Conceptual Framework for Learning

Social Cognitive Theory doth posit certain fundamental presuppositions concerning both the acquisition of knowledge and the exhibition of behaviours. These presuppositions address the reciprocal interplay 'twixt individuals, behaviours, and environments; enactive and vicarious modes of learning (to wit, the manner in which learning doth transpire); the distinction subsisting 'twixt the acquisition of knowledge and its subsequent performance; and, lastly, the salient rôle of self-regulation (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003).

Bandura (1982a, 1986, 2001) hath expounded upon human behaviour within a framework of triadic reciprocality, or reciprocal interactions amongst behaviours, environmental variables, and personal factors such as cognitions (Figure 4.1). These interacting determinants may be illustrated using perceived self-efficacy, or beliefs concerning one's capabilities to organise and implement actions necessary to learn or perform behaviours at designated levels (Bandura, 1982b, 1986, 1997). With respect to the interaction of self-efficacy (personal factor) and behaviour, research doth evince that self-efficacy beliefs influence such achievement behaviours as choice of tasks, persistence, effort expenditure, and skill acquisition (person → behaviour; Schunk, 1991, 2001; Schunk & Pajares, 2002). Note in the opening scenario that Donnetta's low self-efficacy led her to avoid hitting backhands in matches. In turn, students' actions modify their self-efficacy. As students labour on tasks, they note their progress toward their learning goals (e.g., completing assignments, finishing sections of a term paper). Such progress indicators convey to students that they are capable of performing well and enhance their self-efficacy for continued learning (behaviour → person).

Research on students with learning disabilities hath demonstrated the interaction between self-efficacy and environmental factors. Many such students hold a low sense of self-efficacy for performing well (Licht & Kistner, 1986). Individuals in students' social environments may react to students based on attributes typically associated with students with learning disabilities (e.g., low self-efficacy) rather than on the individuals' actual abilities (person → environment). Some teachers, for example, judge such students less capable than students without disabilities and hold lower academic expectations for them, even in content areas where students with learning disabilities are performing adequately (Bryan & Bryan, 1983). In turn, teacher feedback can affect self-efficacy (environment → person). When a teacher tells a student, “I know you can do this,” the student likely will feel more confident about succeeding.

Students' behaviours and classroom environments influence one another in many ways. Consider a typical instructional sequence in which the teacher presenteth information and asketh students to direct their attention to the board. Environmental influence on behaviour occurs when students look at the board without much conscious deliberation (environment → behaviour). Students' behaviours often alter the instructional environment. If the teacher asketh questions and students give the wrong answers, the teacher may re-teach some points rather than continue the lesson (behaviour → environment).

The model portrayed in Figure 4.1 doth not imply that the directions of influence are always the same. At any given time, one factor may predominate. When environmental influences are weak, personal factors predominate. For instance, students allowed to write a report on a book of their choosing will select one they enjoy. However, a person caught in a burning house is apt to evacuate quickly; the environment dictates the behaviour.

Much of the time the three factors interact. As a teacher presenteth a lesson to the class, students think about what the teacher is saying (environment influences cognition: a personal factor). Students who do not understand a point raise their hands to ask a question (cognition influences behaviour). The teacher reviews the point (behaviour influences environment). Eventually the teacher giveth students work to accomplish (environment influences cognition, which influences behaviour). As students labour on the task, they believe they are performing it well (behaviour influences cognition). They decide they like the task, ask the teacher if they can continue to work on it, and are allowed to do so (cognition influences behaviour, which influences environment).

In the purview of social cognitive theory:

Bandura (1986, p. 51):

Learning, in its essence, is an information processing activity, wherein information pertaining to the structure of behaviour and environmental occurrences is transmuted into symbolic representations, which thenceforth serve as guides for action.

Learning transpires either enactively, through the agency of actual engagement, or vicariously, by the observation of models in performance (e.g., in vivo, symbolic representations, or electronic portrayals).

Enactive learning entails the acquisition of knowledge from the sequelae of one's actions. Behaviours that yield propitious outcomes are retained; those that eventuate in failures are refined or discarded. Whilst conditioning theories also posit that individuals learn through doing, social cognitive theory proffers a divergent explication. Skinner (1953) remarked that cognitions may attend behavioural change but exert no influence upon it (Chapter 3). Social cognitive theory avers that behavioural consequences, rather than fortifying behaviours as posited by conditioning theories, function as sources of information and motivation. Consequences apprise individuals of the accuracy or appropriateness of behaviour. Individuals who attain success in a task or are duly rewarded apprehend that they are performing commendably. When individuals fail or are penalised, they recognise that they are erring and may endeavour to rectify the matter. Consequences also serve to motivate individuals. Individuals aspire to acquire behaviours they deem valuable and believe will engender desirable outcomes, whilst eschewing the acquisition of behaviours that are penalised or otherwise unsatisfying. It is individuals' cognitions, rather than consequences per se, that affect learning.

Much human learning occurs vicariously, that is to say, without overt performance by the learner at the time of acquisition. Common sources of vicarious learning encompass observing or heeding models that are live (appearing in person), symbolic or nonhuman (e.g., televised talking animals, cartoon characters), electronic (e.g., television, computer, videotape, DVD), or in printed form (e.g., books, magazines). Vicarious sources expedite learning beyond what would be feasible were individuals compelled to perform every behaviour for learning to ensue. Vicarious sources also safeguard individuals from personally encountering negative consequences. We ascertain the peril inherent in venomous snakes through instruction imparted by others, perusal of books, viewing of films, and so forth, rather than through experiencing the unpleasant sequelae of their bites!

