SOCIAL COGNITIVE LEARNING THEORY:

ALBERT BANDURA

1.0 Introduction

The social learning theory proposed by Albert Bandura has become perhaps the most

influential theory of learning and development. This theory has been known to impact

students learning in the context of education. While rooted in many of the basic concepts of

traditional learning theory, Bandura believed that direct reinforcement could not account for

all types of learning. The word “social” was given by considering the fact that people learn

from one another, including such concepts as observational learning, imitation, and modelling

(Ormrod, 1999).

His theory added a social element, arguing that people can learn new information and

behaviours by watching other people. Known as observational learning (or modelling), this

type of learning can be used to explain a wide variety of behaviours. It is believed that people

learn through observing others’ behaviour, attitudes, and outcomes of those behaviours.

According to Bandura (1977): “Most human behaviour is learned observationally through

modelling: from observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviours are performed,

and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action.” This statement

indicates that social learning theory explains the importance of modelling through

observation and how this observation leads to action or behaviours.

Bandura's theory improves upon the strictly behavioural interpretation of modelling

provided by Miller & Dollard (1941). Bandura’s work is related to Vygotsky’s Social

1
Development Theory and Lave’s Situated Learning which also emphasize the central role of

social learning (Learning-Theories.com). In addition, social learning theory also explains

human aggression (Bandura, 1973) and psychological disorders, particularly in the context of

behaviour modification (Bandura, 1969). It is also the theoretical foundation for the technique

of behaviour modelling which is widely used in training programs. In recent years, Bandura

has focused his work on the concept of self-efficacy in a variety of contexts (TIP: Theories,

n.d.).

1.1 Biography of Albert Bandura

Albert Bandura was born on December 4, 1925, in the small town of Mundare in

northern Alberta, Canada.  He received his primary and secondary education in one, with

minimal resources, yet a remarkable success rate.  He worked for one summer filling holes on

the Alaska Highway in the Yukon after finishing his secondary education (Boeree, 2006).

He later further his study in University of British Columbia and received his bachelor

degree in Psychology in 1949.  He received his doctoral degree from University of Iowa in

1952.  It was there that he came under the influence of the behaviourist tradition and learning

theory (Atherton, 2010). He later met his soul mate, Virginia Varns, an instructor in the

nursing school in Iowa. They married and later had two daughters.  After graduating, he took

a postdoctoral position at the Wichita Guidance Center in Wichita, Kansas (Boeree, 2006). In

1953, Albert Bandura joined University of Stanford as a psychology professor and made

numbers of contribution in psychological field until this recent days.

2
 Albert Bandura has achieved many honours and awards from fellow psychologists

(Isom, 1998). In 1972, he received a distinguished achievement award from the American

Psychological Association and a Scientist Award from the California State Psychological

Association. In 1974, Bandura was elected the president of the American Psychological

Association. In 1977, he was known as the Father of the Cognitive Theory. In 1980, he was

also elected the president of the Western Psychological Association. In 1989, he was also

employed to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences (Isom, 1998).

During his lifetime, he has written several books and articles that have been widely

used in psychological research. In 1959, Bandura wrote his first book in collaboration with

his first graduate student, Richard Walters entitled "Adolescent Aggression". In this book,

they addressed themselves to the hypothesis that anti-social, aggressive boys would present

weak internal controls stemming from a lack of internalization of parental standards. In 1973,

he wrote Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Four years later, he published one his most

prominent books called the "Social Learning Theory." These books and articles are the most

relevant psychological research in determining aggression and deviance (Isom, 1998).

2.0 Background of Social Cognitive Learning Theory

Albert Bandura is well regarded for his Social Cognitive Theory. With the publication

of Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Bandura (1986)

advanced a view of human functioning that accords a central role to cognitive, vicarious, self-

regulatory, and self-reflective processes in human adaptation and change. People are viewed

as self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting and self-regulating rather than as reactive

organisms shaped and shepherded by environmental forces or driven by concealed inner

3
impulses. From this theoretical perspective, human functioning is viewed as the product of a

dynamic interplay of personal, behavioural, and environmental influences (Pajares, 2002).

Bandura extended his theory explanation in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction

between cognitive, behavioural, an environmental influences. This is the foundation of

Bandura's (1986) conception of reciprocal determinism, the view that (a) personal factors in

the form of cognition, affect, and biological events, (b) behavior, and (c) environmental

influences create interactions that result in a triadic reciprocality (Pajares, 2002). This

concept suggested that all of these elements influenced by each other. Bandura altered the

label of his theory from social learning to social "cognitive" both to distance it from prevalent

social learning theories of the day and to emphasize that cognition plays a critical role in

people's capability to construct reality, self-regulate, encode information, and perform

behaviours (Pajares, 2002).

Figure 1 shows

reciprocal determinism which comprises of 3 elements that influence each other in the

context of Social Cognitive Learning Theory.

4
 This theory comprises both cognitive and behavioural frameworks where it

encompasses attention, memory and motivation and sometimes been called a bridge between

behaviourist and cognitive learning theories.  He began to look at personality as an

interaction among three “things:” the environment, behaviour, and the person’s psychological

processes.  These psychological processes consist of our ability to entertain images in our

minds, and language. At the point where he introduces imagery, in particular, he ceases to be

a strict behaviourist, and begins to join the ranks of the cognitivists (Boeree, 2006).

