May 1, 2017 By: Kim Zamora and Mary Lindberg Bandura May 1, 2017 By: Kim Zamora and Mary Lindberg

Biography Born December, 4 1925 Alberta, Canada Youngest of 6 Parents emigrated from Eastern Europe Small town Self-taught Summer Vacations

Biography University of British Columbia University of Iowa Won a bunch of awards. 1953 started teaching at Stanford The only boy In UNiv of British C- he had some free time so he took a intro to psych

Fun Facts Met his wife, Virginia Varns in sand trap 2 daughters Love to go on hikes

Social Learning Theory Observational Learning Attention Processes Retention Processes 3. Motor Reproduction Processes. 4. Reinforcement and Motivational Processes

Self-Efficacy Our own personal evaluation of our performance. - ‘I’m good at math’ and ‘I’m poor at swimming’”

Self-Efficacy Actual Performance Vicarious Experience Verbal Persuasion Physiological Cues

Our Study We wanted to see if motivation (in our study a pep talk, a form of verbal persuasion) helps students’ self-efficacy grow and improve their test performance. Two similar but different tests. Two groups.

Hypothesis We hypothesized that the control group (no pep talk) would have a lower self-efficacy on the second questionnaire than the experimental group (pep talk). We also thought that younger students would have lower or less mature self-efficacy than the older students. Mature self efficacy: “Through more extensive use of efficacy information provided across tasks, time, and situations, older children judge their capabilities and limitations more accurately.”-Bandura

Our Study Control group -1st Test: given questionnaire given instructions handed the test -2nd Test: given the questionnaire handed similar test Experimental Group -1st Test: given questionnaire given instructions handed the test -2nd Test: given a pep talk handed similar test Our Study

Questionnaire This test has 3 parts- Grammar, Spelling, and Math. Before you begin the test please answer these few questions: Grammar: Please circle the answer that corresponds to you. I would describe my skill in this subject as…. 1 2 3 4 5 Bad Pretty Bad OK Pretty Good Good Why did you choose to circle that? Math: Please circle the answer that corresponds to you. Bad Pretty Bad OK Pretty Good Good

Sample Questions Spelling: Grammar: Math: 4. Choose the correct spelling: F. beginning G. begining H. beggining I. none are correct J. I don’t know Grammar: 1. Choose the sentence that is written correctly. A.My parent are picking me up from school today. B. My parents is picking me up from school today. C.My parents are picking me up from school today. D. My parent pick me up from school today. E. I don’t know Math: 2. What is S if 6 x 4 = 3 x S? A. 8 B. 6 C. 4 D. 24 E. I don’t know

Student 1 13 years old Every time he cites a reason for his ability in subjects the source of his ability is actual performance (acc. to his response) After the first test he immediately changes reasons he cites from general things like “I’m good for my age” to saying he is good because “last test”

Student 2 11 years old Except for her reasons cited for ability in math the source of her ability in other subjects is actual performance Her reason cited for ability in grammar seems to bring into question her source of self efficacy pre- & post- first test Pre-first-test: she says she “does not always say the right thing” > verbal persuasion Post-first-test: she says she “did better than she thought” she would & increases her rating from OK to Pretty Good > actual performance

Student 3 13 years old Only one of his reasons cited for ability in the first questionnaire have actual performance as source of self- efficacy (the other two reasons cannot be traced to any particular source) Like the other 13-year-old his post-first-test reasons are clearly actual performance because he references the first test

Student 4 10 years old Spent much longer than the 13-year-olds and 11-year-old to write his reasons for his ratings Even after spending much longer wrote “can’t decide” for two of the ratings, even though he chose a rating Only one reason has Actual Performance as source (and it was after the first test)

Self-Efficacy Ratings Comprehensive self efficacy ratings of the 4 participants: sum of their ratings in grammar, math & spelling Increase in students 1 & 3, the 13-year-olds For the 13-year-old with pep talk the rating increased MORE compared to the 13 year old without pep talk

Limitations Not enough participants Difficulty of test for younger students Length of test increased could have given a better idea of students’ ability Participant groups were sibling pairs, ages were not identical and boy-girl- ratio not equal--HOWEVER, study could have implications for both traditional school and homeschool

We were partly right about the effect of age on the reasons for self efficacy ratings given because one 13-year-old gave all clear reasons; however, the next most clear reasons was the 11-year-old, not the other 13-year-old Conclusion We were partly right about the effect of verbal persuasion because it had an impact on the self efficacy rating of the 13- year-old in the experimental group

Nature-Nurture Line Nature Nurture Bandura Bandura Rousseau Locke