Albert Bandura : A Study of the Correlation Between One’s self-efficacy and Performance in math. Andree Ory. Background. *Born 1925, Alberta Canada *Majored in psychology at University of Iowa *Currently a Professor at Stanford University
*Born 1925, Alberta Canada
*Majored in psychology at University of Iowa
*Currently a Professor at Stanford University
*President of American Psychological Association 1974
*1960’s Studied Cognitive Processes
*1970’s Studied Imitation and Modeling Behavior
*1980’s Developed Self-Efficacy TheoryBackground
Key Terms Theory
*Percieved Self-efficacy- people’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce effects.
*Instructional Efficacy-teachers’ beliefs in their own abilities as a teacher to handle the classroom and influence their students’performances.
*Cognitive Processes-Thinking processes involved in the acquisition, organization,
and use of information.
*1987, Schunk “taught children with severe academic problems how to diagnose cognitive task demands, construct solutions, monitor their adequacy, and make corrective changes when they erred.”
*Bandura found that endurance and sustained effort=success and aiming for higher goals.
*Dowrick and Schunk (1983), Hanson (1989) test with vicarious experience and video-tapes.
*Bandura: “For most activities, however, there are no absolute measures of adequacy. Therefore, people must appraise their capabilities in relation to the attainments of others.”
*Bandura: “People often read their physiological activation in stressful or taxing situations as signs of vulnerability to dysfunction.
Ex: Palms Sweating Before a Piano Recital
*Collins first evaluated the self-efficacy levels of the children by asking them if they were good in math.
*Next, he gave them problems to work out with the easiest ones going to students with low self-efficacy levels giving the harder problems to those who supposed themselves to be “mathematically efficacious.”
*The children who thought of themselves as good produced better results not just on natural ability but by the effort they put forth.
* The children with high self-efficacy appraisals (evaluations) were more motivated to do well; thus, they worked harder to find new strategies for the problems they did not understand.
* Thus, as Collins proved, a child’s attitude does directly correlate with his performance academically, as proven in the above example with math.
*Many students do not achieve their highest potential academically because of a perceived low self-efficacy and that some teachers do not know how to positively impact their students’ confidence in their own abilities.
*By finding out which source of self-efficacy is the most effective and how teachers can motivate their students to believe in themselves, the students can benefit academically and humanly as happier, self-empowered individuals.
*Students with a higher perceived self-efficacy will score better on the first math problem test than the students with a lower perceived self-efficacy on the vicarious experience test.
*Students who were encouraged verbally after the first test will choose a higher level of difficulty on the second test.
*Students who were motivated by a model to follow after the first test will improve their scores on the second test.
*Enactive mastery experience will have the greatest impact on the students’ perceived self-efficacy.
*Setting: St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church, Laplace, LA in Mrs. Daigre’s 4th grade Classroom with 12 4th graders (2 boys and 10 girls).
*After obtaining written permission from the parents, I gave 12 of the students a survey with the following questions on it to assess their perceived self-efficacy in math asking questions like:
*Do you like Math?
*Do you enjoy memorizing Multiplication Tables?
*What is something that you learned in Math this year?
*Do you think you are very good at Math, okay at math, or not very good at Math?
*I asked the child if he/she would like the easy, medium, or hard multiplication problems and have them work on one.
*I gave him/her one minute to solve the problems on the worksheet and then scored the worksheet, showing the score to the child and asking them which level test he/she wanted if he had a second chance to work on it.
*I asked the child to choose which level worksheet he wanted. Depending on what he chose, I encouraged him to pick a worksheet that is the next level up in difficulty, recording his score.
*I gave him 1 min. to finish the worksheet and then gave him a choice of a second worksheet to work on, recording his score.
*I showed him an example of a medium level multiplication worksheet that a child from the first group took, scoring a 100.
*Then, gave each child a choice of which worksheet to work on next and recorded his score.
*See Bandura Hand-Out
*1st Hypothesis-True; 2nd-Partially True;3rd-True; 4th-False
*See Bandura Hand-Out
*See Bandura Hand-Out
*Educators must understand that self-efficacy does influence academic performance and that in some, not all cases, verbal persuasion helps the students.
*As with the results of each of the groups’ study, these three sources of self-efficacy do not always predict a high performance or a higher goal that the students chose.
*Bandura, Albert. “Enactive Mastery Experience.” Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. NewYork: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997. 80-81.
*Bandura, Albert. “Physical and Affective States.” Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. NewYork: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997. 106.
*Bandura, Albert. “The Nature and Structure of Self-Efficacy.” Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997. 36-38.
*Bandura, Albert. “Verbal Persuasion.” Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. NewYork: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997. 86.
*Bandura, Albert. “Vicarious Experience.” Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. NewYork: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997. 101.
*Bandura, Albert. “Sources of Self-Efficacy.” Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997. 78-115.
*Bandura, Albert. “Teacher’s Perceived Efficacy.” Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. NewYork: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997. 243-258.
*Crain, William. Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications. 5th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005.