Social cognitive theory revolves around the notion that learning correlates to the

observation of role models. In education, for example, teachers play the role of a model in a

child’s learning acquisition. According to Frank Pajares (2002), strategies for increasing

well-being can be aimed at improving emotional, cognitive, or motivational processes,

increasing behavioural competencies, or altering the social conditions under which people

live and work.

Pajares (2002) also stated that teachers have the challenge of improving the academic

learning and confidence of the students in their charge. Teacher can improve their students'

emotional states and to correct their faulty self-beliefs and habits of thinking (personal

factors), improve their academic skills and self-regulatory practices (behaviour), and alter the

school and classroom structures that may work to undermine student success (environmental

factors) by using social cognitive theory as a framework (Pajares, 2002).

Referring to the triadic reciprocality, we can say that environments and social

systems influence human behaviour through psychological mechanisms of the self system

(Pajares, 2002). It is believed that human behaviour is not directly affected by economic

5
conditions, socioeconomic status, educational and familial structures. Instead, they affect it to

the degree that they influence people's aspirations, self-efficacy beliefs, personal standards,

emotional states, and other self-regulatory influences (Pajares, 2002).

Figure 2 shows the reciprocal interactions between environmental variable, behaviours and

self – influences and details for each element are clearly stated.

2.1 General Principles of Social Cognitive Learning Theory

According to Ormrod (1999), people can learn by observing the behaviour of others

and the outcomes of those behaviours. The observer will react to the way the model is treated

and mimic the model’s behaviour. When the model’s behaviour is rewarded, the observer is

more likely to reproduce the rewarded behaviour. When the model is punished, an example of

vicarious punishment, the observer is less likely to reproduce the same behaviour

(Funderstanding, n.d.). For example, a student who saw his or her friend getting reward such

as verbal praise from the teacher after actively participate in class discussion will also do the

same in order to receive the reward. In this example, the student learnt the behaviour (active

6
class participation) and the outcome of the behaviour (praised by teacher) through

observational learning. The student will later modelled the observed behaviour in order to

receive the same reward as his or her model.

In addition, the observer will imitate the model’s behaviour if the model has certain

characteristics such as talent, intelligence, power, good looks, or popularity that the observer

finds attractive or desirable. Parents and teachers have to ensure that children modelled the

correct person that will encourage them towards positive attitudes. This is due to the fact that

children especially at young age are easily attracted to model that has the characteristics of

interest without considering the pros and cons of the action. It is crucial for the teachers and

parents to clearly identify this issue and take necessary actions to ensure that the children

model a correct person.

According to Bandura (1962), learning can occur without a change in behaviour.

Behaviourists stated that learning has to be represented by a permanent change in behaviour,

in contrast to social learning theorists where they believed people can learn through

observation alone, their learning may not necessarily be shown in their performance.

Learning may or may not result in a behaviour change (Ormrod, 1999). A distinction exists

between an observer’s “acquiring” behaviour and “performing” behaviour. Through

observation, the observer can acquire the behaviour without performing it. The observer may

then later, in situations where there is an incentive to do so, display the behaviour

(Funderstanding, n.d.).

Adding to the principles discussed above, Bandura also highlighted the importance of

cognition in learning (Ormrod, 1999). Over the last 30 years social learning theory has

7
become increasingly cognitive in its interpretation of human learning. Awareness and

expectations of future reinforcements or punishments can have a major effect on the

behaviours that people exhibit (Ormrod, 1999). This is because the observers not only

recognize the observed behaviour but also remember it some later time. This process depends

on the observer’s ability to code or structure the information in an easily remembered form or

to mentally or physically rehearse the model’s actions (Ormrod, 1999).

Social learning theory is also been considered a bridge or a transition between

behaviourist learning theories and cognitive learning theories (Ormrod, 1999). This is due to

the fact that human development reflects the complex interaction of the person, the person’s

behaviour, and the environment as what was explained in the previous discussion. A person’s

cognitive abilities, physical characteristics, personality, beliefs, attitudes, and so on influence

both his and her behaviour and environment. This interaction is reciprocal because one

element will affect one another.

Bandura's social cognitive theory is in contrast to theories of human functioning that

overemphasize the role that environmental factors play in the development of human

behaviour and learning (Pajares, 2002). This is supported by Bandura’s statement which

stated that "a theory that denies that thoughts can regulate actions does not lend itself readily

to the explanation of complex human behaviour" (Bandura, 1986). For Bandura, a

psychology without introspection cannot aspire to explain the complexities of human

functioning. It is by looking into their own conscious mind that people make sense of their

own psychological processes. To predict how human behaviour is influenced by

environmental outcomes, it is critical to understand how the individual cognitively processes

and interprets those outcomes (Pajares, 2002).

8
3.0 Social Learning Concepts

According to Ormrod (1999), the word “social” was given by considering the fact that

people learn from one another, including such concepts as observational learning, imitation,

and modelling. All of these concepts will be further discussed and explained as follows:

3.1 Observational Learning

As previously described, people learn a new behaviour by observing others. In this

process, learning occurs when individuals observes and imitate others’ behaviour. In his

famous "Bobo doll" studies, Bandura demonstrated that children learn and imitate behaviours

they have observed in other people. These children (in Bandura’s studies) observed an adult

acting violently toward a Bobo doll. When the children were later allowed to play in a room

with the Bobo doll, they began to imitate the aggressive actions they had previously

observed.

