) explored the ways self-efficacy and learned helplessness impacted individuals with brain and spinal cord injuries.

On examining a large sample of multiple sclerosis patients, researchers found that low self-efficacy was a powerful indicator of depression and helplessness among patients with nervous system dysfunctions.

Further, the study indicated that cognitive distortions in people with low self-efficacy indirectly contributed to their depressive symptoms and led to impaired perceptions of the self and one’s surroundings.

2. Low self-efficacy and pain management

Another study has shown that low self-efficacy can thwart the intended effects of medical interventions. For example, one study by Holman and Lorig (1992) assessed the effects of individual differences on the effectiveness of a pain management intervention program for helping patients with arthritis and related conditions.

Their research revealed that patients who scored low on indices of overall self-efficacy showed fewer improvements during the program. On the other hand, those exhibiting high self-efficacy showed significant pain reduction by the end of the program.

The researchers believed that these differences could, in part, be attributed to participants’ belief in their ability to successfully carry out the behaviors involved with the intervention, thereby illustrating the importance of self-efficacy for healing.

3. Low self-efficacy and career development

Finally, low self-efficacy has been shown to impact career trajectories among women.

In a detailed theory-building piece, scholars Hackett and Betz (1981) argue that, as a consequence of socialization, women are likely to possess less self-efficacy than men when realizing their capabilities in their careers. This is because women have less access to the four sources of self-efficacy information described previously when it comes to their careers.

For instance, women are more likely to have been exposed to female role models in domestic roles compared to careers. Therefore, this provides a limited source of self-efficacy information in the form of vicarious modeling (Hackett & Betz, 1981).

1. Get out of the comfort zone

We’re often encouraged to get out of our comfort zones , and for a good reason.

Leaving one’s comfort zone involves trial and error, learning, and the opportunity to engage in new, meaningful pursuits. Although leaving our comfort zone can be frightening initially, the benefit is that the more we experience success when venturing beyond our comfort zone, the more we can increase our self-efficacy.

Likewise, even when we fail, bouncing back and recovering from failure provides opportunities to increase our resilience.

Here are some simple ideas to get you out of your comfort zone and into your growth zone:

Take a one-day class in a skill you’ve never tried.
Meet someone new at a speed-dating or social event.
Try out a social support, or begin training for an event (e.g., a fun-run).
Go somewhere in your town you’ve heard about but never been before.

2. Set SMART goals

Effective goal-setting is argued to increase self-efficacy across a range of areas, including language interpretation (Bates, 2016), health-related behavior change (Bailey, 2017), and work performance (Weintraub, Cassell, & DePatie, in press).

Therefore, it is a good idea to build and sustain self-efficacy by setting reasonable goals that we tackle one at a time. Likewise, it can be useful to break down large goals into smaller, more manageable subgoals. A good goal-setting framework can help with this.

3. Look at the bigger picture

One of the most significant qualities of people with high self-efficacy is the power to look beyond short-term losses and not letting them break their self-trust. We have higher goals to achieve, and sticking to this perspective helps in maintaining a high self-efficacy. Self-efficacy allows us to sort our priorities, make better plans, and focus on them more efficiently.

4. Reframe obstacles

Obstacles are a natural part of moving beyond our comfort zones and tackling challenges. Therefore, it is important to think about obstacles in a constructive way that does not risk undermining our self-efficacy.

Here are a few ideas to help:

Set implementation intentions by creating an if-then plan. That is, ask yourself in advance of pursuing a goal what challenges you might reasonably expect to arise during goal pursuit. Then decide what action you will take in response to those challenges (Gollwitzer & Brandstätter, 1997).
Think of obstacles playfully as though they were a test (e.g., from the universe)–this is what the Stoics did many years ago and continue to do today. In responding to these ‘tests,’ try to (a) systematically come up with the most effective solution to the obstacle and (b) remain emotionally calm while putting your solution into action (Irvine, 2019).
Reflect on challenging obstacles you have overcome in the past. By doing this, you will be bringing past mastery experiences to the forefront of your mind, thereby helping to increase your self-efficacy in the present.

