Foundations of children’s self-concepts about everydayactivities: Identities and comparative contexts

Laurel Fisher

Received: 27 June 2013 /Revised: 27 December 2013 /Accepted: 24 January 2014# Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht2014

Abstract Children’s motivations to engage in everyday activities draw on their experiences inthinking of oneself and the activities. In theory, these personal and social realities provide thecomplex foundations of self-concepts. The aim of this project was to define the foundations ofchildren’s self-concepts about everyday activities; to focus on everyday activities of literacyand numeracy. Participants were 8- to 12-year-old girls and boys, in a pilot study (N=16),correlational models of identities (N=297) and comparative contexts (N=42), and experimen-tal evidence (N=82). The pilot study validated materials, and Study 1 confirmed a perceptualbase for self-concepts. Results of Study 2 highlighted a range of comparative contexts, andStudy 3 confirmed personal and social bases of children’s self-concepts. In this situation,foundations of self-concepts cover identities (as a sense of individuality and belonging) andself-categorizations, in thinking about stability of skills and abilities over time, and in relationto children the same age. These ideas are readily applied to identities and arrays of self-categorizations in other situations. In conclusion, a personal and social theory of self-conceptsextends contemporary Motivational Spiral Models that relate self-concepts to task strategies,skills, feelings and participation. Outcomes suggest foundations for differential interventionsmotivating children to participate in everyday activities.

Keywords Self-concepts . Identities . Contexts . Comparisons . Children

Local and national policy initiatives on engagement in everyday activities highlight the self-concepts that prompt participation in shaping subsequent experiences (e.g., Harter 1986;Kirsch et al. 2002; Möller et al. 2011; Simpkins et al. 2012). For instance, the researchconsistently shows that self-concepts support and constrain health behaviors and that “engagedreaders… provide themselves with self-generated learning opportunities” (Bornholt and Pic-colo 2005; Guthrie and Wigfield 2000, p. 404). Although some reports may refer to globalself-worth, motivation for learning, health, and well-being typically rests on self-concepts

Eur J Psychol EducDOI 10.1007/s10212-014-0212-y

L. Fisher (*)Watervale Systems, PO Box 318, Potts Point, NSW 1335, Australiae-mail: laurel.fisher@y7mail.com

Laurel. Fishere-mail: laurelfishau@gmail.com

about particular activities (e.g., Archambault et al. 2010; Eccles 1994; Marsh et al. 2005;Möller et al. 2006). Although other approaches may also report weak or no links between skillsand self-concepts (Archambault et al. 2010, p.812; Fisher 2013a), distinctions in directions ofeffects are clarified by attention to statistical significance with large samples, standardizedassessments, socioeconomic and other factors (Hattie 1992, 2002).

Key roles of self-concepts in children’s motivation to participate in activities are highlightedin substantial research (Eccles et al. 1993; Guthrie et al. 2012; Harter 1986; Hattie 1992) andcontemporary Motivational spiral models (MSM; Fisher 2013a). For instance, Fig. 1 showsthat self-concepts motivate and justify participation. There are some indirect links with skills,and context-specific influences of strategies, positive and negative feelings about everydayactivities (e.g., Bornholt 2005c; Bornholt and Piccolo 2005; Guthrie et al. 2012).

It is therefore important to understand more about the foundations of children’sself-concepts of everyday activities. The main aim here is to define these foundationsas identities and self-categorizations. In terms of social group identities, contemporaryresearch shows the complex ‘self-stereotyping’ for adolescents and adults and also forchildren (Bennett and Sani 2008; Tanti et al. 2011). Advances in theory and practicefor analogous processes within the individual depend on clear understandings of self-concepts typically portrayed as cognitive self-evaluations, and specifically in terms ofidentities and self-categorizations. This means thinking of oneself and activities, insaying, “For my age, I am quite fit and healthy,” and when a child says, “I think Iam quite good at reading” (Ashmore, Deaux, and McLaughlin-Volpe et al. 2004;Bornholt 2005b). Such self-evaluations entail implied or stated identities in compar-ative contexts, where the validity is in relation to intended and behavioral choices inmodels of participation. In this regard, foundations of self-concepts are in children’sinterpretations and experiences, rather than measured events and available evidenceabout oneself and other people. Earlier work on explicit comparisons over time (e.g.,Albert 1977) is important in focusing on complex thinking within individuals andcoherent self-identities, yet nonetheless tend to assume goals of “accurate self-definitions” (p. 494). Other studies, such as Conway and Ross (1984), add a levelof abstraction in thinking of one’s attitudes as changing (or not) over time, andWilson and Ross (2000) consider comparisons over time and among people toacknowledge multiple goals. Yet these explicit goals of accuracy or self-enhancement would fit better with ideas on self-concepts in relation to skills. Forinstance, Wilson and Ross (2000) go on to say, “the past is ephemeral: if peoplechoose to see themselves as improving, there is often little in the way of objectiveevidence to prove them wrong, even if their perception is illusory” (p. 940). On thecontrary, it can be argued that we need to draw on children’s thinking as foundationsof self-concepts that support (or constrain) participation in everyday activities, typi-cally and meaningfully at odds with skills. Indeed, a so-called “illusory glow” andpatterns of traditional self-stereotyping by adolescents in social contexts providesatisfactory explanations for their subsequent participation in the activities (Bornholt2000a).

Personal and social realities of self-concepts are suggested in diverse profiles withage of skills and self-concepts. For example, Fig. 2 shows that profiles of children’sgeneral cognitive skills vary systematically with age. That is, general cognitive skillstypically increase for young children and approach an asymptote (e.g., Ouvrier et al.1999). In contrast, children’s self-concepts of activities do not reflect such profiles(e.g., Archambault et al. 2010; Bornholt 2005a, b; Bornholt and Spencer 2003; Marshet al. 2005). Instead, clusters of standard and alternative profiles tend to vary

L. Fisher

somewhat about an optimal; as on average, children tend to consider themselves a bitabove average. In theory, such self-concepts are what children think of oneselfpersonally and socially. Yet alternative models in this field often suggest self-concepts directly reflecting skills. Instead, it is proposed here that identities are abase for self-concepts, where various self-categorizations explain the phenomena—asshifts in thinking among content, over time, in relation to others and so on. In manyways, such shifts in thinking are analogous to person-identities as categorizations thatresemble group identities and categorizations (Bennett and Sani 2008; Bornholt

MSM – L Literacy

participation

self concepts

positive feelings

negative feelings

task strategies

skills

Time 1 Time 2

MSM – N Numeracy

participation

self concepts

positive feelings

negative feelings

task strategies

skills

Time 1 Time 2

Fig. 1 Conceptual motivational spiral models for literacy (MSM-L) and numeracy (MSM-N) link self-concepts,feelings, strategies, skills and participation at Time 1 and Time 2 (a year apart). Adapted from Bornholt andPiccolo (2005) and Fisher (2013a)

Foundations of children’s self-concepts on daily activities

2000a); and departing somewhat from the classic comparative models (e.g., Asgariet al. 2012; Bornholt and Cooney 1993; Maras 2007; Pohlmann and Möller 2009).