The Bobo doll experiment was the name of two experiments conducted by Albert

Bandura in 1961 and 1963 studying patterns of behaviour associated with aggression. These

children changed their behaviour without first being rewarded for approximations to that

behaviour.  And while that may not seem extraordinary to the average parent, teacher, or

casual observer of children, it didn’t fit so well with standard behaviouristic learning theory. 

He called the phenomenon observational learning or modelling, and his theory is usually

called social learning theory (Boeree, 2006).

9
 Bandura did a large number of variations on the study:  The model was rewarded or

punished in a variety of ways, the kids were rewarded for their imitations, the model was

changed to be less attractive or less prestigious, and so on.  Responding to criticism that Bobo

dolls were supposed to be hit, he even did a film of the young woman beating up a live clown

(Boeree, 2006).

Figure 3 shows the adults model exhibiting aggressive behaviour on the Bobo doll and the

imitation by the boy and the girl participants.

In order to further explain the concept of observational learning, Bandura identified

three basic models which can influence imitative behaviour, such as:

i. A live model, which involves an actual individual demonstrating or acting out a

behaviour.

ii. A verbal instructional model, which involves descriptions and explanations of

behaviour.

10
iii. A symbolic model, which involves real or fictional characters displaying behaviours in

books, films, television programs, or online media.

As most cases in the real world, we are most influenced by symbolic models

especially through television programmes (Boeree, 2006). Dittmann (2004) stated that

according to Bandura, the television programs spark such behavioural and social changes

using four guiding principles:

i. Contrasting role models with positive and negative models exhibiting beneficial or

detrimental lifestyles and transitional models changing from detrimental to beneficial

styles of behaviour.

ii. Vicarious motivators that serve as incentives to change by showing the benefits of the

positive lifestyles and the costs of the detrimental ones.

iii. Attentional and emotional involvement within the programs to sustain viewers'

attention

iv. Environmental supports with each program that contain an epilogue providing contact

information for relevant community services and support groups proving influential

During APA's 2004 Annual Convention in Honolulu, Bandura presented a paper

entitled Changing Behaviour through TV Heroes where he highlighted how serial dramas

grounded in his social learning theory can lead people to make lifestyle changes and alter

detrimental social practices. These dramas, incorporating Bandura's theory, involve a global

11
effort, partnering television producers, writers, demographers and communication researchers

in creating programs that change personal lifestyles and society (Dittmann, 2004).

3.2 Modelling

Modelling and imitation have two different concepts. According to Atherthon (2010),

modelling oneself on someone (a "role-model") is a more generalised and sophisticated

variation on imitation, based on the tacit question, "What would so-and-so do in this

situation?" It is an important issue in the socialisation of young people, for whom role-models

might be parents, or prominent peers, or media figures, and has a venerable history.

Not all observed behaviours are effectively learned. Factors involving both the model

and the learner can play a role in whether social learning is successful. Certain requirements

and steps must also be followed. The following steps are involved in the observational

learning and modelling process:

3.2.1 Attention

Bandura believes that observers will only learn if the characteristics of the model can

attract their attention. Observers need to pay attention to what’s happening around them in

order to learn. This process is influenced by characteristics of the model, such as how much

one likes or identifies with the model, and by characteristics of the observer, such as the

observer’s expectations or level of emotional arousal (Isom, 1998).

12
 In teaching and learning, teachers have to make sure that they are able to attract

students’ attention by considering all the factors that contribute to maximize learning in

students. This includes the teaching approach use by teachers, communication skills use to

convey message, personal outlook of the teachers including the way the teacher dress up,

body language and etc. All of these factors will give positive impact on students’ perception

to the teacher and thus making the teacher favourable and become the centre of class

attention.

3.2.2. Retention

According to Isom (1998), observers must not only recognize the observed behaviour

but also remember it at some later time. This process depends on the observer’s ability to

code or structure the information in an easily remembered form or to mentally or physically

rehearse the model’s actions. This retention process explains the role of cognition in

producing new observed behaviours. Frank Pajares (2002) stated that Bandura altered the

label of his theory from social learning to social "cognitive" both to distance it from prevalent

social learning theories of the day and to emphasize that cognition plays a critical role in

people's capability to construct reality, self-regulate, encode information, and perform

behaviours.

3.2.3. Production

Observers must be physically and/ intellectually capable of producing the act. In

many cases the observer possesses the necessary responses once the once a behaviour is

learned through attention and retention (Isom, 1998). But sometimes, reproducing the

13
model’s actions may involve skills the observer has not yet acquired. For example, children

watching WWF wrestling championship on television might also repeat the same action to

their siblings, friends and relatives without knowing the consequences of the action. They

acquire the skills just by observing the wrestlers’ action on television without receiving any

formal training and coaching.

Observers need to practice selective modelling to ensure that they produce the proper

action or behaviours as what were observed. This selective modelling can be done by

considering the pros and cons of each observed behaviours with the aims that only positive

behaviours will be modelled.

3.2.4. Motivation

In general, observers will perform the act only if they have some motivation or reason

to do so. The presence of reinforcement or punishment, either to the model or directly to the

observer, becomes most important in this process. (Bandura, 1977). Bandura mentioned a

number of motives that encourage observers from imitating the observe behaviours such as

past reinforcement, promised reinforcements (incentives) that we can imagine and vicarious

reinforcement which involved seeing and recalling the model being reinforced (Boeree,

2006). Past reinforcement is explained when the observer tries to model or imitate a

behaviour which was rewarded every time he/she did it. For example, a student was given

token when he/she helped his/her teacher cleaning the whiteboard. This student seen the

token as reward for his /her helping hand and will repeat the same action in the future in order

to receive the same reward again. This behaviour (cleaning the whiteboard) is produced

because the student have “motive”, in this case receiving more tokens from the teacher.