A search for research on self-efficacy will return many studies exploring the topic’s applications in the classroom. This is because self-efficacy has been shown to be a crucial determinant of academic success across a wide variety of subjects studied by both child and adult learners (Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991).

Critical to the relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement is the role of persistence. That is, students who possess greater academic self-efficacy will be more likely to invest ongoing effort in their studies, even when it’s difficult, thereby helping them achieve greater academic outcomes.

It is for this reason that many elementary school curricula include components aimed at increasing students’ self-efficacy. By doing so, they help these students become lifelong learners who feel confident that they can achieve their academic goals and persevere through challenges.

Let’s now consider five research-backed strategies for increasing students’ self-efficacy in the classroom.

1. Flipped classrooms and collaborative learning approaches

Several studies have shown that teaching methods characterized by an interactive and collaborative approach result in students who exhibit higher self-efficacy than those learning via more traditional approaches, such as via lectures (Ibrahim & Callaway, 2014).

In particular, one study found that ‘alternative’ teaching strategies, such as conceptual problem-solving assignments, led to greater increases in self-efficacy than discussions and lectures (Fencl & Scheel, 2005).

2. Verbal Persuasion

We’ve already explored the importance of verbal persuasion as one potential source of information about our capabilities. Therefore, when parents and teachers communicate belief in a person’s ability to achieve academic objectives, their self-efficacy will likely increase. This is particularly the case for children, who tend to believe the words of trusted adults in their lives.

Here are simple ways parents and teachers can persuade young learners of their abilities (adapted from Siegle & McCoach, 2007):

Provide words of encouragement. For example, “You can do it,” “You are smart enough,” and “I trust you.”
Make young learners aware of their strengths, and let them know how to apply them effectively to their current pursuits. For instance, a teacher might inform a young boy of how well he’s performed in a recent vocabulary test and then let him know how valuable those skills are likely to be in an upcoming story-writing assignment.
Likewise, draw students’ attention to their growth and how much they have improved over time. Doing so will strengthen the student’s overarching belief in their capacity to learn, not just their self-efficacy surrounding specific subject matter.
Praise students for their investment of effort, not just their successes. Let them know you can see how hard they’ve tried and that they should be proud of their persistence.

3. Tailor your teaching

Where possible, allowing students to leverage their strengths and work toward goals that are aligned with their ability level will help students stay motivated.

Here are some suggestions to help with this:

Teach students how to use goal-setting frameworks (e.g., SMART goals) to break large goals into smaller goals of a size that suits them.
Create psychological safety that allows students to talk openly about challenges they may be facing.
Avoid making comparisons between students and their abilities. Instead, note differences between a single student’s present and past achievement, thereby highlighting their improvement over time.
Where possible, allow students to set goals according to individual abilities. For example, make a range of books at different reading levels available to your students and allow them to read at a level that suits them.

4. Vicarious modeling

Turning again to our four sources of self-efficacy, ensure that your students have access to academic role models who can inspire them.

One longitudinal study has shown that young people who have access to one race- and gender-matched role model will perform better academically up to 24 months following initial assessment. They will also report having more achievement-oriented goals, derive greater enjoyment from achievement-related activities, and think more about their futures (Zirkel, 2002).

This fundamental understanding of the importance of role models underlies many school-based mentorship programs aimed at supporting students with learning disabilities or who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

Another option to support self-efficacy via vicarious modeling is peer mentoring , which is argued to benefit learning outcomes among children with learning disabilities (Steiner, n.d.). This can involve matching students based on their gender, cultural groups, and type of disability and assigning them to peer mentors with similar backgrounds.

The mentors then share personal experiences of successes, motivational stories, and guidance with their mentees. Additionally, programs such as these also give children the opportunity to openly share concerns or challenges with a like-minded peer who can empathize and relate.

5. Use multiple delivery modes

Finally, it’s important to keep in mind that all of us learn differently. Therefore, some students will learn best by reading, others will learn through lectures or video, and others will learn through hands-on, tactile experiences.