Background to children’s personal and social realities

The focus is firmly on the thinking by persons, in terms of identities and categorizations—in acareful reading of work on group identities (e.g., Tajfel 1982; Turner 1987; Oakes et al. 1994). Inaddition to such well-known group processes, classic and contemporary research also suggestsrelational processes between individuals (such as expectations and self-disclosure), as well asdiscrete processes within individuals (e.g., Albert 1977; Bornholt et al. 2009; Maras 2007;

General cognitive skills

self concepts about cognitive activities

1

2

3

4

5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

age in years

mea

ns (

1) lo

w to

(5)

hig

h

standard A

alternative B

alternative C

optimal range

Fig. 2 Profiles of children general cognitive skills and self concepts about cognitive skills. General cognitivescreening from SYSTEMS-R increases with age to an asymptote, where the scores are unbiased by gender,socioeconomic indicators, and community language groups (e.g., Fisher et al. 2010; Ouvrier et al. 1999). Self-concept profiles vary about an optimal range (above the mid-point of scales) for clusters of children (as standardA profiles 66 %, alternatives B 17 % and C 18 %, from k-means clusters), where profiles are unbiased by gender,age, and socioeconomic indicators and independent of children’s cognitive skills (e.g., Bornholt and Spencer2003; Bornholt 2005c; Fisher 2013a).

L. Fisher

Reynolds and Oakes 2000). The approach developed in this paper also proposes flexibility inthinking but the foundations are distinct personal and social identities (Bornholt 2000b; Turner1987, p.95). It is argued that the characteristic flexibility is in the children’s thinking as self-categorizations that rely on children’s identities (e.g., Bornholt 2000a, 2001). For example,situations that prompt children to consider their personal characteristics rely on a sense ofuniqueness or individuality. Such situations may cover thinking of now, next week, stable andvarying over time and place, as comparative contexts within the person. Analogous processesaround a person’s sense of belonging are independent of such personal foundations of self-concepts. This means that children may also think of oneself socially, in relation to others, real orimagined, present or absent, as self-categorizations about one’s classmates, family and friends.

The theoretical development of the proposal builds on person-identities as a form of flexiblepersonality. Other work with adolescents and adults also suggests distinct identities that influ-ence motivation for health and well-being, such as individuality, belonging, place, spiritualityand so on. The focus here is on children’s sense of individuality and belonging, to clarify thesedistinct identities rather than a personal-to-social continuum (Bornholt 2000a, b; Oakes et al.1994; Fisher 2013b). It may be useful to consider such flexible thinking about a prototypical self(as for prototypical group members) that is not inconsistent with notions of developing “per-sonality” (see also Bergh et al. 2012; Bornholt 2000b; Latrofa et al. 2010; Oakes et al. 1994).

In principle, personal and social foundations of children’s self-concepts are conceptual ratherthan direct reflections of actual situations. This proposal for everyday activities of literacy andnumeracy is usefully set against implied content and peer frames of reference in models of self-concepts based on actual skills (e.g., Bong 2001; Chen et al. 2011; Marsh 1990; Skaalvik andRankin 1995; Fisher et al. 2013). Points of agreement with a “frame of reference” approachhighlight independent processes in balancing the personal and the social (Skaalvik and Rankin1995, p.163). Yet there are certain departures; specifically, where proposed personal and socialidentities entail shifts in thinking within and among persons rather than so-called “standards ofcomparison” with actual events and other children such as classmates and friends.

Children’s personal and social identities

The foundations of self-concepts are considered in addition to substantial diversity amongindividuals, amidst vigorous debates on social identities and personality (e.g., Bergh et al.2012; Onorato and Turner 2004). The proposed approach positions children’s thinking of oneselfand everyday activities on a continuum from apparent stability to openness to experience. Themain implications are that: (a) openness to experience highlights where wemay alter self-conceptsthat support participation; (b) influences of both personal and social identities suggest that tailoredpersonal and social interventions would be effective; and (c) the content of interventions wouldcombine self-categorizations as features of persons, as well as features of children’s social life.

Personal basis of self-concepts

This optimizes thinking about “threads of consistency” and diversity over time, content and othersituations, given a sense of individuality (Bornholt 2000b; Hattie 1992). Yet other models tend tohave a particular focus, for instance, frame of reference studies of self-concepts with adolescentsand young adults tend to focus on content comparisons (e.g., Möller and Köller 2001; Skaalvikand Rankin 1995). In a study of the personal basis of self-concepts for children, Bornholt andIngram (2001) explored identities and self-concepts about drawing, to show that children tend toconsider drawing as a stable trait. This self-categorization approach was also used to alter self-

Foundations of children’s self-concepts on daily activities

concepts and choices for children with reading difficulties (Bornholt 2004; Coleman and Bornholt2003). Although each study may highlight one or more particular comparative contexts, a generalmodel of personal foundations of self-concepts would involve identity as a sense of individualitywith various combinations of personal contexts that may cover variability, stability, content, time,place and many other situations within persons.

Social basis of self-concepts

In a classic study by Brewer (1991), social processes optimize a need to be socially distinct andalso assimilated. In such situations, a social foundation of self-concepts relies on a sense ofbelonging and balancing several social contexts (Bornholt 2000b; Tanti et al. 2011). For instance,in self-concepts of literacy and numeracy, relevant contexts may involve thinking of oneselfwithin and between groups (such as gender), in forms of self-stereotyping (Bennett and Sani2008). In addition, peer comparisons are implied as models of self-concepts in substantial studieswith adolescents and young adults (e.g., Chen et al. 2011; Marsh 1990; Möller et al. 2011;Skaalvik and Rankin 1995). In other studies with children on physical movement, specific self-categorizations in relation to age and gender were more relevant than thinking of oneself asprototypically “bookish” or “sporty” (Brake and Bornholt 2004; Bornholt and Piccolo 2005).Overall, a general model would involve identity as a sense of belonging in self-categorizations byfriends, peers, family and many other salient features of children’s social life.

