Free Sample Academic Papers

Abstract

Albert Bandura, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, is renowned for his social learning theory he developed when pursuing his Ph.D. at the University of Iowa. Bandura was largely interested in conducting research on learning and behavior change. He believed “aggression reinforced by role models or family members was the most prominent source of behavior modeling”. His work on social learning theory was published in 1976 and became one of the most utilized resources in psychological research on behavior and change. Individual behaviors are nurtured and continuously modeled as they mature up (Bandura, 1976). The young learn form the adults, and so according to Bandura, behaviors of adults in the presence of children have significant impact on the children. The study of behavioral modeling became a focal point in Bandura’s research and lab experiments (Bandura, 1976). This paper, however, seeks to examine the relevance of this theory both in the context of adult learning, also referred to as andragogy and child learning known as pedagogy.

Key Words: Andragogy (Adult learning); Pedagogy (Child learning)

Introduction

Bandura`s argument was that young people should not be exposed to crude behaviors, as these will possibly reflect in their behavioral conducts in their adult ages. To elaborate on this, he pointed at an instance where children could utilize the behavior tactics they observed from parents in relating with other individuals in society (Bandura, 1976).If the parents are aggressive, the child is likely to be aggressive in behavior. This also suggested that adults act as role models to the children, and when the children have violent role models, they  would tend to emulate the violence in their role models, what Bandura referred to as “behavior modeling” (Bandura, 1976). This paper discusses extensively the theoretical views of Bandura with regard to learning and behavior change.

Bandura`s Experiment and Theoretical Perspective

To Bandura, aggression in behavior explained three major aspects of learning. Firstly, it explained under what circumstances the aggressive behavior patterns developed. Secondly, what proved the aggressive behavior, and thirdly, “what determined if people were going to continue resorting to an aggressive behavior pattern in future” (Bandura, 1976). He investigated into these aspects through his famous “Bobo doll experiment”. In the experiment, he used sample of children “to witness a model aggressively attacking a plastic clown called Bobo doll” (Bandura, 1973). 

The children were put to watch a video clip showing violence, where by a model was hitting repeatedly and violently on the Bolo doll. They were then taken to another room full of attractive toys. The children appeared frustrated by the change, and they did not touch the toys. They were moved to another room with toys similar to those they witnessed in the Bobo doll video, and they got motivated again. Their behaviors under different conditions were then evaluated and analyzed. Bandura concluded that children are mostly influenced by aggressive behaviors (Bandura, 1973). Together with other researchers who undertook the experiment, they found out “about 88% of children imitated the aggressive behavior they observed in Bobo doll experiment” (Collins, 1991).

From the experiment, Bandura asserted imitation or modeling were fundamental aspects of learning. The researches found that in the observational learning process, “learning occurred when individuals observed and imitated other people`s behaviors” (Collins, 1991). In his analyses, Bandura further outlined four constituent processes subjective to the observers` behavior after their exposure to models, “attention, retention, motor reproduction and motivation were the four components” (Bandura, 1977).

The first constituent was attention. People cannot learn only through observation, but they also have to perceive and pay attention to the important aspects of the behavior modeled (Bandura, 1977).For example, children had to attend to the Bolo doll video showing aggressive behaviors before they emulated the model behaviors later. After attention, retention is the next possible process of learning. 

Bandura explains “in order to reproduce modeled behavior, individuals must code the information into a long term memory”. By retaining the information for a long time, it would be easier to retrieve and hard to forget (Bandura, 1977). Merriam, and Caffarella (2001), notes “memory is a significant cognitive process which enables observers to code and retrieve information”. The children became aggressive as a result of having modeled the aggressive behavior in Bobo doll video and stored it in their memories. The next stage in observational learning is motor reproduction, in which case, “the observer has to be capable of reproducing the model`s behavior”. The individual must also learn and acquire the physical abilities of the behavior modeled (Bandura, 1977).The last stage in this learning process is the motivation phase. Learners would need reinforcement and a positive indication which will motivate them to carry on (Bandura, 1977).

Bandura also investigated into the effects of the media violence on children exposed to the media i.e. television (Bandura, 1970). In his “social learning theory”, he posited that “media characters who serve as models for aggressive behavior may be attended to by viewers and depending upon whether the behaviors are rewarded or punished, would either inhibit or encourage imitation of the behaviors” (Bandura, 1970)

According to Bandera’s theory of social learning, children are more vulnerable to violent media programs which may contribute significantly in cultivating their behaviors as they grow into the adulthood age bracket (Bandura, 1970). This theory has, however, not escaped the trap of criticisms. For instance, Gauntlet in 1995 asserted that in Bandera’s experiment on the effects of aggressive media programs on children, there could have been a possibility that the Children behaved aggressively after they were exposed to violent programs, not really because the programs had an impact on them, but rather, because they wanted to please the experimenter. This could also imply the children were only keen on following the “video instructions”, but not as “inducement to aggression” (Brookfield, 1986).