When you can, try to provide content in a range of mediums so students have the opportunity to learn via the medium that suits them best, thereby helping them enjoy more mastery experiences as they succeed at their studies

Positive Psychology in Schools & Education

1. The Who I Am Assessment

The Who I Am assessment is a simple one-page worksheet that increases self-awareness.

By filling in the different sections of the worksheet, you will discover more about who you are across the domains of work, studies, hobbies, and more.

In doing so, you will gain an increased understanding of where your strengths and interests lie, serving to highlight personal sources of self-efficacy.

2. Self-Efficacy Worksheet by Alexandra Franzen

This worksheet encourages you to explore a range of questions about who you are and how you engage with your passions and others in the world via a series of ten questions.

These questions help you gain self-insight and discover why the work you do is important, your hidden quirks, and even your secret alias in a positive, uplifting reflection on sources of self-efficacy.

17 Tools To Increase Motivation and Goal Achievement

These 17 Motivation & Goal Achievement Exercises [PDF] contain all you need to help others set meaningful goals, increase self-drive, and experience greater accomplishment and life satisfaction.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Understanding a client’s current level of self-efficacy, can be one of the first steps that needs to be taken. Below we suggest three scales to consider.

1. The Self-Efficacy For Exercise (SEE) Scale

The SEE Scale is a simple self-report measure that indicates the self-efficacy of the participants. The test consists of nine statements that reflect your mental wellbeing, and the responses are categorized on a 10-point scale. Higher scores in the test imply a higher self-efficacy, and the proof is applicable for a wide range of the population.

2. Self-Efficacy Worksheet by McAuley

This exercise was first published in the Journal of Behavioral Medicine in 1993 and has been in use since then. The test items explore daily practices (such as exercising), and the participants respond to them by how confident they feel about practicing them.

3. Self-Efficacy Scale by Neupert, Lachman, & Whitbourne

This scale is an adaptation of Albert Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Model and contains questions about daily exercising. The answers are recorded on a Likert Scale ranging from 1 (Very sure) to 4 (Not at all sure), and a higher score indicates greater self-efficacy in the participant.

If Bandura’s work on self-efficacy has taught us anything, it’s that believing in yourself is half the battle. This is because when we believe in ourselves and our abilities, we’re more motivated to invest sustained effort toward achieving our goals.

We hope this article has given you some ideas for how you might strengthen your own self-efficacy at work, in your studies, and in everything else. Perhaps even more importantly, you now know how easy it is to boost the self-efficacy of others.

So, the next time someone in your life says, “I don’t think I can do this,” you now know the power that simple words of affirmation can have on their self-belief.

So let them know: You’ve got this !

Lastly, don’t forget to download our three Goal Achievement Exercises for free .

The strongest source of self-efficacy is mastery experiences, where individuals engage in activities or tasks that lead to successful outcomes. These experiences provide the most direct and powerful way to build confidence in one’s ability to succeed and overcome challenges.

Examples of self-efficacy include someone who believes they can successfully learn a new skill, such as playing an instrument, or someone who is confident in their ability to manage stress and cope with difficult situations.

Self-efficacy and confidence are related but not exactly the same thing. Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief in their ability to succeed in specific situations, while confidence generally refers to a more general belief in one’s abilities.