Outline of the project

Understanding foundations of children’s self-concepts (e.g., Bennett and Sani 2008; Bornholt2004; Senn 2012) is valuable in models of motivation with long-term outcomes (e.g., McGeeet al. 2002; Prior 1994; Prior et al. 2011; Smart et al. 2001). Whereas other projects challengebroad age-trends such as glowing perceived abilities by children and diverse downwardtrajectories (e.g., Archambault et al. 2010; Eccles et al. 1993; Stipek 1993), the aim of thisproject was to examine subtle shifts in children’s thinking of oneself and everyday activities,within the relevant personal and social contexts that define children’s self-concepts.

Hypothesis

The basic question was whether correlational and experimental evidence supports a generaltheory in terms of proposed complex personal and social foundations for self-concepts. It wasexpected that: (a) the correlational evidence would relate identities, personal and social contextsto self-concepts about everyday activities, and (b) experimental evidence would show thatpersonally and socially tailored information alters children’s self-concepts about activities. Inthis study, identities include individuality and belonging, and comparative contexts consideredtime and content, age and gender, as foundations for self-concepts about literacy and numeracy.

Method

Design

The pilot study was designed to validate experimental manipulations based on personal andsocial self-categorizations. Study 1 examined alternative models of self-concepts in relation to

L. Fisher

skills, and explored proposed models of identities (individuality and belonging) in relation toself-concepts of literacy and numeracy. Study 2 was designed to show several relevantpersonal as well as social contexts for children’s self-concepts of literacy and numeracy. Study3 was an experiment to show personal and social foundations of self-concepts of literacy andnumeracy. Specific content from Study 2 was used in Study 3 as a demonstration for childrenwith low self-concepts. This was considered appropriate in an educational setting wherecomplex combinations of other personal and social features would also be effective with othergroups of children.

Location and recruitment

Samples were recruited from government schools in suburban areas with moderate socioeco-nomic indices [socioeconomic indexes for areas (SEIFA) 995 to 1,022, with 1,000 theAustralian national average, ABS 2006]. The children were from diverse community groupswho all speak English at school and also speak English at home or speak English with Asian,European, and other community languages.

Participants

Children participated with informed consent from their parents or guardians, and recruitmentincluded girls and boys across a broad age range in order to include children with diverseskills. The pilot study (N=16) was with boys (50 %) and girls (50 %), aged from 9 to 12 years(mean 10.7, SD 1.1). Study 1 (N=297) was with boys (55 %) and girls (45 %), aged from 8 to12 years (mean 10.3, SD 0.9). In Study 2 (N=42, boys 62 %, girls 38 %), the children were 9to 11 years old (mean 9.9, SD 0.5), and the children in Study 3 (N=74, boys 57 %, girls 43 %)were 9 to 12 years old (mean 10.0, SD 0.7).

Materials

Self-concepts

The self-concepts were from the ASK-KIDS Inventory for children (Bornholt 1997, 2005a, b).ASK-KIDS is brief, useful, and meaningful for children with diverse skills and abilities ineducational, clinical, and other settings (e.g., Bornholt and Ingram 2001; Russell et al. 2002;Marsh et al. 2005). The sample items for self-concepts about everyday activities of literacy andnumeracy are described in Table 1. ASK-KIDS takes about 15 min to administer; there are fiveitems in each scale, and the responses from reliable scales (alpha from 0.67 to 0.84). Children’sresponses use simple dot-point ratings that range from (1) low to (5) high.

Identities

Identities about individuality and belonging are in the ASK-KIDS Inventory (e.g., Bornholt2000b, 2005a). There are five items in each scale, with sample items in Table 1. Responses usedot-point ratings, and formed reliable scales (alpha=0.67, 0.77), from (1) low to (5) high.

Comparative contexts

Direct questions in Table 1 are single items that ask children to think about personal contexts(by time and content) and social contexts (by age and gender). The separate items are not

Foundations of children’s self-concepts on daily activities

bipolar scales such as variability-to-stability (see Bennet and Sani 2008). Items are suited togeneral applications by using local phrases with standard meaningful prompts for younger andolder children. The responses use dot-point ratings from (1) low to (5) high.

Standard assessments

Children’s literacy and numeracy skills were indicated by responses to standard assessments[Tests of Reading Comprehension (TORCH), ACER 2003; Progressive Achievement Tests(PAT)-Maths, ACER 2007]. These reliable and valid materials are suitable for diverse skillsacross ages. TORCH scores range from 0 to 22, and PAT-Maths scores range from 0 to 28.

Personal and social experiment

Templates of personally and socially based information on literacy and numeracy wereprepared beforehand for all possible personal and social content and then tailored for eachchild based on the pre-test responses (e.g., Bornholt and Ingram 2001). Each child receivedone information sheet and templates were similar for literacy and numeracy. For instance, apersonally tailored information sheet about stability over time was “How good you are atreading may vary from time to time, and your position is about here on the scale.” One of the

Table 1 Sample items from the ASK-KIDSa Inventory on identities and self-concepts of everyday activities, anditems about the personal and social comparative contexts for everyday activities

ASK-KIDS about identities

Individuality 5 items Do you think you are unique [prompt - special]? How much?

Belonging 5 items Do you think there are other children the same as you? How much?

ASK-KIDS self-concepts about everyday activities

Numeracy 5 items Current performance, natural talent, effort, difficulty, performance next year(e.g., How good are you at number activities?)

Literacy 5 items Current performance, natural talent, effort, difficulty, performance next year(e.g., How hard [prompt - difficult] is reading for you?)

Personal contexts

How good are you at reading compared to number activities?

Think about how good you are at reading activities

… how much does that vary [prompt - change] from one time to another?

… how much does that stay the same, from one time to another?

How good are you at number compared to reading activities?

Think about how good you are at number activities

… how much does that vary [prompt - change] from one time to another?

… how much does that stay the same, from one time to another?

Social contexts

Compared to others your age, how good are you at reading activities?

Compared to other girls, how good are you at reading activities?

Compared to other boys, how good are you at reading activities?

Compared to others your age, how good are you at number activities?

Compared to other girls, how good are you at number activities?

Compared to other boys, how good are you at number activities?

a ASK-KIDS Inventory (Bornholt 2005a, b)

L. Fisher

socially tailored information sheets about age was that “Some children are better than others atreading and children like you in Year 4 at school are typically about here on the scale.”

