COMPUTER SELF-EFFICACY - Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Foundations - page 222

An alternative—the coping model—demonstrates correct performance, but does so while also
showing the likelihood of making errors and the coping strategies that one uses to deal with them
when they occur. This sort of model is seen as more similar by the learner and their level of per-
formance as more attainable. Thus, through the process of social comparison, a coping model typ-
ically exerts a greater effect than a masterful model (Meichenbaum, 1971).
The influence of different kinds of modeling has implications for how trainers structure their
demonstrations. Often, demonstrators are reluctant to make errors as they view them as under-
mining their “expert” status in front of the trainee. Thus, when they make an error, they apologize,
quickly recover while telling the trainees to ignore their mistake, and then proceed with the cor-
rect method. But by using mistakes that naturally occur, the trainer has the opportunity to per-
suade the trainee that “even the experts make mistakes” and, therefore, that making mistakes
doesn't make one incapable of learning. This approach directly aims to improve self-efficacy, and
Compeau (2002) found it to be characteristic of effective trainers, as rated by other trainers.
Yi and Davis (2003) explored the role of retention enhancement techniques in a modeling inter-
vention. They found that their intervention, aimed at manipulating participants' retention enhance-
ment abilities, significantly improved task performance through its effects on the retention processes
dimension of observational learning. Observational learning processes were represented in this
study as a second-order construct comprised of four dimensions of attention, retention, production,
and motivation.
In conclusion, computer self-efficacy develops during formal training as an outcome of the
training design, the formal behaviors of the trainer (including his or her modeling of appropriate
performance and his or her verbal persuasion through feedback), and the informal, and perhaps
unintentional, behaviors of the trainer and other training participants. CSE, in turn, influences
training performance and choices about how to use the new skills after training, thus extending the
influence of training to the workplace.
Self-Regulated Learning
Although formal training is one important context in which self-efficacy develops, it must be
remembered that most user learning is self-directed (e.g., Gravill and Compeau, 2003; Nelson,
1991). There are several differences between the formal training setting and the self-directed set-
ting that must be accounted for in our theorizing about CSE.
Self-regulated learning refers to a form of learning where individuals are required to control or
manage their own learning experience. The process of self-regulation requires individuals to regularly
monitor their learning progress, think about their abilities, evaluate how well they have understood
the material they are learning, and to react accordingly (Bandura 1991; Kanfer and Ackerman 1989;
Zimmerman 1989). The self-regulatory process, involving self-focused attention, provides individu-
als with the opportunity to evaluate their own performance that can influence their confidence in their
abilities, or their self-efficacy. Individuals use self-regulated learning strategies such as determining
what things they need to learn to accomplish a given task, determining what skills need more prac-
tice, determining the best learning approach to accomplish their learning goals, or monitoring their
learning progress. The outcome of these strategic learning-related decisions can affect their confi-
dence in their abilities to successfully perform tasks in the specific domain. If the feedback from this
decision-making process is positive, individuals' confidence in their abilities may increase. However,
if the feedback is negative, their confidence in their abilities, or their self-efficacy, may decrease.
The self-regulated learning context emphasizes the importance of individual differences, as
individuals have control over their learning experience in this setting, and can make choices that