14
 Promised reinforcement referring to incentive which can be imagined (Boeree, 2006).

For example, parents might promise a trip to Disneyland as an incentive if their child did well

in the final examination. If the criterion was met by the child and the parents make up their

promise, the trip to Disneyland itself is considered as reinforcement. The child excelled in

his/her studies because he/she have a motive, in this case a trip to Disneyland. According to

Ormrod (1999), incentives are often expensive, thus one should consider this factor before

promising it to other people.

According to Ormrod (1999), consequences of the model’s behaviour affect the

observer’s behaviour vicariously. This is known as vicarious reinforcement. This is where in

the model is reinforced for a response and then the observer shows an increase in that same

response. Bandura illustrated this by having students watch a film of a model hitting a

inflated clown doll. One group of children saw the model being praised for such action.

Without being reinforced, the group of children began to also hit the doll (Ormrod, 1999).

Another example would be an amateur badminton player watched Dato’ Lee Chong

Wei played badminton on television and won series of international championship. He

admired the skills that Dato’ Lee Chong Wei has and keep telling himself that someday he

could also be skilful like him. This will encourage and motivate him to practice harder in

order to receive the reinforced behaviour.

According to Bandura, there are also negative motivations as well which will prevent

someone from doing the observed behaviour. This includes past punishment, promised

punishment (threats) and vicarious punishment (Boeree, 2006). Past punishment referring to

bad experienced someone has where he / she was punished when imitating the observed

15
behaviour. For example, a student saw his/her friend was praised by teacher when he/she

actively involved in the class discussion. His motive was clear, he wanted to get the same

reward which was received by the observed model, and thus the observed behaviour was

imitated. But unluckily, he/she was punished because the teacher seen this behaviour as

irritating and interrupting the class lesson. This punishment will cease any future modelling

and imitation of the same observed behaviour.

Promised punishments (threats) referring to a threat which was promised by an

individual or organization whether verbally, physically or mentally in order to refrain the

observer from doing the observed behaviour. For example, students were promised a

punishment by the school principal if they were caught smoking in the school area. This

promised punishment is seen as a threat and students will try to avoid this behaviour because

they don’t want to be punished by the principal.

The last one is vicarious punishment which refers to observed punishment received by

the model when performing any undesirable behaviour. For example, a student saw his / her

friend was punished for coming late to school. This observed punishment will encourage

him/her to come on time in order to avoid the same punishment by the discipline teacher.

From the above examples, it is not denying that reinforcement and punishment play an

important role in motivation. In order for observational learning to be successful, one have to

be motivated to imitate the behaviour that has been modelled (Boeree, 2006).

16
3.3 Imitation

Normally, human beings have some ability to imitate others almost from birth (Collie

& Hayne, 1999; T.F. Field, Woodson, Greenberg & Cohen, 1982). According to Atherthon

(2010), there is a tendency to think of imitation as the "lowest" form of learning, "mere"

imitation and as having little place in the exalted reaches of adult and higher education.

Demonstrating not only how effective a form of learning imitation is, but also the

sophistication required in order to be able to imitate.

Adding to his point, Atherton (2010) claimed that imitation is more about process

than content. For example, pupils might imitate teachers’ movements and facial expressions

during story telling class. This imitation is merely explains process rather than the content of

the story. The potency of imitation as a component of learning in social situations has been

developed by the social learning theorists, associated particularly with the work of Albert

Bandura, and it is undoubtedly a potent factor in developing the social infrastructure of the

class group in educational settings (Atherton, 2010). Students will imitate teachers’

behaviours through demonstrations or hand on activities but sometimes they may also imitate

without teacher’s intentions. Teachers should clearly explain the learning outcomes and

objectives before asking students to simply imitate their behaviour or action. Imitation

without understanding its purpose will not lead to effective learning.

Imitation is rather straight to the point (Atherthon, 2010). The teacher demonstrates or

models (whether or not she is aware of so doing), and the learner imitates. There are no

"wrong" answers or dead ends where the quality of the learning is purely in the faithfulness

of the reproduction of the action which has been demonstrated. The learners or observers

17
need to select what it is appropriate to imitate in order to avoid “blind imitation”. Shea (2009)

stated that humans engage in ‘blind’ imitation, copying even irrelevant actions in a way that

other species do not.

Shea (2009) also claimed that the extent to which children imitate at all depends upon

being in an appropriate social or ‘natural pedagogical’ context. Thus, teachers and parents

must clearly explain about which behaviour is right and which is wrong as well as

consequences of the imitated behaviour. Furthermore, in being selective about which actions

they tend to imitate, children appear to show an appreciation of the intentional nature of a

model's action and the causal structure of the problem to which it is applied (Shea, 2009).