Following the pre-test sessions, a tailored information sheet was prepared for each child (asa personal or social self-categorization about literacy or numeracy). Prototypical positionswere calculated from each child’s pre-test responses. This position was hand-drawn as a largearrow on a dot-point scale (1 to 5). The position of the arrow was just above the child’s pre-testself-concept. This meant that positions were plausible rather than obviously positive, main-taining constant intensity of a meta-contrast ratio (MCR) close to 1.0 (e.g., Oakes et al. 1994).MCR is the average of distances between this position and the other possible positions on thescale, divided by the difference between the position of the arrow and the pre-test self-concept.

Pre-test and post-test self-concepts

Pre-test and post-test self-concepts were about everyday activities of numeracy and literacy.ASK-KIDS self-concepts are suitable for screening, experiments, and interventions, withsound retest reliability over brief intervals (r about 0.70 to 0.80, Spencer and Bornholt2003). Over longer intervals (up to a year), moderate stability suggests openness to experience(rT1–T2=0.40). It is evident that although the rank order varies over time, the group averageswould appear similar from one occasion to the next (e.g., Aunola et al. 2002; Bornholt andPiccolo 2005).

Procedure

The project was approved by the University Ethics Committee and the State GovernmentEducation Department. The recruitment was conducted by school administrators in coopera-tion with school principals and classroom teachers, and children participated with writteninformed consent of their parents or guardians.

Pilot study

The purpose of the pilot study was to validate materials in experimental manipulations basedon self-categorizations. Classroom teachers selected several boys and girls in each class tocover a range of abilities, and school administrators arranged written consent from parents orguardians. The researcher interviewed each child individually in a quiet room at school andadministered pre-test self-concepts of literacy and numeracy, selected appropriate literacy ornumeracy materials for children with low self-concepts, and administered modified templatesfor the experiment as either personal or social interventions, and then administered the relevantpost-test self-concepts. The researcher also showed children their tailored information sheetand asked “What does it mean to be this good at reading?” or “What does it mean to be thisgood at number activities?” (where appropriate). The evidence to support valid materialswould show that (a) the meaning of the arrow on the rating scale on templates were inaccordance with children’s explanations, and (b) individually tailored-interventions based onself-categorizations altered children’s self-concepts.

Study 1. Self-concepts, skills, and identitites

Self-concept inventories were administered by researchers to groups of children. Inventorieswere read aloud as children made their responses on the dot-point rating scales. Then theresearchers administered standard assessments, so that children’s self-concepts would be about

Foundations of children’s self-concepts on daily activities

everyday activities of literacy and numeracy, rather than standard assessments. The purposes ofStudy 1 were: (a) to examine an alternative skills-based model of self-concepts; and (b) toexamine the proposed identities (individuality and belonging) in relation to children’s self-concepts about everyday activities of literacy and numeracy.

Study 2. Comparative contexts

The personal and social inventories were administered by researchers to groups of children intheir regular classrooms. Researcher read each item aloud as the children read the items tothemselves and then provided their own responses to each item on the dot-point rating scales.

Study 3. The experiment

General screening by trained researchers in class groups was used to select the participants(used as pre-test scores for the experiment). Selected participants were children with low self-concepts of literacy or numeracy. (Children with high self-concepts and children with low self-concepts on both literacy and numeracy were excluded). Selection of children with low self-concepts used an item about current performance and was defined as responses from 1.0 and3.8, as below optimal range on five-point scales (e.g., Bornholt 2005a).

Within the literacy and numeracy conditions, the children were randomly allocated to theexperimental groups, and the templates were prepared for each child based on pre-testresponses. The next day, the experiment was run in small groups. Children were given oneof four sets of written materials (personal or social tailored information about literacy ornumeracy). To ensure children paid attention to the material, the researcher spoke to each childwhile pointing to the position of the arrow and quietly read the statement, and the child alsowrote a response to an open question “What does it mean to be this good at…?” (reading ornumber as appropriate). The children then completed the post-test self-concept inventoriesabout everyday activities of literacy and numeracy.

Analysis

Descriptive (mean, SD) and inferential statistics (partial correlations, MANOVA) in SPSSWindows used standard criteria for statistical significance (p<0.05). Meaningful effect sizeswere >0.4 of SD, which are differences between the means over pooled SD (Kline 2000).According to Hattie (1992, p. 236). “Treatment that can bring about even this amount ofchange in such a complex structure as self-concept is worth considering.” Structural equationmodeling (AMOS) used standard goodness of fit indices [low ChiSq/df, high TLI≥0.90 andlow root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)≤0.08, Hoyle 2011].

Results

Pilot study

Results from the pilot study suggested that materials were valid. The children’s self-conceptsincreased from pre-test to post-test scores. In particular, the individually tailored informationbased on self-categorizations were effective in response to personally based materials onliteracy (effect 0.50 SD) and numeracy (effect 0.60 SD) and in response to socially basedmaterials about literacy (effects 0.66 SD) and numeracy (effect 0.75 SD).

L. Fisher

The children’s responses also supported the validity of the experimental manipulation. Thatis, the meanings of the positions of tailored arrows on the five-point scale suggested that thematerials were understood by the children. For instance, an arrow at four on the scale meant“to be good at vocabulary and to have good reading skills” and may also mean “to concentrate,to put more effort into it, and to try harder.”

Study 1. Self-concepts, skills, and identitites

Demographic factors

Preliminary results suggest few influences of demographic factors. Self-concepts were similaramong home language groups, over and above test scores, age and gender (self-concepts ofliteracy effect 0.1 SD, and numeracy effect 0.3 SD), and locations (literacy F=2.7 ns,numeracy F=0.2 ns). Regression analysis showed that self-concepts were unbiased by age(literacy β=0.10 ns, numeracy β=0.01 ns) and gender (literacy β=-.07 ns, numeracy β=0.19 ns). Therefore the responses were combined across demographic factors.

Self-concepts and skills

Structural equation modeling tested an alternative skills-based model of self-concepts (withstandard assessments of literacy and numeracy and correlated residuals for self-concepts). Themodel was a good fit (low ChiSq/df 2.6, high GFI 0.93, TLI 0.92, low RMSEA 0.08). Acompletely standardized solution showed skills and self-concepts were independent (literacyβ=0.13 ns, numeracy β=0.12 ns). This means that there was no link between children’s skillsand self-concepts of these everyday activities.

The results also showed a link between literacy and numeracy test scores (r=0.56, p<0.001),and contrary to typical skills-based models, there was a link between literacy and numeracyself-concepts (r=0.51, p<0.001). Furthermore, cross-links were weak or not statisticallysignificant (numeracy skills and literacy self-concepts β=0.19, p>0.05; literacy skills andnumeracy self-concepts β=-0.16 ns). The residuals were generally not linked (with few weaklinks for self-concept items about task difficulty). Therefore, the findings confirm research withmeta-analyses by Hattie (1992, 2002) to reject a skills-based model of self-concepts.