Akhtar, M. (2008). What is self-efficacy? Bandura’s 4 sources of efficacy beliefs . Positive Psychology UK. Retrieved from http://positivepsychology.org.uk/self-efficacy-definition-bandura-meaning/
Bailey, R. R. (2019). Goal setting and action planning for health behavior change. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine , 13(6), 615-618.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review , 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bates, K. S. (2016). Anxiety and self-efficacy within interpretation. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
Carey, M. P., & Forsyth, A. D. (2009). Teaching tip sheet: Self-efficacy. American Psychological Association . Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/aids/resources/education/self-efficacy
Chowdhury, S., Endres, M., & Lanis, T. W. (2002). Preparing students for success in team work environments: The importance of building confidence. Journal of Managerial Issues , 14(3), 346-359.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review , 13(3), 471-482.
Fencl, H., & Scheel, K. (2005). Engaging students. Journal of College Science Teaching , 35(1), 20-24.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstätter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 73(1), 186-199.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 18(3), 326-339.
Holman, H., & Lorig, K. (1992). Perceived self-efficacy in self-management of chronic disease. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 305-323). Washington, DC: Hemisphere
Ibrahim, M., & Callaway, R. (2014). Students’ learning outcomes and self-efficacy perception in a flipped classroom. In T. Bastiaens (Ed.), Proceedings of world conference on e-learning (pp. 899-908). New Orleans, LA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Irvine, W. B. (2019). The stoic challenge: A philosopher’s guide to becoming tougher, calmer, and more resilient. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Jones, M. V., Mace, R. D., Bray, S. R., MacRae, A. W., & Stockbridge, C. (2002). The impact of motivational imagery on the emotional state and self-efficacy levels of novice climbers. Journal of Sport Behavio r, 25(1), 57-73.
Margolis, H., & McCabe, P. P. (2006). Improving self-efficacy and motivation: What to do, what to say. Intervention in School and Clinic , 41(4), 218-227.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 38(1), 30-38.
Shnek, Z. M., Foley, F. W., LaRocca, N. G., Gordon, W. A., DeLuca, J., Schwartzman, H. G., … & Irvine, J. (1997). Helplessness, self-efficacy, cognitive distortions, and depression in multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury. Annals of Behavioral Medicine , 19(3), 287-294.
Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2007). Increasing student mathematics self-efficacy through teacher training. Journal of Advanced Academics , 18(2), 278-312.
Smith, S. M. (2002). Using the social cognitive model to explain vocational interest in information technology. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal , 20(1), 1-9.
Steiner, C. (n.d.). Improving the self-efficacy of students with learning disabilities through peer mentoring: A research proposal . (Research proposal). Retrieved from https://christasteiner.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/6/1/13619185/steiner_research_methods_final.pdf
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation . New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
Weintraub, J., Cassell, D., & DePatie, T. P. (in press). Nudging flow through ‘SMART’ goal setting to decrease stress, increase engagement, and increase performance at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology .
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review , 14(3), 361-384.
Zirkel, S. (2002). Is there a place for me? Role models and academic identity among white students and students of color. Teachers College Record , 104(2), 357-376.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Thank you for the sensible critique. Me and my neighbor were just preparing to do some research about this. We got a grab a book from our local library but I think I learned more from this post. I’m very glad to see such wonderful info being shared freely out there.

I went over this website and I think you have a lot of excellent information, saved to fav (:.

Music started playing anytime I opened this web site, so annoying!

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation

Motivation is vital to beginning and maintaining healthy behavior in the workplace, education, and beyond, and it drives us toward our desired outcomes (Zajda, 2023). [...]

SMART Goals, HARD Goals, PACT, or OKRs: What Works?

Goal setting is vital in business, education, and performance environments such as sports, yet it is also a key component of many coaching and counseling [...]

How to Assess and Improve Readiness for Change

Clients seeking professional help from a counselor or therapist are often aware they need to change yet may not be ready to begin their journey. [...]

Read other articles by their category

Body & Brain (49)
Coaching & Application (58)
Compassion (25)
Counseling (51)
Emotional Intelligence (23)
Gratitude (18)
Grief & Bereavement (21)
Happiness & SWB (40)
Meaning & Values (26)
Meditation (20)
Mindfulness (44)
Motivation & Goals (45)
Optimism & Mindset (34)
Positive CBT (30)
Positive Communication (20)
Positive Education (47)
Positive Emotions (32)
Positive Leadership (18)
Positive Parenting (15)
Positive Psychology (34)
Positive Workplace (37)
Productivity (17)
Relationships (43)
Resilience & Coping (37)
Self Awareness (21)
Self Esteem (38)
Strengths & Virtues (32)
Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
Theory & Books (46)
Therapy Exercises (37)
Types of Therapy (64)
Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

3 Goal Achievement Exercises Pack

RSC Advances

Facile synthesis of an acid-responsive cinnamaldehyde-pendant polycarbonate for enhancing the anticancer efficacy of etoposide via glutathione depletion †.