4.0 Self - regulation

Self-regulation refers to the capacity of organisms (here, human beings) to override

and alter their responses (Baumeister and Vohs, 2007). It is about establishing minimum

principles on ethics, accuracy, personal rights and so on, while fully preserving editorial

freedom on what to report and what opinions to express (Haraszti, 2008). Self – regulation is

the process by which people attempt to constrain unwanted urges in order to gain control of

the incipient response (Baumeister and Vohs, 2007). These processes are planned and

adapted to support the pursuit of personal goals in changing learning environments. Changing

one’s behaviour so as to follow rules, match ideals, or pursue goals is thus a (very useful)

form of self-regulation (Bandura, 1991). To change a response does not necessarily mean to

override it, although self-restraint is a common form of self - regulation but so is the

amplification or prolonging of a response (Polivy, 1998).

18
 Self-regulation is an integrated learning process, consisting of the development of a

set of constructive behaviours that affect one's learning. In social cognitive theory, human

behaviour is extensively motivated and regulated by the ongoing exercise of self – influence

(Bandura, 1991). He added that the major of self – regulative mechanisms operates through

three principal subfunctions. These includes self – monitoring of one’s behaviour, its

determinant and its effect; judgement of one’s behaviour in relation to personal standards and

environmental circumstances; and affective self-regulation (Bandura, 1991). Self-regulation

also encompasses self-efficacy mechanism, which plays a central role in the exercise of

personal agency by its strong impact on thought, affect, motivation and action.

According to Barry Zimmerman (1989), self-regulated learning involves the

regulation of three general aspects of academic learning such as self-regulation of behaviour,

self-regulation of motivation and affect and self-regulation of cognition. According to

Zimmerman (1989), self-regulation of behaviour involves the active control of the various

resources students have available to them, such as their time, their study environment for

example the place in which they study, and their use of others such as peers and faculty

members to help them (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie,1993). In order to self-

regulate, students must shift their focus from comparing their performance to peers to self-

comparisons, and from being reactive to being proactive learners. Goals direct activities, and

students must learn that there are different ways to attain goals, and how to select the best

way to complete a specific task.

Self-regulation of motivation and affect involves controlling and changing

motivational beliefs such as self-efficacy and goal orientation, so that students can adapt to

the demands of a course. In addition, students can learn how to control their emotions and

19
affect (such as anxiety) in ways that improve their learning. This statement was also agreed

by Perry D. Berry (n.d) by stating that self-regulation is an essential part of healthy emotional

development. He studied this context to see how self-regulation contributes to preventing

aggression and anti-social behaviours in children. He found out that a responsive teacher

provides the stimulation that helps the child's brain develop the capacity for creating and

maintaining healthy emotional relationships.

Third and finally, self-regulation of cognition involves the control of various

cognitive strategies for learning, such as the use of deep processing strategies that result in

better learning and performance than students showed previously (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, &

McKeachie,1993). Many researchers have agreed with the importance of self-regulated

learning for students at all academic levels, and remember, self-regulation can be taught,

learned and controlled. In fact, Zimmerman (1989, 1990), an expert in this area, has found

evidence of many different types of self-regulation that are explained later in this module. In

Zimmerman's studies, successful students report that the use of self-regulated learning

strategies accounted for most of their success in school.

5.0 Self – efficacy

According to Bandura (1986), self-efficacy is the belief in ones capabilities to

organize and execute the sources of action required to manage prospective situation. People

are more likely to engage in certain behaviours when there believe they will be able to execute

those behaviours successfully in condition when they have high self efficacy (Bandura, 1997).

Therefore, perceived self-efficacy is the belief in one’s competence to tackle difficult or novel

tasks and to cope with adversity in specific demanding situations. In his study, Bandura (1997)

20
relates self-efficacy with how people feel, thinks, and acts. Believing that they can effect

change, they have control over their thoughts, feelings, and actions. Assured of their

capacities, they consider difficult tasks as challenges rather than threats, setting meaningful

goals and striving to achieve them. Besides increasing and sustaining their efforts when

difficulties arise, they also relate failure to insufficient effort, knowledge, or skills. Ability to

exert control over threatening situations allows them to accomplish personal goals, reduce

stress, and avoid depression (Yong, 2010).

Self-efficacy levels can enhance or impedes motivation (Resnick, 2004). Resnick

(2004) elaborates the characteristics of people with high and low self-efficacy by saying that

people with high self efficacy choose to perform more challenging tasks while people with

low self-efficacy have low self-esteem and harbor pessimistic thought about their

accomplishments and personal development. If one's self efficacy is low, they will be less

likely to take on certain tasks or attempt to reach certain goals. In the other hand, highly

efficacious people tend to set themselves higher goals and stick to them. Actions are pre-

shaped in thought, and once an action has been taken, highly self-efficacious people invest

more effort and persist longer than those low in self-efficacy. When setbacks occur, they

recover more quickly and remain committed to their goals (Resnick, 2004). Self-efficacy

allows people to select challenging settings and explore their environment or create new ones.

Self efficacy is postulated by Bandura (1997) to be a major mediator of behavior and

behavior change. A certain thought pattern goes into self efficacy, whether it is high or low.

Low may lead people to believe that certain actions or tasks are harder to accomplish, while

people with high self efficacy will view obstacles as a chance to show more effort. Also, high

and low self efficacies demonstrate certain responses to failure (Heslin & Klehe, 2006).

21
People with high self efficacy will take on larger tasks and will want to accomplish more.

People in the low may believe that their ability is not as high as it should be, while high self

efficacy will attribute failure to external factors, such as a more difficult task. On a larger

scale, self efficacy may play a part in the destiny or fate idea, as what was proposed by

Bandura.