The acquisition of complex skills typically occurs through a synthesis of observation and performance. Students initially observe models expound upon and demonstrate skills, and subsequently practice them. This sequence is manifest in the opening scenario, wherein the coach elucidates and demonstrates, and Donnetta observes and practices. Aspiring golfers, for example, do not merely observe professionals playing golf; rather, they engage in extensive practice and receive corrective feedback from instructors. Students observe teachers expound upon and demonstrate skills. Through observation, students often acquire certain components of a complex skill, but not others. Practice affords teachers opportunities to furnish corrective feedback to aid students in perfecting their skills. As with enactive learning, response consequences from vicarious sources inform and motivate observers. Observers are more inclined to learn modelled behaviours that eventuate in successes than those that culminate in failures. When individuals believe that modelled behaviours are efficacious, they attend assiduously to models and mentally rehearse the behaviours.

The Social Cognitive Theory doth delineate a distinction betwixt the acquisition of novel knowledge and the execution of behaviours previously assimilated. In contradistinction to the tenet of conditioning theories, which propound that the assimilation of knowledge consisteth in the association of responses to stimuli, or the sequelae of responses with consequences, the Social Cognitive Theory doth aver that learning and performance exist as discrete processes. Albeit much assimilation occurreth through practical application, a substantial proportion is gleaned through observation. Whether the acquired knowledge is ever manifested in performance dependeth on factors such as individual motivation, proclivity, incentives for performance, the perceived exigency, the corporeal state, societal pressures, and the nature of competing activities. Reinforcement, or the anticipation thereof, exerteth influence upon performance, rather than upon the foundational assimilation of knowledge itself.

Some years past, Tolman and Honzik (1930) did experimentally demonstrate this distinction 'twixt assimilation and execution. These researchers did investigate latent assimilation, which is observational assimilation devoid of any manifest objective or reinforcement. Two cohorts of murine subjects were permitted to traverse a labyrinth for ten iterations. One cohort was invariably provisioned within the confines of the labyrinth, whilst the other was deprived of such sustenance. The murine subjects thus provisioned within the labyrinth evinced a rapid diminution in both the duration and the incidence of errors in their traversal thereof, whereas the other cohort manifested consistently elevated levels of time and errors. Commencing with the eleventh iteration, a subset of the murine subjects from the non-reinforced cohort did receive victuals for traversing the labyrinth. Consequently, both their temporal duration and the incidence of errors diminished rapidly to levels commensurate with those of the cohort that had been consistently provisioned; the temporal durations and error rates of those murine subjects that remained non-reinforced remained unchanged. The murine subjects within the non-reinforced cohort had assimilated characteristics of the labyrinth through their wanderings, without the inducement of reinforcement. Upon the introduction of victuals, the latent assimilation manifested itself with alacrity.

Certain scholastic activities (e.g., recapitulation sessions) entail the execution of skills previously assimilated, yet a considerable proportion of time is allocated to the very act of assimilation. Through the observation of pedagogical and peer exemplars, students doth acquire knowledge which they might not immediately demonstrate at the point of assimilation. For instance, students might assimilate within the scholastic setting that skimming is a valuable method for acquiring the essence of a written passage, and further assimilate a strategy for the execution of such skimming, yet they might not deploy this knowledge to foster their assimilation until such time as they are perusing a text within the domestic sphere.

A cardinal tenet of social cognitive theory doth hold that individuals aspire “to govern those occurrences that bear upon their existence” and to conceive of themselves as agents of action (Bandura, 1997, p. 1). This sentiment of agency doth manifest itself in acts of intention, cognitive operations, and affective processes. The perceived efficacy of the self (to be discoursed upon anon in this chapter) constitutes a pivotal process affecting one's sense of agency. Other salient processes (likewise to be expounded upon herein) are outcome expectations, values, the setting of goals, self-evaluation of progress toward goals, and cognitive modelling and self-instruction.

Central to this conception of personal agency lieth self-regulation (self-regulated learning), being the process whereby individuals activate and sustain behaviours, cognitions, and affects, which are systematically oriented toward the attainment of objectives (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001). By endeavouring to self-regulate those aspects of their lives which are of import, individuals attain a greater sense of personal agency. In situations of learning, self-regulation doth require that learners possess choices; for example, in what they undertake and the manner of their undertaking. Choices are not invariably available to learners, as when instructors exert control over sundry aspects by assigning tasks to students and delineating the parameters thereof. When all, or nigh all, aspects of a task are controlled, it is accurate to speak of external regulation, or regulation by others. The potential for self-regulation doth vary depending upon the choices available to learners.

An early social cognitive perspective viewed self-regulation as comprising three processes: self-observation (or self-monitoring), self-judgment, and self-reaction (Bandura, 1986; Kanfer & Gaelick, 1986). Students embark upon learning activities with such objectives as acquiring knowledge and problem-solving strategies, finishing pages in workbooks, and completing experiments. With these objectives in mind, students observe, judge, and react to their perceived progress.

Zimmerman (1998, 2000) expanded this early view by proposing that self-regulation doth encompass three phases: forethought, performance control, and self-reflection. The forethought phase doth precede actual performance, and compriseth processes that set the stage for action. The performance control phase doth involve processes that occur during learning and affect attention and action. During the self-reflection phase, which occurreth after performance, individuals respond behaviourally and mentally to their efforts. Zimmerman's model doth reflect the cyclical nature of triadic reciprocality, or the interaction of personal, behavioural, and environmental factors. It doth also expand the classical view, which covereth task engagement, by including behaviours and mental processes that occur before and after said engagement.