Rowell Huesmann, a communication expert and Professor at the University of Michigan, notes that “exposure to media violence can cause children to behave aggressively and may affect them in their adulthood later in life” (Collins, 1991). However, Jonathan Freedman, Psychological scientist from Toronto University, is not in agreement with Huesmann. To Jonathan, “there are no scientific evidence which show that watching violent or aggressive media programs can yield into traits of violence in the people watching them later-on in their lives” (Collins, 1991 & Bandura, 1973).

Literature Review

Investigation into the learning process has resulted in some of the most paramount scholastic research that has been conducted in different fields of study. One of the commonly cited researches was that of Albert Bandura back in the 1970s.  Bandura investigated the effects of learning on individuals exposed to different sources of knowledge (Bandura, 1973).  In his “social learning theory,” Bandura posited that “individuals can learn or borrow knowledge and ideas from each other by mere observations, imitations and modeling”.

For instance, characters who serve as models for aggressive behavior may be attended to by viewers and, depending upon whether the behaviors are rewarded or punished, would either inhibit or encourage imitation of the behaviors (Bandura, 1973).

According to Bandera’s theory of social learning, children are more vulnerable to new and influential ideas which may contribute significantly in cultivating their behaviors as they grow into the adulthood age bracket (Bandura, 1973).

Theories of adult learning are characterized by common basic concepts acting as variables and providing the basis on which arguments have been built. Experience and behavioral change are perhaps the most utilized variables in this research. Merriam and Caffarella (1999) observed that commencing the 1950s, “the very basic definitions of learning were established around ideas of change and behavior”.  According to these researchers, this initial conception triggered the emergence of new ideologies and theoretical frameworks. The question of whether performance was based on learning or learning had no impact on shaping human behaviors remained a question of debate (Bandura, 1973).

Subsequent to the complexity that was already arising in understanding the learning process, Jean Piaget proposed cognitive development stages. Piaget contended there were “four invariant phases of cognitive development in relation to age”.  “Formal operations” was his final stage in cognitive development, a stage between the age of twelve and fifteen. The argument supporting this stage was that “normal children reached the final development stage of development between the age of twelve and fifteen” (Bandura, 1973). This phase was later renamed “the problem solving stage” by Brookfield (1986). Arlin posited that formal thought was not a one-stage process as Piaget believed, but a stage comprised of two other distinctive stages (Bandura, 1973).  Arlin`s hypothesis, however, generated more debate, escalating into more questions than answers, “opening doors to understanding of the adult learning” process, and drawing the attentions of many intellectual thinkers. 

Knowles’s work paved way for the study and research on adult learning which was to become an exceptional field of study for many scholars from different fields. Knowles began by giving his precise definition of what he thought about adult learning. According to him, “adult learning was the art and science of helping adults to learn” (Knowles, 1968). He went ahead to compare and contrast between adult learning and child learning. Child learning, as he defined it, “was the art and science of helping children to learn” (Knowles, 1968). Knowles’s studies “were based on the assumptions that there existed substantial identifiable differences between adult learners and learners below the age of eighteen years” (Merriam and Caffarella, 1999).To Knowles, adult learning was a more self directing process facilitated by experience, internal motivations and high level of the anxiety to apply what has been learnt. Adult learners were mostly attracted to development oriented tasks (Merriam and Caffarella, 1999).

Some other researchers, the caliber of Starbuck and Hedberg (2003), suggested the art and science of learning was a process influenced by both situational and environmental factors. These group of researchers held that environmental and situational circumstances could either promote or make learning impossible to certain individuals. They added some circumstances were established by “the structure of organizations, time constraints and either negative or positive environmental conditions” (Brookfield, 1986).

Arguing on the basis of “Multiple Intelligences”, Howard Gardner presents a group of “theorists who discarded the idea of one type of intelligence measured by modern psychometric instruments” (Brookfield, 1986).Gardner believed not only one type of intelligence exists, but seven. Constituting his list are “linguistic intelligence, logical arithmetic intelligence, spatial intelligence, musical intelligence, bodily kinesthetic intelligence, interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence” (Bandura 1973 & Brookfield, 1986). He argues further both the linguistic and the logical arithmetic intelligence are measured by the Intelligence Quotient test shorted as IQ test. Naturalist intelligence became Gardner`s eighth intelligence factor which he described as “the ability to recognize classify the living species, flora and fauna” (Brookfield, 1986).

With regard to internalization of new information, Collins (1991) discussed three basic categories of theorists. First, the dualistic thinkers, those who believe in absolute truth. They spend their time knowing only one truth for every aspect, and have difficulty in internalizing the truths found in the “shades of grey”, that is, the truths that do not come in black and white as clear cut. The second category was that of multiplistic thinkers, those who are programmed to learn by analyzing multiple truths to find one right answer. They differed from the former group since they believed that there could be several solutions, but only one is applicable. Then the dualistic thinkers who tended to believe there was only one solution. The final category was the relativists` thinkers. This group of thinkers believed the truth or solution to a problem was relative and situational. They were more capable of dealing with situations that are neither presented in black or white (Bandura, et al, 1973).