* Corresponding authors

a Key Laboratory of Biomedical Polymers of Ministry of Education, College of Chemistry and Molecular Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, PR China E-mail: [email protected]

Glutathione (GSH) is an important antioxidant that maintains cellular redox homeostasis and significantly contributes to resistance against various chemotherapeutic agents. To address the challenge of GSH-mediated drug resistance in etoposide (ETS), we developed a facile synthetic method to prepare a biocompatible acid-responsive polycarbonate (PEG-PCA) containing cinnamaldehyde (CA), a potent GSH-depleting agent, as a side chain using nontoxic raw materials. This polymer self-assembled in aqueous solutions to form nanoparticles (ETS@PCA) that encapsulated ETS, enhancing its water solubility and enabling tumor-targeted delivery. In vitro studies demonstrated that ETS@PCA could respond to the acidic tumor microenvironment, releasing CA to rapidly deplete GSH levels. Consequently, ETS@PCA exhibited superior cytotoxicity compared to free ETS. Furthermore, in vivo experiments corroborated the enhanced tumor inhibitory effects of ETS@PCA.

Graphical abstract: Facile synthesis of an acid-responsive cinnamaldehyde-pendant polycarbonate for enhancing the anticancer efficacy of etoposide via glutathione depletion

Supplementary files

Supplementary information PDF (1511K)

Transparent peer review

To support increased transparency, we offer authors the option to publish the peer review history alongside their article.

View this article’s peer review history

Article information

Download Citation

Permissions.

Facile synthesis of an acid-responsive cinnamaldehyde-pendant polycarbonate for enhancing the anticancer efficacy of etoposide via glutathione depletion

S. Wu, K. Liao, J. Chen and F. Li, RSC Adv. , 2024, 14 , 15365 DOI: 10.1039/D4RA02468K

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence . You can use material from this article in other publications without requesting further permissions from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given.

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author, advertisements.

