Teacher versus Peer Models Revisited: Effects on Motor Performance and Self-Efficacy

Abstract

This study reinvestigated and extended the findings of Landers and Landers (1973), which examined the influence of skilled and unskilled teacher and peer models on motor performance. Sixth grade females (N = 100) were randomly assigned to groups in a 2 x 2 (Model Type x Model Skill) factorial design or to a no-model group. In the treatment groups, subjects observed one of four unfamiliar models--(a) a skilled teacher, (b) an unskilled teacher, (c) a skilled peer, or (d) an unskilled peer--perform on the Bachman ladder task. Subjects performed 30 trials of the task and also completed self-efficacy questionnaires on three occasions. Results showed that subjects who watched a skilled model performed better than subjects who watched an unskilled model. Unlike the Landers and Landers study, no model type by model skill interaction was found. In addition, the skilled model group reported higher efficacy beliefs than the control group after performing and were more efficacious than the unskilled model subjects both after watching the model and after performing. These results suggest when students view unfamiliar models, the skill rather than the status of the model may be more salient.

Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance

“…Results of a study by Lirgg and Feltz (1991) conflict with the earlier evidence on the benefits of peer models compared with adult models (Schunk & Hanson, 1985). Lirgg and Feltz exposed sixth-grade girls to a skilled or unskilled teacher or peer videotaped model demonstrating a ladder-climbing task; control subjects observed no model.…”

“…Similar-model subjects performed the task better than those who observed the dissimilar model. The similar and dissimilar conditions did not differ in self-efficacy and efficacy was not related to actual performance, which may have resulted because subjects' efficacy scores were high and far exceeded their performances.Results of a study by Lirgg and Feltz (1991) conflict with the earlier evidence on the benefits of peer models compared with adult models (Schunk & Hanson, 1985). Lirgg and Feltz exposed sixth-grade girls to a skilled or unskilled teacher or peer videotaped model demonstrating a ladder-climbing task; control subjects observed no model.…”

Spatial Diffusion of Social Policy in China: Spatial Convergence and Neighborhood Interaction of Vocational Education

“…People who are slightly better than oneself, especially, are selected as comparison standard for this purpose (Lirgg and Feltz 1991;Festinger 1954). 9 It implies that the outcomes or incentives for policy adoption actions of individual province do not depend solely on the attributes of the particular province, but the structure of the system, their position within it, and their interactions with other neighboring provinces.…”

“…Our empirical results show that the very essence of the system lies in the spatial interaction between neighbors and the overall behavior that emerges from the neighborhood interactions due to different neighborhood structures. could serve as models and might, for example, improve performance through increased perceived self-efficacy (Lirgg and Feltz 1991). However, only if the standard is attainable are people motivated by such comparisons (Lockwood and Kunda 1997).…”

The Effects of Equipment Modification on Children's Self-I and Basketball Shooting Performance

“…Age differences have been found in both the sources and levels of children's perceptions of physical competence, a more domainspecific form of expectations (Horn & Hasbrook, 1986, 1987Horn & Weiss, 1991). However, while a few studies have examined self-efficacy and performance in children, they have not been designed to specifically understand age-related differences (e.g., Lee, 1982;Lirgg & Feltz, 1991;Weiss et al, 1989). Self-efficacy theory (Ban dura, 1977) suggests that modifications that enhance the chances of success should have an impact on self-efficacy for performance.…”