It is interesting to note that although skills-based models are commonly reported, the resultshere are consistent with previous evidence in other studies as weak or no links between skills andself-concepts. Given that other studies may report on findings with substantial samples, somereports of statistical significance may be misinterpreted as meaningful links (Hattie 1992, 2002;Kline 2000). In brief, results show that children’s self-concepts were not based on actual skillsmeasured by standard assessments. There was no support for an alternative skills-based model.

Identities and self-concepts

With substantial variations among individuals, there were few variations in self-concepts withdemographic factors. It is notable that children’s responses were similar for younger and oldergirls and boys. The one exception was slightly stronger self-concepts of numeracy for olderboys than girls (small effect 0.3 SD). Therefore, the responses of younger and older girls andboys were combined.

The results in Table 2 describe profiles of self-concepts about everyday activities of literacyand numeracy. On average, self-concepts were within an optimal range (about 3.8 on five-point scale, e.g., Bornholt 2005a; Bornholt and Ingram 2001). Profiles also describe moderate

Foundations of children’s self-concepts on daily activities

identities as a sense of individuality and somewhat stronger sense of belonging. Resultsconfirm that these identities of individuality and belonging were separate constructs (r=0.11,ns). This means that personal and social foundations of self-concepts are independent and maybe added.

The overall results identified the conceptual rather than the actual basis of self-concepts interms of children’s personal and social identities. It is evident that personal identity as a senseof individuality had a significant influence on children’s self-concepts about literacy (β=0.28)and also numeracy (β=0.27). In addition, a sense of belonging socially had significantinfluence on children’s self-concepts about literacy (β=0.32) and also about numeracy (β=0.38).

In summary, the findings suggested that it was worthwhile exploring both personal andsocial realities further as the foundations of what children think about oneself in relation toliteracy and numeracy. Consequently, the experiment in Study 3 was designed to demonstrate apersonal basis as well as a social basis to self-concepts about everyday activities of literacy andnumeracy.

Study 2. Personal and social contexts

Personal comparative contexts were considered here for the person over time and content.Table 3 shows that a personal basis of children’s self-concepts about literacy is particular tochildren’s ideas about the stability of literacy skills over time. In this situation, other personalself-categorizations were not significant influences on children’s self-concepts about literacy.

The relevant personal basis of self-concepts about numeracy includes a negative influenceas invariance over time, moderate positive influences of stability over time, and by contentabout numeracy compared to literacy. In this situation, personal self-categorization aboutliteracy compared to numeracy was not a statistically significant influence on self-conceptsof numeracy.

In addition, the social contexts considered here were self-categorizations of age and gender.Results in Table 3 show that thinking about oneself and others the same age and gender were

Table 2 Means, standard deviations (SD), range, and reliability (alpha) of identities (individuality and belong-ing) and self-concepts about literacy and numeracy for younger and older boys and girls

Mean (SD) Min. Max. Alpha

Identities Individuality 2.7 (0.8) 1.0 5.0 0.67

Belonging 3.9 (0.9) 1.4 5.0 0.81

Self-conceptsa Literacy 4.0 (0.8) 1.0 5.0 0.84

Numeracy 3.8 (0.8) 1.4 5.0 0.72

Skills Literacy 14.9 (5.8) 0 22 0.86

Numeracy 20.7 (4.3) 0 28 0.89

Younger childrenb Older childrenc

Girls Boys Girls Boys

Identities Individuality 2.8 (0.8) 2.9 (0.9) 2.5 (0.9) 2.8 (0.8)

Belonging 4.0 (0.9) 3.9 (0.9) 3.9 (0.8) 4.0 (0.9)

Self-conceptsa Literacy 4.0 (0.8) 3.9 (0.8) 3.6 (0.7) 3.7 (0.8)

Numeracy 4.2 (0.9) 4.2 (0.8) 3.6 (0.8) 4.0 (0.8)

a Self-concepts are independent of skills (that is, correlations are not statistically significant)b,c Age groups include the children below and above the median age

L. Fisher

relevant contexts for children’s self-concepts about literacy. Table 3 also suggests that thinkingof oneself and others the same age and perhaps gender were also relevant to self-conceptsabout numeracy. In this situation, others contexts were not necessarily relevant.

In summary, the common findings highlight children’s ideas about stability over time andcomparisons among age groups. Therefore, the intervention in the experiment concentrated onthese specific processes in crafting the personally and socially referenced information.

Study 3. Experiment on personal and social basis of self-concepts

Preliminary analyses showed that pre-test self-concepts were similar in literacy [F(1,40)=1.7 ns] and numeracy [F(1,39)=0.01 ns]. Pre-test self-concepts were also similar for youngerand older children [literacy F(1,40)=0.01, numeracy F(1,39)=0.30, ns]. Pre-test self-conceptswere similar for girls and boys in self-concepts about literacy [F(1,40)=0.1, ns] and slightlyhigher for boys than girls in self-concepts about numeracy [F(1,39)=6.9, p<0.05, small effect0.24 SD]. Therefore, the children’s responses were combined in order to examine the effects ofthe experiment on children’s post-test self-concepts.

Table 4 shows the means (SD) for pre-test and post-test self-concepts in personal and socialconditions about literacy and numeracy activities. The results showed significant overall effectsof the intervention on children’s post-test self-concepts about literacy [F(1,37)=19.9, p<0.001].

Table 3 Personal and social comparative contexts in relation to literacy and numeracy self-concepts

Personal contexts β Variability Stability Number vs. reading Reading vs. number

Literacy self-concepts 0.14 0.37* -0.03 0.02

Numeracy self-concepts -0.30* 0.41* 0.41* 0.18

Social contexts β Age groups Within gender Between genders

Literacy self-concepts 0.40* 0.42* 0.07

Numeracy self-concepts 0.48* 0.25* -0.05

There were similar effects for girls and boys, with few exceptions (weak links with stability for boys, and agecomparisons on reading for girls and on number for boys). There were similar effects for younger and olderchildren, with few exceptions (including stability of literacy and numeracy for younger children, and withingender by older children)

Asterisks (* ) indicate statistically significant coefficients (p<0.05)

Table 4 Children’s self-concepts about everyday activities before and after the tailored interventions that weredesigned with either a personal basis or a social basis

Personal basis Social basis

Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test

Literacy self-concepts 3.09 3.52 2.87 3.42

(0.63) (0.73) (0.43) (0.52)

Numeracy self-concepts 2.89 3.52 2.85 3.28

(0.62) (0.76) (0.67) (0.88)

a Children have low self-concepts in either literacy or numeracy (not both) based on responses to self-conceptsabout performance (in the range from 1.0 to 3.8 on the five-point scale)

Foundations of children’s self-concepts on daily activities

These were substantial effects of personally based tailored information (effect 0.7 SD) andsocially based tailored information (effect 0.8 SD) on children’s self-concepts of literacy.

