My task is only to give a positive opinion of these 2 discussions. In total, I need 2 replies. The 2 discussions are these: Discussion # 1 : ? ? The Theory of Self-Efficacy Critique If one has a
My task is only to give a positive opinion of these 2 discussions. In total, I need 2 replies. The 2 discussions are these:
Discussion # 1 :
The Theory of Self-Efficacy Critique
If one has a high level of self-efficacy, they tend to feel they will succeed in their endeavors. According to Albert Bandura, self-efficacy is the belief in one's ability to plan and carry out the actions required to manage potential occurrences (Bahari et al., 2019). These concepts have an impact on how people feel, act, and think. Self-efficacy affects the goals we set, how we accomplish them and assess our achievement. Our self-belief in our ability to succeed affects how we perceive, behave, and react to our place in society.
Self-efficacy may be developed and affected by experiences and responses, although it is still widely thought to be intrinsic. For instance, mastering experiences can promote a high sense of effectiveness because when we perform a task well, we feel more self-sufficient. However, self-efficacy can be hindered and diminished if a task or challenge is not handled properly. Social influence may also be used to enhance self-efficiency. For instance, witnessing what people who are similar to themselves can do via effort "raises viewers' notions that they too possess the skills to master parallel activities to succeed," according to Bandura (Bahari et al., 2019). Social influence has the power to persuade individuals that they have the skills and information needed to succeed. People are able to overcome self-doubt and focus on providing the task at hand with their best effort when they hear verbal praise from others. Moreover, since psychological responses dictate how we react to situations and how we feel emotionally, they substantially impact self-efficacy as well. For instance, how someone perceives their abilities in a certain situation might be influenced by their degree of stress, physical reactions, cognitive factors, and attitudes.
The theory of Self-Efficacy states that people have a self-efficacy belief in a given ability. In this regard, I contend that there is a lack of predictive power in the hypothesis. Besides, it has been discovered that task approaches, learning, and motivation have little to do with self-efficacy. Moreover, I think there is a lack of logical development and coherence in the self-efficacy thesis. For example, how self-efficacy beliefs are formed, or how they affect action needs to be better explained by the theory clearly and consistently. The theory also does not always make sense in relation to other ideas or reality. Self-efficacy theory has been subject to external criticism centered on complexity and real convergence (Toledano et al., 2019). The complexity of the self-efficacy hypothesis has been criticized since the theory does not provide a concise and obvious explanation of the development of self-efficacy beliefs or how they affect behavior. The theory may not also be consistent with facts or with alternative theories.
References
Bahari, G., Scafide, K., Krall, J., Mallinson, R. K., & Weinstein, A. A. (2019). Mediating role of self‐efficacy in the relationship between family social support and hypertension self‐care behaviours: A cross‐sectional study of Saudi men with hypertension. International journal of nursing practice, 25(6), e12785.
Toledano-González, A., Labajos-Manzanares, T., & Romero-Ayuso, D. (2019). Well-being, self-efficacy and independence in older adults: a randomized trial of occupational therapy. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 83, 277-284.
Discussion # 2 :
Internal and External Criticism of Self-Efficacy Theory
Self-Efficacy theory explains an individual's belief in their abilities to execute an activity successfully. The theory states that if a person has a strong belief in their ability to perform a task, then that person will be more likely to perform the task with success. Self-efficacy can also be thought of as having a "can do" attitude and having confidence in one's abilities. During the development of this theory, Bandura wished to examine the factors that contribute to different individual abilities when conducting an activity or a decision (Klassen & Klassen, 2018). The theory of self-efficacy has been criticized for using both internal and external evaluation processes.
Based on internal criticism, self-efficacy theory has been shown to be very important in determining an individual's abilities. For example, the theory can be used in nursing to understand a nurse's strengths and determine the areas they need to improve. In addition, the theory has been clearly defined due to its high levels of conceptual clarity. Research by Klassen and Klassen (2018) posited that the concept of self-efficacy theory is clearly defined, which offers limited time for a person to understand their goal. In addition, the theory is supported by adequate empirical support due to different studies and supplements on the same. Nonetheless, the theory has been criticized for its risk of confusion regarding confidence and self-esteem. Since the theory of efficacy is used in understanding an individual's ability, it may hinder the understanding of a person's self-esteem levels.