5.1 Sources of Self Efficacy

According to Bandura (1997), there are four phenomena that affect self-efficacy such

as mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion and psychological state.

Teachers can use strategies to build self-efficacy in various ways. Self-efficacy beliefs have

been found to be sensitive to subtle changes in students’ performance context, to interact with

self-regulated learning processes, and to mediate students’ academic achievement

(Zimmerman, 2000).

i. Mastery experiences: Mastery experience is one's personal experience with success or

failure. For example, the positive experience on the job performance appraisal will

influence the perception of one's ability and capability. Mastery experiences allow

students to earn real success, praise, and encouragement. They result in an authentic

sense of accomplishment and ego (Yong, 2010).

ii. Vicarious experiences: Self-efficacy can be affected by observing the experiences of

others. Students who observe a model successfully perform in a threatening situation

are more likely to develop the expectation that they can acquire the same skill

(Alderman, 1999). The learners can imitate their models' skills, or copy the strategies

22
 that the models use. The impact of vicarious experience depends on the observer’s

perception of similarity with the model, the perceived influential power of the model,

and the similarity between the observed and new situations and tasks (Schunk 1986).

iii. Verbal persuasion: Learners can be motivated by using verbal feedback to convince

or encourage them to accomplish their tasks (Bandura, 1997). Verbal persuasion is

commonly used by the teachers and parents as a form of motivation for the children.

Verbal persuasion may strengthen student teachers’ self-efficacy. If student teachers

are persuaded that they possess the capabilities to overcome specific difficulties, they

are likely to mobilise greater effort and to persist longer (Gibbs, 2003). However,

verbal persuasion, in itself, may be limited in its power to promote enduring change.

iv. Physiological state: According to Gibbs (2003), in judging self-efficacy, people

evaluate their emotional and physiological arousal in given situations. Emotional and

physiological arousal impairs or enhances self-efficacy beliefs, and thereby influences

subsequent performance. Peoples’ emotions and moods are persuasive as a source of

information that influences self-efficacy judgements. Physiological state is all about

what we feel, anxiety, nervousness, rapid heart rate, sweating; these symptoms often

occur when learners face challenges that require competence to overcome. Such

physical or mental states reflect learner perceptions of their self-efficacy; these in turn

affect their performance.

5.2 Teachers Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy as a teacher is a powerful predictor of how and whether a teacher will

act. Teacher self-efficacy is the belief that one is capable of exercising personal control over

23
one's behaviour, thinking, and emotions. Effective teachers believe that they can make a

difference in children's lives, and they teach in ways that demonstrate this belief. What

teachers' believe about their capability is a strong predictor of teacher effectiveness (Gibbs,

2003).

Teachers' sense of efficacy can potentially influence both the kind of environment that

they create as well as the various instructional practices introduced in the classroom

(Bandura, 1997). Furthermore, teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy are confident that

even the most difficult students can be reached if they exert extra effort; teachers with lower

self-efficacy, on the other hand, feel a sense of helplessness when it comes to dealing with

difficult and unmotivated students (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). The literature widely

documents the pervasive influence of self-efficacy beliefs and corroborates social cognitive

theory that places these beliefs at the roots of human agency (Bandura, 2001).

Teachers' beliefs about their own effectiveness, known as teacher efficacy, underlie

many important instructional decisions which ultimately shape students' educational

experiences (Soodak & Podell, 1997). Teacher efficacy is believed to be strongly linked to

teaching practices and student learning outcomes. Thus, teachers have high self efficacy

about their effectiveness in themselves or during teaching in the classroom, they influence

students achievements in many ways such as (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moan et al., 1998):

i. They are willing to experiement with new ideas and teaching strategies that can be

better help students learns

ii. They have higher expectations and set higher golas for students performance

iii. They put more efort into their teaching and are more persistent in helping students

learns

24
 Effective teachers demonstrate competence in exercising self-efficacy and thought

control of action. This thought control encompasses their behaviours, thinking, and emotions

(Gibb, 2003). Having the theoretical knowledge necessary to inform effective teaching,

knowing how to teach effectively, and even being able to demonstrate effective teaching do

not ensure that teachers will act in these ways. Gibbs (2003) research on effective teaching:

self-efficacy and thought control of action suggested that self-efficacy is meditational in

explaining how and whether teachers are willing to be motivated to act on what they know

and can do. The task of teacher education, then, is to recognise that teachers have the

cognitive capacities to self-reflect, self-motivate and self-regulate, and to harness self-

efficacy so that teachers develop competence in exercising control of their thinking,

behaviour and emotions (Gibbs, 2003).

5.3 Students Self Efficacy

As educators, we need to enhance students’ self efficacy. This is crucial and important

in order the goal state in learning is achievable. Below are the techniques to ensure the self

efficacy on the top level. There are several ways to improve self-efficacy for students as what

was proposed by Margolis and McCabe (2006), such as:

i. Use moderately- difficult tasks: If the task is too easy will be boring or

embarrassing and may communicate the feeling that the teacher doubts their

abilities; a too-difficult task will re-enforce low self-efficacy. The target for

difficulty is slightly above the students' current ability level.