Discussions

Many of the research conducted by scholars significantly borrowed from Bandura`s experiment and his social learning theory. In spite of the criticisms he faced, for instance, the criticism from Gauntlet, his experiment to a greater extent proved that individuals` behaviors could be modeled, and observation was practical way of modeling behaviors of people.

 In 1995, Gauntlet argued that in Bandera’s experiment on the effects of aggressive models on children, there was a possibility that the Children behaved aggressively after they were exposed to violent programs, not because the model aggressive behaviors had impact on them, but rather because they wanted to please the experimenter (Brookfield, 1986). 

Jonathan Freedman, Psychological scientist from Toronto University, also rejected Bandura`s social learning theory on the ground that “there were no scientific evidence which showed that observing aggressive models could yield into traits of violence in the people watching them later-on in their lives” (Collins, 1991 & Bandura, 1973).There may be a feeling that Jonathan did not acknowledge the Bobo doll experiment as a substantial scientific prove ,even though many other scientists found it substantial enough to qualify Bandura`s theory. For instance, Rowell Huesmann, a communication expert and Professor at the University of Michigan, notes that “exposure to media violence could cause children to behave aggressively and could affect them in their adulthood later in life” (Collins, 1991).

Additionally, Knowles, the founding father of androgogy, posited, learning was a more self directing process facilitated by experience, internal motivations and high level of anxiety to apply what has been learnt (Knowles, 1968) .These sentiments reflected much on the constituent of observational learning discussed by Bandura. 

In the case of children, aggressive models proved to be the most influential in shaping up their behaviors and in their learning experiences. To adults, experience acquired at childhood age determined their adulthood behaviors, at least as per the arguments of Bandura.

Conclusion

Bandura was largely interested in conducting research on learning and behavior change. He had a strong presumption that “aggression reinforced by role models or family members was the most prominent source of behavior modeling”. His work on social learning theory published in 1976 has been the most utilized resource in psychological research on behavior and change. Bandura believed that Individual behaviors are nurtured and continuously modeled as they grow up (Bandura, 1976). Behaviors of adults in the presence of children have significant impacts on them. Adults learning skills and experiences are basically drawn from their childhood models.

Annotated Bibliography

Bandura, Albert. Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, 1973.43-60.

Albert Bandura is a professor of psychology at Stanford University. He is  renowned for his social learning theory he developed when pursuing his Ph.D. at 

the University of Iowa In his theory, he argued “individuals can learn from one another through  Observation, imitation, and modeling”.Bandura was a theorist who Strongly believed in behavior change, “modeling and reciprocal determinism”. In  addition to his theory on social learning, Bandura has published works on “social  foundation of Knowledge and action, Self efficacy, principles of behavior modification” among others.

Bandura, A. “Social Foundations of Thought and Action”. Englewood  Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 1986

Bandura, A. (1997). “Self-efficacy: The exercise of control”. New York: W.H.  Freeman

Bandura, A. (1969). “Principles of Behavior Modification”. New York: Holt,  Rinehart & Winston.

Brookfield, S. “Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning”. Jossey-Bass. San  Francisco.1986.

In this work, Brookfield Stephen investigates into the factors that facilitate learning in adulthood stages.

Collins, M. “Self-directed learning and the emancipatory practice of adult education, 

Re-thinking the role of the adult educator”. “Proceedings of the 29th Annual Adult  Education Research Conference”. Calgary University. 1991.

Collins, M is a senior researcher at the University of Calgary In this report, Collins compiled research findings of the 29th Annual adult 

Conference. The emphasis in the report was that adult learning was a process  Characterized by both theory and practice. 

Knowles, M. “The Modern Practice of Adult Education”: “Andragogy versus pedagogy”. 

Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall- Cambridge.1984. Malcolm Knowles was an Educational researcher at the State University, North  Carolina. He is accredited as the finding father of adrogogy, “the art and science  of adult education”. In this work, Knowles has discussed elaborately on the  distinctive factors influencing adult learning. Knowles worked for over  30 years in adult education and clinical psychology fields. He studies leaning  Process as an art and science.

Merriam, S. B. & Caffarella, R.S. “Learning in adulthood”: A comprehensive guide.  San Francisco, CA. Jossey- Bass Inc. 1999.

Merriam and Caffarella are Educational researchers whose works have greatly  Contributed in the study of adult learning. In addition to their work titled “Learning  in adulthood published in 1999, they have also conducted a research on 

“Androgogy and self-directed learning”, investigating into “the pillars of adult  Learning theory” in 2001.

References

Bandura, Albert. Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, 1973.43-60.

Brookfield, S. “Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning”. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco.1986.

Collins, M. “Self-directed learning and the emancipatory practice of adult education,

Re-thinking the role of the adult educator”. “Proceedings of the 29th Annual Adult Education Research Conference”. Calgary University. 1991.

Knowles, M. “The Modern Practice of Adult Education”: “Andragogy versus pedagogy”. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall- Cambridge.1984.

Merriam, S. B. & Caffarella, R.S. “Learning in adulthood”: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA. Jossey- Bass Inc. 1999.