The external criticism of the theory focuses on the authenticity of the theory and how genuine the theory is. According to Schweder and Raufelder, D. (2022), the self-efficacy theory is generalized across different demographics. This indicates that many studies have found the theory applicable to different ethnicities and cultural contexts, enhancing its reliability. The theory has also been used in different research fields, such as education and nursing, explaining the different behaviors portrayed in such settings. Specifically, it is used in monitoring and explaining healthy behavior such as medication adherence, smoking cessation and active participation in physical activity. In addition, the theory has quality predictive validity, which makes it easier to establish an effective way of predicting human behavior based on different circumstances (Schweder & Raufelder, 2022). This increases the reliability of the information offered by this theory and helps make better and more reliable conclusions about human behavior. Nonetheless, the mechanism of the theory is weak as it barely explains the underlying process used in the making of the theory. Even the mechanism used barely explains all the concepts of the theory.
References
Klassen, R. M., & Klassen, J. R. (2018). Self-efficacy beliefs of medical students: a critical
review. Perspectives on medical education, 7, 76-82.
Schweder, S., & Raufelder, D. (2022). Students' interest and self-efficacy and the impact of
changing learning environments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 70, 102082.
MSN-FNP Discussion Rubric
1
Criteria Does Not Meet (0%) Approaches (60%) Meets 80% Exceeds (100%) Total Initial Post relevance to the topic of discussion, applicability, and insight. (20%)
0
The student does not provide coverage of the discussion topic (s); the student does not address the requirements of the weekly discussion. Provide redundant information. The posting does not apply to the course concepts, or no example provided from the material explored during the weekly reading or from other relevant examples from the clinical practice. The student does not show applied
12 The student provides partial coverage of the discussion topic (s), does not provide clarity on the key concepts, the student does not address all of the requirements of the weekly discussion. Provide redundant information. The posting does not apply to the course concepts, or no example provided from the material explored during the weekly reading or from other relevant examples from the
16 The student provides complete coverage of the discussion topic (s) and clarifies the critical concepts demonstrated in the information presented; the student addresses all of the requirements of the weekly discussion question with adequate attention to detail with some redundancy. The posting applies course concepts without examples learned from the material provided during the
20 The student provides in-depth coverage of discussion topic (s), outstanding clarity, and explanation of concepts demonstrated in the information presented; approaches the weekly discussion with depth and breadth, without redundancy, using clear and focused details. The posting directly addresses critical issues, questions, or problems related to the topic of discussion. The posting applies course concepts with examples learned from the material provided
MSN-FNP Discussion Rubric
2
knowledge and understanding of the discussion topic. The student's initial thread response does not reflect critical thinking.
clinical practice. The student shows some applied knowledge and understanding of the discussion topic. The student's initial thread response does not reflect critical thinking. The discussion topic is vaguely covered and does not adequately demonstrate an accurate understanding of concepts.
weekly reading or other relevant examples from the clinical practice. The student is still showing applied knowledge and understanding of the topic. Also, the posting offers original and thoughtful insight, synthesis, or observation that demonstrates an understanding of the concepts and ideas about the discussion topic (no use of example). The student's initial thread response reflects critical thinking and contains thought, insight, and analysis.
during the weekly reading or other relevant examples from the clinical practice; the student shows applied knowledge and understanding of the topic. Also, the posting offers original and thoughtful insight, synthesis, or observation that demonstrates a strong understanding of the concepts and ideas on the discussion topic (use of examples). The student's initial thread response is rich in critical thinking and full of thought, insight, and analysis; the argument is clear and concise.