COMMENTS

The Confounded Self-Efficacy Construct: Review, Conceptual Analysis
First, the vast literature in which self-efficacy is predictive of health-related behaviours (e.g., Gwaltney, 2009), as well as research on how to change self-efficacy ratings (Prestwich et al., 2014), should not be ignored even if the measures of self-efficacy in this literature are confounded with motivation. Instead, self-efficacy ...
Sources of Self-Efficacy in School: Critical Review of the Literature
The purpose of this review was threefold. First, the theorized sources of self-efficacy beliefs proposed by A. Bandura (1986) are described and explained, including how they are typically assessed and analyzed. Second, findings from investigations of these sources in academic contexts are reviewed and critiqued, and problems and oversights in current research and in conceptualizations of the ...
The Impact of Self-Efficacy, Optimism, Resilience and Perceived Stress
Self-efficacy, defined as the ability "to set higher goals, commit to challenges that are more difficult and strive to meet those goals" [], is often considered "the most important predictor of change in behavior" [].It represents a significant resource, able to substantially predict academic success, for example the first-year college GPA, the number of accumulated credits and college ...
Self-Efficacy and Workplace Well-Being: Understanding the Role of
Self-efficacy affects well-being through various processes through cognitive, ... Podsakoff N. P., Lee J. Y. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. Crossref. PubMed. ISI. Google Scholar. Reivich K., Shatte A. (2003).
Self-Efficacy Effects on Symptom Experiences in Daily Life and Early
Self-efficacy is a key construct in behavioral science with significant impact on mental health, including psychopathology symptoms and treatment outcomes (Bandura, 1988).It refers to individuals' belief in their ability to achieve goals and exercise control over their environment, thoughts, emotions, and actions (Bandura, 1994).Self-efficacy has been investigated with a focus on between ...
Research self-efficacy: A meta-analysis
Research self-efficacy represents the adaptation of the social cognitive concept of self-efficacy to the field of academic and scientific research and is one of the best predictors of successfully engaging in research activities. The current meta-analysis focuses on the relationship between research self-efficacy and 14 other relevant variables ...
Self-efficacy in Internet-based Learning Environments: A Literature Review
Levels of self-efficacy are usually considered to have strong validity for specific task domains, and most of the findings have suggested that self-efficacy is positively related to learners' performance. That is, a strong sense of self-efficacy can enrich human achievement in many ways (Karsten & Roth, 1998).
PDF A Systematic Review of Creative Self-Efficacy Literature in Education
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic literature review on the topic of creative self-efficacy in relation to education. Thus, we reviewed the literature in order to lay out the current outlook and to reveal the gaps. This review of the literature will serve as a reference point for current and future researchers, policy ...
A systematic review of creative self-efficacy literature in education
In this article we reviewed literature related to creative self-efficacy in the field of education. We narrowed down the review to eighty-eight articles. We formed categories according to (1) publication year, (2) country of study, (3) sample/study group, (4) method used, and (5) subject matter addressed. The first study was published in 2004. The frequency of publications increased in the ...
Frontiers
Accordingly, promoting students well-being and reducing negative emotional states strengthen students' self-efficacy. For more details about sources of self-efficacy, see the review by Usher and Pajares (2008). In short, the actions and programs that aim to develop students' self-efficacy should be based on these four sources.
(PDF) Self-efficacy and human motivation
Theory and research support the idea that self-efficacy is an important motivational construct that can affect choices, effort, persistence, and achievement. Situated in Bandura's social cognitive ...
Teacher self-efficacy and reform: a systematic literature review
Teacher self-efficacy (TSE) of pre-service and in-service teachers plays a significant role in the successful implementation of educational reforms. The purpose of this systematic literature review is to explore the interaction between curriculum and/or assessment reform and TSE. Twenty-nine empirical research studies are analysed to find factors that impact TSE during change and the support ...
[PDF] Self-Efficacy: A Brief Literature Review
There are not many articles that contain a literature review on an actual issue. This essay aims to present a concise literature review of self-efficacy. The discussion focused on exploring the basic theories, definitions, dimensions, sources, roles, and antecedents and consequences of self-efficacy. This paper is expected to contribute ...
Grit, self-efficacy, achievement orientation goals, and academic
The following paragraphs include a brief review of the literature involving the impact of affective variables on academic performance - Grit, Achievement Goal Orientations (AGOs), and Self-Efficacy (SE). ... Self-efficacy is a critical component of Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, ...
SELF-EFFICACY OF TEACHERS: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Using the Systematic Quantitative Literature Review method, this paper reviewed the literature related to engineering students' self-efficacy in higher education from 2010 to 2020 to evaluate ...
The effects of students' self-efficacy, self-regulated learning
Self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies have been identified as a valuable component of digital game-based learning system (GBLS) activities. However, few studies have focused on the effects of information feedback on self-efficacy, SRL strategies, and perceived and actual learning effectiveness. Social cognitive and SRL theories describe the learning process of monitoring, controlling, and ...
Frontiers
In addition, the current article also provides the contribution to the literature on self-efficacy and demotivation and resistance to innovation and demotivation. This study provides help to the upcoming literature while examining this topic in the future. ... a systematic literature review. IEEE Access 9, 134122-134147. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS ...
PDF Resilience and Self-Efficacy: An Integrated Review of the Literature
integrative review of the empiric literature, and describe the state of the science, including gaps in the literature. The following online databases were searched for publications ... self -efficacy impacts coping efforts and the stronger the self -efficacy, the more active the efforts. %RJHQVFKQHLGHU¶V (FRORJLFDO5LVN3URWH ctive Theoretical ...
ResearchGate
Self-efficacy is a key concept in psychology that refers to one's belief in their ability to perform a task or achieve a goal. This article provides a brief literature review of the definition ...
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A systematic review of the literature on
To ensure the quality of articles used in the literature review, we only included articles if they met the following criteria: (a) the article was available in an ISI listed peer-reviewed journal, and (b) it focused on ESE rather than general self-efficacy (Baum & Locke, 2004), self-initiative (Frese, 2009), or locus of control (Kaufmann, Welsh ...
Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of the self-amplifying ...
Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of the self-amplifying mRNA ARCT-154 COVID-19 vaccine: pooled phase 1, 2, 3a and 3b randomized, controlled trials ... a literature review and meta-analysis ...
Self-Efficacy as a Positive Youth Development Construct: A Conceptual
In their 2008 review of the literature since 1977 on the sources of self-efficacy in school, Usher and Pajares observed that self-efficacy is "associated with key motivational constructs such as causal attributions, self-concept, optimism, achievement goal orientation, academic help-seeking, anxiety, and value" (p.751).
The use of fear appeals for pandemic compliance: A systematic review of
This paper aims at providing systematic literature review that answers the following thought-provoking research questions: (1) What is the standard measurement of fear in relation to pandemics in the existing literature? ... (the degree of effectiveness depends on gender, population group, etc.), especially when combined with self-efficacy and ...
A Systematic Review of Creative Self-Efficacy Literature in Education
In this article we reviewed literature related to crea tive self-efficacy in th e field of education. We. narrowed down the review to eightyeight articles. We formed categories according to (1 ...
4 Ways To Improve And Increase Self-Efficacy
For example, make a range of books at different reading levels available to your students and allow them to read at a level that suits them. 4. Vicarious modeling. Turning again to our four sources of self-efficacy, ensure that your students have access to academic role models who can inspire them.
Facile synthesis of an acid-responsive cinnamaldehyde-pendant
This polymer self-assembled in aqueous solutions to form nanoparticles (ETS@PCA) that encapsulated ETS, enhancing its water solubility and enabling tumor-targeted delivery. In vitro studies demonstrated that ETS@PCA could respond to the acidic tumor microenvironment, releasing CA to rapidly deplete GSH levels. Consequently, ETS@PCA exhibited ...