The results also showed the personal and social basis of self-concepts about numeracy. Thetailored information had a significant overall effect on children’s self-concepts about numeracy[F(1,41)=23.9, p<0.001]. It is evident that these effects were substantial for personally based(effect 0.6 SD) and socially based information (effect 0.4 SD).

Discussion

Overall, the results supported the proposed personal and social theory of children’s self-concepts. The pilot study suggested that the materials for the experiment were meaningful tothe children and that carefully tailored information using self-categorization protocols effec-tively altered self-concepts. The correlational evidence in Study 1 and Study 2 served twomain purposes. First, the results suggested that self-concepts are conceptually based. Inparticular, children’s self-concepts are not based directly on actual skills, which confirmedmeta-analysis by Hattie (1992, 2002). Second, the correlational evidence in Study 1 and Study2 suggested a personal and a social basis of self-concepts of literacy and numeracy. Inparticular, the results supported the common foundations of self-concepts in terms of identities(individuality and belonging) in comparative contexts. These identities and particular self-categorizations were used here as a demonstration to support the general proposal. In thissituation, children’s thinking about the stability of skills over time was meaningful to literacyand numeracy self-concepts. In addition, children’s thinking of oneself and others by age wasmeaningful to self-concepts about literacy and numeracy. Clearly, other identities and salientcomparative contexts may also be relevant to particular subgroups of children and in othersituations. These may include children thinking about varying skills over time, among contentand other personal features, within and between gender and other social self-categorizations.

Experimental evidence in Study 3 also supported the personal and social hypothesis. In particular,self-concepts about literacy and numeracy were responsive to both personally and social-tailoredinformation in self-categorization protocols. Findings therefore confirm that self-evaluations expressthe children’s personal and social reality. In brief, the correlational and experimental evidenceprovided ample support for the proposed theory of personal and social self-concepts.

Limitations and strengths of the design

Features of the design may limit or strengthen implications of the findings for research andpractice in similar contexts. The main consideration is that samples included girls and boys withdiverse skills and self-concepts, in satisfactory samples. The pilot study was necessarily small forsuch close attention to each child, the sample size in Study 2 was adequate to identify comparativecontexts, and sample sizes were more than sufficient for the purposes in Study 1 and Study 3. As aguide, an estimate of 80 % power is based on the standard criteria for correlations (N>67 with r>0.30, p<0. 05) and experimental evidence (N>64 with effect size 0.40, p<0. 05).

The second point is about indicators of self-concepts, identitites, and comparative items thatwere administered by trained researchers. One of the main limitations in the design is thatparticular personal and social comparative contexts were explored and implemented in theexperiment. Ideally, larger samples and replications of the proposed personal and social modelswould allow simple and complex combinations of these materials. Yet the initial findings heresuggest the materials may be readily applied to others in similar contexts including youngerchildren (e.g., Bornholt 2005a, b). Overall, findings rely on materials that are brief,

L. Fisher

meaningful, and useful, with appropriate procedures for children in clinical, community, andother settings.

The third point concerns well-known roles of socioeconomic indicators in education. It isclear that resources available to communities may alter achievement at school levels ratherthan for individuals (Bornholt et al. 2004). To date, research suggests few effects of socioeco-nomic indicators on self-concepts about activities. For instance, responses of children to ASK-KIDS and adolescents to ASK-Q inventories about common activities, such as reading,making friends and movement (β range from -0.15 to 0.14 ns for SEIFA 869 to 1,271,Bornholt 2005a; Bornholt et al. 2009), suggest that we may extend similar projects acrosssocioeconomic contexts.

In brief, the main strengths of the project are correlational and experimental evidence withindividually tailored interventions in self-categorization protocols and materials appropriate forchildren. These features of the design suggest that wemay readily draw inferences from the findings.

Interpretations of personal and social meanings

Results highlight the complex personal and social processes as foundations of children’s self-concepts. The results support the idea that the meanings of self-concepts rely on personal andsocial identities in comparative contexts to explain children’s thinking of oneself and everydayactivities of literacy and numeracy. The common threads for literacy and numeracy suggestthat similar foundations with variations across situations may also apply to other activities.

The main contributions to theory and research concerns flexible self-evaluations thatbalance optimal positions on a continuum, from classic personality approaches to self-evaluations more open or responsive to experience (Fisher et al. 2013). The approachdeveloped here goes some way toward explaining the flexibility of children’s personal andsocial realities as self-concepts about everyday activities of literacy and numeracy. Similarapproaches are clearly relevant to our understanding of complex self-stereotyping for adultsand also for children about group identities. According to Bennett and Sani (2008, p.71), “thefindings make plain that even among young children, self-conception is not invariant butcontextually variable.” It is therefore vital that such approaches draw on and extend earlierwork on group or social identities by Tajfel (1982) and others within broader self-categorization and related theories.

The findings provide a sound framework for a general personal and social theory of self-concepts. Further research would be worthwhile on other everyday activities with children, andadolescents and adults, to cover an array of identities in varied personal and social contexts.For this project, the correlational and experimental findings are meaningful and also practicalin understanding children’s personal and social realities.

The framework is also useful in reviewing earlier studies on particular identities andspecific comparative contexts, to demonstrate subtle shifts in children’s thinking. For instance,an earlier study showed a strong personal basis and moderate social basis of children’sconcepts about drawing (Bornholt and Ingram 2001). In the present study, personal meaningsof stability over time and social meanings by age were relevant to children’s self-concepts ofliteracy and numeracy. It builds on earlier work using self-categorization protocols to considerwhat thinking about various content means to children with reading difficulties (Coleman andBornholt 2003) and adds to substantial work on the small yet consistent effects of self-stereotyping about gender in context (e.g., Bennett and Sani 2008; Eccles et al. 1993; Bornholtand Cooney 1993; Bornholt 2000a). Such diversity is also evident in projects in related fieldsabout health behaviors to suggest ways to motivate children to participate in exercise (Bornholtand Piccolo 2005). Specifically, personal and social realities included a sense of individuality

Foundations of children’s self-concepts on daily activities

that may limit self-concepts about movement, and a sense of belonging socially that supportedself-concepts for older children. It is clear that such complex personal and social processesmake meanings from children’s experiences. It would therefore seem worthwhile expandingthe framework of identities and comparative contexts to generate projects about other vitaleveryday activities.

