1. Albert Bandura Self-Efficacy Gabby Drong and JP Fasone

2. Background Born in 1925 in Alberta, Canada Studied at University of British Columbia and University of Iowa Working at Stanford University since 1953 1997 published Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control

3. Self-Efficacy A persons belief in their capacity of perform a particular task Major role in how one approaches goals, tasks, and challenges Four different processes of self efficacy: cognitive, motivational, selection, and affective

4. Cognitive Process Organized through thought Envision scenarios that will take place based on their actions If high self-efficacy, they will set higher goals and believe they can be reached Self doubt will lead to unachieved goals

5. "People who regard themselves as highly efficacious act, think, and feel differently from those who perceive themselves as inefficacious. They produce their own future, rather than simply foretell it.” -Albert Bandura

6. Motivational Process Three theories of motivation  Attribution- attributing failure to either lack of talent or practice  Expectancy value- people do things because it gives them something they want  Goal theory- self-efficacy determines what type of goal will be set

7. Affective Process “personal control over thought, action, and affect” Way a person feels about their ability to cope Applies to stressful or uncomfortable situations

8. Selection Process People are products of their environment Choosing a specific environment affects self-efficacy “by selecting their environment...they have a hand in what they become”

9. Self-Efficacy in School “school functions as the primary setting for the cultivation...of cognitive competencies” classroom structure plays a large role Way the teacher, peers, and parents react to the student is important to the students judgment of self-efficacy

10. Adolescent Self-Efficacy Periods of turmoil, such as puberty, affect self-efficacy Largely dependent on peers and environment Relationships with others, self-image, and mindset all affected

11. Hypothesis We decided to focus on the cognitive process in our study Students given questions to measure how well they believed they could respond to scenarios Our hypothesis was that the older they were, the higher self-efficacy students would have.

12. Our Study We administered a survey of 21 questions to freshman through seniors in high school Students chose from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Very Well) for their answers Specific questions correlated with academic, emotional, and social self-efficacy

13. Location and Students Public school in suburbs of Chicago, Illinois Diverse students Survey taken by both males and females Four different classes took the survey- one for each grade

14. Academic Self-Efficacy How well can you get teachers to help you when you get stuck on homework? How well can you study when there are other interesting things to do? How well can you study a chapter for a test? How well do you succeed in finishing all your homework every day? How well can you pay attention during every class? How well do you succeed in understanding all subjects in school? How well do you succeed in satisfying your parents with your schoolwork?

15. Social Self-Efficacy How well can you express your opinions when other classmates disagree with you? How well can you become friends with other peers? How well can you have a chat with an unfamiliar person? How well can you work with your classmates? How well can you tell other peers that they are doing something that you don’t like? How well can you tell a funny event to a group of peers? How well do you succeed in staying friends with other peers?

16. Emotional Self-Efficacy How well do you succeed in cheering yourself up when an unpleasant event has happened? How well do you succeed in becoming calm again when you are very scared? How well can you prevent nervousness? How well can you control your feelings? How well can you give yourself a pep talk when you feel low? How well can you tell a friend that you don’t feel well? How well do you succeed in suppressing unpleasant thoughts?

17. Data

18. Results ClassNumber of Students AcademicSocialEmotional Freshmen40N/A Sophomore8+ 3.929%+ 2.428%+ 5.358% Junior28- 9.132%+ 0.765%- 1.632% Senior10+8.919%+ 2.786%+ 1.633%

19. Limitations Only 4 classes took the survey, and each had a different number of students Only able to do 4 random classes- it would have been better to choose a specific class (for example, English) across the board for each grade Each teacher has a different style of teaching

20. Changes We Would Make Compare self-efficacy of students in AP classes to regular classes Specify directions- some students did not answer every question Take results from classes only taught by the same teacher

21. Nature vs Nurture NatureNurture Bandura

22. Bibliography Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998) https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/BanEncy.html https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/BanEncy.html Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company. Bandura, Albert, and Richard H. Walters. Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Print. Crain, W. C. (2011). Theories of development: Concepts and applications (Sixth ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.