25
 ii. Use peer models: Students can learn by watching a peer succeed at a task. Peers

may be drawn from groups as defined by gender, ethnicity, social circles, interests,

achievement level, clothing, or age.

iii. Teach specific learning strategies: Give students a concrete plan of attack for

working on an assignment, rather than simply turning them loose. This may apply

to overall study skills, such as preparing for an exam, or to a specific assignment or

project.

iv. Capitalize on students' interests: Tie the course material or concepts to student

interests such as sports, pop culture, movies or technology.

v. Allow students to make their own choices: Set up some areas of the course that

allow students to make their own decisions, such as with flexible grading,

assignment options or self-determined due dates.

vi. Encourage students to try: Give them consistent, credible and specific

encouragement, such as, "You can do this. We've set up an outline for how to write

a lab report and a schedule for what to do each week - now follow the plan and you

will be successful."

vii. Give frequent, focused feedback: Giving praise and encouragement is very

important, however it must be credible. Use praise when earned and avoid

26
 hyperbole. When giving feedback on student performance, compare to past

performances by the same student, don't make comparisons between students.

viii. Encourage accurate attributions: Help students understand that they don't fail

because they're dumb, they fail because they didn't follow instructions, they didn't

spend enough time on the task, or they didn't follow through on the learning

strategy.

Self-efficacy relates to its outcomes as a consequence of development. In academic

settings, the influence of self-efficacy on these motivational indexes is complex. As Bandura

(1986) had stated the stronger the self efficacy, the more likely the students select challenging

tasks, persist at them and perform them successfully. Schunk (1995) stated that students when

engaged in activities are affected by personal (e.g., goal setting, information processing) and

situational influences (rewards, feedbacks) provide them an idea on how well they learn. Self

efficacy was enhanced when students perceived they performed well (Rahil, Habibah, Loh,

Muhd Fauzi, Nooreen and Maria, 2006).

Besides, self-efficacy also affects students’ academic performance, choices,

interpersonal relationships, and overall wellbeing. It is important for pre-university students

to demonstrate a strong sense of self-efficacy to cope with a challenging learning

environment enmeshed with language requirements, intensive courses, independent learning,

and peer comparison. Fortunately, self-efficacy can be raised via mastery experiences,

favourable peer modelling, and positive social persuasion – all of which encourage students

to assume responsibility of their own actions, exert better control over their own lives, and

shape their own destinies (Yong, 2010).

27
6.0 Application and Implication of Social Learning Theory in Education

As previously described, social cognitive learning theory involved learning via

observation, modeling and imitation which also involve cognitive function of the brain in

order to retain the observed behavior as well as producing the behavior. Social learning

theory has been extensively used in education and numerous studies have been carried out by

the psychologists to gain deeper understanding in human behaviour and the outcome of the

behaviours especially in the learning context.

According to Ormrod (1999) social learning theory has numerous implications for

classroom use. It is believed that by observing others, students able to learn the behavior or

action being observed. The highest level of observational learning is achieved by first

organizing and rehearsing the modelled behaviour symbolically and then enacting it overtly.

Coding modelled behaviour into words, labels or images results in better retention than

simply observing (Atherthon, 2010). Hands on activity, demonstration and etc. provide a best

source of learning via observation where students able to imitate their teacher directly.

Teacher-students interaction can be enhance when teacher explains the objectives and

learning outcomes as well as a brief description about the observed activity. Simply asking

the students to imitate without explanation will not aid in learning because there is no transfer

of learning, students imitate without knowing why they were asked to do so and how it

relates to their learning.

Social learning theory can effectively increase the appropriate behaviors and decrease

inappropriate ones. This can only be achieved if the teacher clearly describes the

28
consequences of the behavior which involve discussing with learners about the rewards and

consequences of various behaviors (Ormrod, 1999). For example, if a teacher wants to

promote active class participation, she should clearly explain her goal to the students, the

consequences of the desired behaviours as well as discussing types rewards with them. This

will ensure higher rate of performing the desired behaviours by the students because they feel

honoured when the teacher involve them in decision making.

Modeling provides an alternative to shaping for teaching new behaviors. Instead of

using shaping, which is operant conditioning, modeling can provide a faster, more efficient

means for teaching new behavior. To promote effective modelling a teacher must make sure

that the four essential conditions exist; attention, retention, motor reproduction, and

motivation (Ormrod, 1999). In order to promote positive and appropriate behavior among the

learners, teachers and parents must first model the intended behaviors. They have to make

sure that only appropriate behaviour is modelled by the learners. Precautions should always

be the main concern when dealing with this matter because children especially at young age

are easily influenced by the adults.

Teachers should expose students to a variety of other models. There are three 3 types

of models such as live model, verbal instructional model and symbolic models that can be

used by teachers. This technique is especially important to break down traditional

stereotypes. Students must believe that they are capable of accomplishing school tasks

(Rahil, Habibah, Loh, Muhd Fauzi, Nooreen and Maria, 2006). Thus it is very important to

develop a sense of self-efficacy for students. Teachers can promote such self-efficacy by

having students receive confidence-building messages, watch others be successful, and

experience success on their own (Ormrod, 1999).

29
 Teachers should help students set realistic expectations for their academic

accomplishments (Ormrod, 1999). This means that the expectations are within set within their

capabilities. Too high expectations will demotivate the students because they feel that they

don’t have the capability and ability to meet the expectations while too low expectations will

not create a meaningful learning in students because they are able to meet the expectations

easily without any struggles.