Conclusion

The overall conclusion is that identities in relevant comparative contexts define a personal andsocial theory of children’s self-concepts. Findings therefore extend general social-developmental research to highlight the flexibility and balance within self-categorizations forindividuals. The ideas fit well with substantial research on group identities and self-stereotyping; to reject ideas of fixed reflections of skills and go beyond explicit personal andsocial comparisons (e.g., Bergh et al. 2012; Turner 1987; Skaalvik and Rankin 1995; Bornholt2000b). It is readily apparent that skills and self-concepts develop independently and that wemay usefully consider the validity of self-concepts in relation to intentions and choicebehaviors. And so it seems reasonable to conclude that children’s self-concepts may beexplained in terms of the proposed personal and social realities.

Findings highlight the personal and social foundations of children’s self-concepts inongoing work on children’s participation in activities that promote health, learning, andwell-being. These models explore the foundations of the self-concepts that motivate andjustify participation within MSM about everyday activities (e.g., Bornholt 2005a, b, c;Bornholt and Piccolo 2005; Fisher 2013a). It remains for others to apply these ideas toresearch and professional practice with children in diverse settings. Ideally, applications wouldmake effective use of these ideas in screening, intervention, and prevention program withcarefully tailored interventions based on each child’s personal and social realities.

Acknowledgments The author would like to thanks the children, their parents and guardians, and school stafffor their co-operation; to Ian Fisher, Fiona Spencer, Jens Möller, and Alison Elliott for support and advice; andKathryn Timmis, Adrienne Whitby, Leilah Nelson, Peter Tong, Carol Pearce, Marijana Vurmeska, Jodie Gaven,Lucy Chimarides, Matthew Drury, and David Glen for the research assistance. Partial funding for this project wasfrom an Australian Research Council Insititutional Grant and a seed grant from the University of Sydney.

References

ACER. (2003). TORCH test of reading comprehension, 2nd edn. Melbourne: Australian Council for EducationalResearch. http://www.acer.edu.au.

ACER. (2007). Progressive achievement test–Mathematics PAT–Maths. Melbourne: Australian Council forEducational Research. http://www.acer.edu.au.

Albert, S. (1977). Temporal comparison theory. Psychological Review, 84(6), 485–503.Archambault, I., Eccles, J. S., & Vida, M. N. (2010). Ability self-concepts and subjective value in literacy: joint

trajectories from grades 1 through 12. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 804–816.Asgari, S., Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2012). When do counterstereotypic ingroup members inspire versus

deflate? The effect of successful professional women on young women’s leadership self-concept.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(3), 370–383.

Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity:Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80–114.

Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Onatsu-Arvilommi, T., & Nurmi, J. (2002). Three methods for studying developmentalchange: A case of reading skills and self concept. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 343–364.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). Socio economic indices for areas. Canberra: Australian GovernmentPrinting Service. http://www.abs.gov.au.

L. Fisher

Bennett, M., & Sani, F. (2008). Children’s subjective identification with social groups: a self-stereotypingapproach. Developmental Science, 11(1), 69–75.

Bergh, R., Akrami, N., & Ekehammar, B. (2012). The compatibility of personality and social identity processes:

the effect of gender identity on neuroticism. European Journal of Personality, 26, 175–181.Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school

students: self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 23–34.Bornholt, L. J. (1997). Aspects of self knowledge about activities with young children. Every Child, 3, 8–9.Bornholt, L. J. (2000a). The gendered nature of competence: specific and general aspects of self knowledge in

social contexts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 350–370.Bornholt, L. J. (2000b). Social and personal aspects of self knowledge: a balance of individuality and belonging.

Learning & Instruction, 10, 415–429.Bornholt, L. J. (2001). Self-concepts, usefulness and behavioural intentions in the social context of schooling.

Educational Psychology, 21, 67–78.Bornholt, L. J. (2004). Enhancing reading self concepts that ‘feed forward’ to improve task choices for children

with reading difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9, 25–27.Bornholt, L. J. (2005a). ASK-KIDS self concept inventory. Test and test manual. Melbourne: ACER Press.Bornholt, L. J. (2005b). Aspects of self knowledge ASK about activities: an integrated model of self concepts.

European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 156–164.Bornholt, L. J. (2005c). Response of motivation spiral models (MSM) to context: developing children’s

motivation in reading, movement and social activities. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57, 157.Bornholt, L. J., & Cooney, G. H. (1993). Social comparisons and students perceptions of their own achievement.

Australian Journal of Education, 37, 69–76.Bornholt, L. J., & Ingram, A. (2001). Personal and social identity in children’s self-concepts about drawing.

Educational Psychology, 21(2), 151–167.Bornholt, L. J., & Piccolo, A. (2005). Individuality, belonging and children’s self concepts: a learning spiral

model of self evaluation, performance and participation in physical activities. Applied Psychology AnInternational Review, 54, 516–537.

Bornholt, L. J., Gientzotis, J., & Cooney, G. H. (2004). Understanding choice behaviours: pathways from school

to university — changing aspirations and opportunities. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 211–228.Bornholt, L. J., Maras, P. F., & Robinson, R. A. (2009). ‘I am— we are’: personal and social pathways to further

study, work and family life. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 12(3), 345–359.Brake, N. A., & Bornholt, L. J. (2004). Personal and social bases of children’s self-concepts about physical

movement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98, 711–724.Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Personality & Social

Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.Chen, S.-K., Hwang, F.-M., Yeh, Y.-C., & Lin, S. S. J. (2011). Cognitive ability, academic achievement and

academic self-concept: extending the internal/external frame of reference model. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 82(2), 308–326.

Coleman, C., & Bornholt, L. J. (2003). Reading self concepts and task choices for children with readingdifficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 24–31.

Conway, M., & Ross, M. (1984). Getting what you want by revising what you had. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 47(4), 738–748.

Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 18, 585–609.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumfield, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s selfand task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847.

Fisher, L. J. (2013a) Motivational spiral models (MSM): Common and distinct features of developing motiva-tions in diverse contexts. Springer Plus, 2, 565. www.springerplus.com/content/2/1/565.

Fisher, L. J. (2013b) Motivated Planned Pathways to study, work and family life: Personal, relational and socialmotivations in socio-economic contexts. [under review].

Fisher, L. J., Spencer, F. H., & Ouvrier, R. A. (2010). SYSTEMS-R cognitive screening for children. Sydney,Australia: Watervale Systems.