MSN-FNP Discussion Rubric
3
Quality of Written Communication Appropriateness of audience and word choice is specific, purposeful, dynamic, and varied— grammar, spelling, punctuation. (20%)
0 The student uses a style and voice inappropriate or does not address the given audience, purpose, etc. Word choice is excessively redundant, clichéd, and unspecific. Inconsistent grammar, spelling, punctuation, and paragraphing (More than five grammatical errors). Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede the communication of meaning.
12 The student uses a style and voice that is somewhat appropriate to the given audience and purpose. Word choice is often unspecific, generic, redundant, and clichéd. Repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader (More than two grammatical errors). Inconsistencies in language, sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.
16 The student uses a style and voice appropriate to the given audience and purpose. Word choice is specific and purposeful, and somewhat varied throughout. Minimal mechanical or typographical errors are present but are not overly distracting to the reader (Less than two grammatical errors). Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.
20 The student uses a style and voice that are appropriate to the given audience and purpose and shows originality and creativity. Word choice is specific, purposeful, dynamic, and varied. Free of mechanical and typographical errors. A variety of sentence structures are used. The student is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Inclusion of the student learning outcomes explored in the
0 The student does not explain how the Student Learning Outcomes were
6 The student does not explain how the Student Learning Outcomes were
8 The student does not explain how the Student Learning Outcomes were
10 The student explains how the applicable Student Learning Outcomes were
MSN-FNP Discussion Rubric
4
discussion (10%)
explored or related to the weekly discussion topic.
explored or related to the weekly discussion topic. Instead, the student only provides a list of the applicable Student Learning outcomes.
explored or related to the weekly discussion topic.
explored or related to the weekly discussion topic.
Rigor, currency, and relevance of the scholarly references. (20%)
0 The student does not provide any supporting scholarly references that are current or relevant to the weekly discussion topic.
12 The student provides supporting scholarly references that are not current but relevant to the weekly discussion topic. The student provides only one scholarly reference.
16 The student provides supporting scholarly references that are not current or relevant to the weekly discussion topic. In addition, the student provides at least two scholarly references.
20 The student provides robust support from credible, current (less than five years old), and relevant scholarly references (at least two). The supporting evidence meets or exceeds the minimum number of required scholarly references.
Peer & Professor Responses. Number of responses,
0 The student did not make an effort to participate in the learning discussion
12 The student does not provide substantive interaction relevant to the weekly topic
16 The student provides substantive interaction relevant to the weekly topic. The
20 The student provides substantive interaction relevant
MSN-FNP Discussion Rubric
5
quality of response posts. (20%)
board. The student did not meet the answer post requirements, and the posts, if submitted, the posts reflect a lack of engagement or provide a vague answer to the weekly topic. The student does not answer the professor's feedback/question.
or provide vague responses. The answer provided by the student does not build on the discussion question and ideas of others, utilizing course content with appropriate citation/references. The student does not motivate and encourage the group. The student does not respond to two peers. The student does not answer the professor's feedback/question.
answer provided by the student builds on the discussion question and ideas of others, utilizing course content with appropriate citations/references. The student provides frequent attempts to motivate and encourage the group. The student responds to at least two peers. The student does not answer the professor's feedback/question.
to the weekly topic. The answer provided by the student builds on the discussion question and ideas of others, utilizing course content with appropriate citations/references. The student provides frequent attempts to motivate and encourage the group. The student responds to at least two peers and answers the professor's feedback/question.
Timeliness of the initial post and the answers
0 The student was late for the initial post
6 The student posted the initial thread on
8 The student posted the initial tread on
10 The student posted the initial thread and both
MSN-FNP Discussion Rubric
6
to the peers. (10%)
and the answer to peers or absence of submissions.
time by 11:59 PM on Wednesday, or the student submitted the initial thread late and submitted the answers to peers on time.
time by 11:59 PM on Wednesday and one answer to a peer by Saturday 11:59 PM.
answers to peers on time (Initial post by Wednesday 1159 PM and two replies to peers by Saturday 11:59 PM).
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