The effects of students’ self-efficacy, self-regulated learning strategy, perceived and actual learning effectiveness: A digital game-based learning system

Cite this article

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Investigating effects of perceived technology-enhanced environment on self-regulated learning

Acceptance of and self-regulatory practices in online learning and their effects on the participation of Hong Kong secondary school students in online learning

Self-regulation in Three Types of Online Interaction: How Does It Predict Online Pre-service Teachers’ Perceived Learning and Satisfaction?

Acknowledgements

Author information

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

1.1 Appendix A. supplementary GBLS graphics

1.2 Appendix B. The questions of pretest and posttest

1.3 Appendix C. The results of the CMV-adjusted path coefficient estimation

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Introduction

Literature Review

Research Methodology

Research Findings

Implications and Limitations

Data Availability Statement

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest

Publisher’s Note

Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of the self-amplifying mRNA ARCT-154 COVID-19 vaccine: pooled phase 1, 2, 3a and 3b randomized, controlled trials

Similar content being viewed by others

A phase I/II randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of a self-amplifying Covid-19 mRNA vaccine

Safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 variant mRNA vaccine boosters in healthy adults: an interim analysis

Safety and immunogenicity of Ad5-nCoV immunization after three-dose priming with inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in Chinese adults

Study participants

Safety and reactogenicity

Immunogenicity

Vaccine efficacy (VE)

Participants and study design

Evaluation of participants with suspected COVID-19

Statistical analysis

Reporting summary

Data availability

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Peer review

Additional information

Supplementary information

About this article

Share this article

Quick links

Self-Efficacy as a Positive Youth Development Construct: A Conceptual Review

Eadaoin K. P. Hui

Bella C. M. Law

1. Background

2. Definition of Self-Efficacy

3. Assessment of Self-Efficacy

4. Theories on Self-Efficacy

5. Self-Efficacy and Adolescent Developmental Outcomes

6. Promotion of Self-Efficacy in Adolescents

7. Research Gaps and Future Research Directions

4 Ways To Improve And Increase Self-Efficacy

This Article Contains

1. Mastery Experiences

2. Vicarious Experiences

3. Verbal Persuasion

4. Physiological Arousal

Download 3 Free Goals Exercises (PDF)

Download 3 Free Goals Pack (PDF)

1. Low self-efficacy and depression

2. Low self-efficacy and pain management

3. Low self-efficacy and career development

1. Get out of the comfort zone

2. Set SMART goals

3. Look at the bigger picture

4. Reframe obstacles

1. Flipped classrooms and collaborative learning approaches

2. Verbal Persuasion