Fisher, L. J., Möller, J., & Köller, O. (2013). Content and peer comparisons for core and peripheral components:Skills and self concepts about literacy and numeracy. Research papers on Development & Diversity (vol. II,pp. 5–23). Sydney: Watervale Systems.

Guthrie, J., &Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. InM. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 403–425). Oxford: Routledge.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and achievement inreading. In S. L. Chistenson et al. (Eds.) Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 601–634).Springer Science+Business Media.

Foundations of children’s self-concepts on daily activities

Harter, S. (1986). Cognitive-developmental processes in the integration of concepts about emotions and the self.Social Cognition, 4, 119–151.

Hattie, J. (1992). Self concept. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Hattie, J. (2002, August). Why is it so difficult to enhance self-concept in the classroom?: The power

of feedback in the self-concept-achievement relationship. Keynote address, Self Centre Conferencein Sydney, Australia.

Hoyle, R. H. (2011). Structural equation modelling for social and personality psychology. London: SagePublications.

Kirsch, I., de Jong, J., Lafontaine, D., McQueen, J., Mendelovits, J., & Monseur, C. (2002). Reading for change.Performance and engagement across countries. Results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.

Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Latrofa, M., Vaes, J., Cadinu, M., & Carnaghi, A. (2010). The cognitive representation of self-stereotyping.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 911–922.Maras, P. (2007). ‘But no one in my family has been to university’: aiming higher: school students’ attitudes to

higher education. Australian Educational Researcher, 34(4), 69–90.Marsh, H. W. (1990). Influences of internal and external frames of reference on the formation of Math and

English self-concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 107–116.Marsh, H. W., Debus, R., & Bornholt, L. J. (2005). Validating young children’s self-concept

responses: methodological ways and means to understand their responses. In D. M. Teti(Ed.), Handbook of research methods in developmental psychology (pp. 138–160). Oxford:Blackwell.

McGee, R., Prior, M., Williams, S., Smart, D., & Sanson, A. (2002). The long-term significance of teacher-ratedhyperactivity and reading ability in childhood: findings from two longitudinal studies. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry, 43, 1004–1017.

Möller, J., & Köller, O. (2001). Dimensional comparisons: an experimental approach to the internal/externalframe of reference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 826–835.

Möller, J., Streblow, B., Pohlmann, B., & Köller, O. (2006). An extension to the internal/ external frame ofreference model to two verbal and numerical domains. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(4),467–487.

Möller, J., Retelsdorf, J., Köller, O., & Marsh, H. W. (2011). The reciprocal internal/external frame of referencemodel: an integration of models of relations between academic achievement and self-concept. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 48, 1315–1346.

Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Social stereotyping and social reality. Oxford: Blackwell.Onorato, R. S., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Fluidity in the self-concept: the shift from personal to social identity.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 257–278.Ouvrier, R. A., Hendy, J., Bornholt, L. J., & Black, F. H. (1999). SYSTEMS: School-years screening test for

evaluation of mental status. Journal of Child Neurology, 14, 772–780.Pohlmann, B., & Möller, J. (2009). On the benefit of dimensional comparisons. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 101(1), 248–258.Prior, M. (1994). Reading disability in Australian children. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 26, 3–7.Prior, M., Bavin, M., & Ong, B. (2011). Predictors of school readiness in five- to six-year-old children from an

Australian longitudinal community sample. Educational Psychology, 31(1), 3–16.Reynolds, K. J., & Oakes, P. J. (2000). Variability in impression formation: Investigating the role of motivation,

capacity and the categorization process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 355–373.Russell, L., Bornholt, L., & Ouvrier, R. (2002). Brief cognitive screening and self concepts for children with low

intellectual functioning. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 93–104.Senn, N. (2012). Effective approaches to motivate and engage reluctant boys in literacy. Reading Teacher, 66(3),

211–220.Simpkins, S. D., Fredericks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Charting the Eccles’ expectancy-valuemodel frommothers’

beliefs in childhood to youths’ activities in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 48(4), 1019–1032.Skaalvik, E. M., & Rankin, R. J. (1995). A test of the internal/external frame of reference model at different levels

of math and verbal self-perception. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 161–184.Smart, D., Prior, M., Sanson, A., & Oberkaid, F. (2001). Children with reading difficulties: a six-year follow-up

from early primary school to secondary school. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53, 45–53.Spencer, F. H., & Bornholt, L. J. (2003). A model of children’s cognitive functioning and cognitive self-concepts.

Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 4–9.Stipek, D. (1993). Motivation to learn (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Tajfel, H. (1982). The social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.Tanti, C., Stukas, A. A., Halloran, M. J., & Foddy, M. (2011). Social identity change: shifts in social identity

during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 34(3), 555–567.

L. Fisher

Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Wilson, A. E., & Ross, M. (2000). The frequency of temporal-self and social comparisons in people’s personal

appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 928–942.

Dr. Laurel Fisher. Watervale Systems, PO Box 318 Potts Point, NSW 1335 Australia

Current themes of research:

Self concepts in motivation include motivational spiral models (MSM) that relate self concepts, positive andnegative feelings, skills, strategies, and participation. The role of identities in diverse contexts cover a sense ofindividuality, belonging, place, and spirituality that provide foundations for health and well-being. Brief, mean-ingful assessment materials are useful tools in community, clinical, health, and educational settings

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Fisher, L. J. (2013). Motivated spiral models (MSM): Common and distinct motivation in context. SpringerPlus,2, 565. http://www.springerplus.com/content/2/1/565

Fisher, L. J., & Spencer, F. H. (2013). Children’s social behaviour for learning (SBL): Extending observations ofsocial behaviour (under review).

Bornholt, L. J., Robinson, R. A., & Maras, P. F. (2009). ‘I am— we are’: Personal and social pathways to furtherstudy, work and family life, Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 12(3), 345–359.

Bornholt, L., Brake, N., Thomas, S., Madden, S., Clarke, S., Anderson, G. & Kohn, M. (2005). Understandingaffective and cognitive self evaluations about the body for adolescent girls, British Journal of HealthPsychology, 10, 1–10

Bornholt, L. J., Ajersch, S., Fisher, I. H., Markham, R. H., & Ouvrier, R. A. (2010). Cognitive screening forchildren and adolescents: General limits or ceiling effects? Journal of Child Neurology, 25, 567–571.

Bornholt, L. J., & Wilson, R. (2007). A mediated model of aspects of self knowledge (M-ASK). AppliedPsychology. An International Review, 56, 302–318.

Bornholt, L. J. (2005). ASK-KIDS inventory for children. Melbourne: ACER Press. http://www.acer.edu.au

Foundations of children’s self-concepts on daily activities