Ormrod (1999) also highlighted the implication of self-regulation in learning which

serves as an effective method for improving student behavior. Students can be taught to

become more self-regulated learners by acquiring specific strategies that are both successful

for them and that enable them to increase their control over their own behaviour and

environment. Most researchers agree that the best learning occurs when someone carefully

observes and considers his own behaviours and acts upon what he has learned. As previously

discussed, self-regulation skills can be taught, learned, and controlled, thus teachers should

encourage more self-regulated learning in the classroom to maximize learning.

7.0 Strength and Criticisms on the Social Cognitive Learning Theory

The social learning theory advocates that individuals, especially children, imitate or

copy modelled behaviour from personally observing others, the environment, and the mass

media. In the Bobo doll experiment, critics have argued that the children were manipulated

into responded to the aggressive movie. The children were teased and became frustrated

because they could not touch the toys. Many critics believed the experiment conducted was

unethical and morally wrong because the children were trained to be aggressive (Isom, 1998).

30
 There have been many debates over whether or not violence on television causes

aggressive behaviour in children. Many studies have indicated that television does not lead to

aggressive behaviour (Isom, 1998). Instead of believing that negative influences are not

caused by the television, Cooke (1993) believed that individuals tend to support the theory

that television violence causes aggression because the public needs to justify the aggression

they see in others. For instances, psychologists have found that some cartoons are very

violent and cause children to illustrate aggressive behaviour (Isom, 1998). Parents and

teachers should play their role in selectively choose the television programmes that do not

contain violent elements.

Despite these criticisms, Albert Bandura’ s Social Learning Theory has maintained an

important place in the study of aggression and criminal behaviour (Isom, 1998). In order to

control aggression, he believed family members and the mass media should provide positive

role models for their children and the general public (Bandura, 1976).

Bandura’s social cognitive theory also has been extensively used in public service

announcements. Using these principles, a series of dramas targeted the high fertility rate in

Tanzania, which is expected to nearly double its 36-million populations in 25 years and has a

fertility rate of 5.6 children per woman. After the dramas aired, researchers found that the

greater exposure marital partners had to the dramas, the more they discussed the need to

control family size and adopted family planning methods. Besides, research found that the

dramas' gripping storylines and realistic characters are proving influential by encouraging

people to adopt family planning methods, seek literacy programs, improve women's status

and protect against AIDS infection (Dittmann, 2004).

31
8.0 Conclusion

Bandura has made important contribution towards understanding human behaviour by

introducing the social cognitive learning theory. A basic premise of Social Learning Theory

is that people learn not only through their own experiences, but also by observing the actions

of others and the results of those actions. In the 1970s, Albert Bandura published a

comprehensive framework for understanding human behaviour, based on a cognitive

formulation which he named the Social Cognitive Theory. This theory is known to serve as a

bridge between behaviourism and cognitive learning theory which comprises the modelled

behaviours, the outcome of those behaviours, and the learner’s cognitive processes. Learning

via observation will lead to modelling and imitation of the behaviour being observed.

As what was explained in reciprocal determinism, learning is interactive in three

ways: Interaction between the subject and the environment, personal factors influencing the

individual, and the learner’s cognitive processes. Modelling of behaviour is dependent on the

influence of the model and the learner’s cognitive processes. Self-efficacy and self-regulation

are two important elements that are also been found to impact social cognitive learning. Self-

efficacy is defined as the belief of an individual for successfully fulfilling the expected

behaviours for reaching a goal (Bandura, 1997). The goal must be realistic and can be

achieved within a person’s ability. In the other hand, self-regulation is an integrated learning

process, consisting of the development of a set of constructive behaviours that affect one's

learning. These processes are planned and adapted to support the pursuit of personal goals in

changing learning environments.

32
 Social cognitive learning theory has been widely applied to various fields such as

education, health, sports and etc. Various researches has been carried out by the psychologist,

educators and etc. to gain an in-depth understanding on this theory by focusing on the

concept of self-efficacy, modelling, observational learning and self-regulated learning in their

own context of study. Outcomes of the studies have always been an important contribution to

help the public to gain better understanding in their own behaviours.

Teachers, educators as well as the educational administrators also gained valuable

findings related to their teaching professionalism. Knowing about teaching, and being able to

demonstrate how to teach, is insufficient. Having the theoretical knowledge necessary to

inform effective teaching, knowing how to teach effectively, and even being able to

demonstrate effective teaching do not ensure that teachers will act in these ways (Gibbs,

2003). This shows that through extensive studies in social cognitive learning, we are able to

identify the issues related to our workplace, environment and etc., thus seeking explanation

and solution to the issues via research conducted.

33
REFERENCES:

Alderman, M. K. (1999). Goals and goal setting. Motivation for achievement: possibilities for
teaching and learning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Atherton, J. S. (2010). Learning and Teaching; Imitation and social learning [On-line] UK:
Retrieved from: http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/imitation.htm on
5/10/2010.

Bandura, A. (1963). Behavior theory and indemnificatory learning. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 33, 591-601.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

Bandura, A. (1976). Effecting change through participant modeling. In J. D. Krumboltz & C.

E. Thoresen (Eds.), Counseling methods. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Publishers.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1991). Self-efficacy, impact of self-beliefs on adolescent life paths. In R. M.

Lerner, A. C. Peterson, & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (Vol.
2, pp. 995-1000). New York: Garland.

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

Bandura, A. (2001). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales (Revised). New York:
Freeman.

Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of
affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning.
Child Development, 74, 769-782.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of
aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582.

Bandura, Albert (1997), Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, New York: Freeman.

Baumeister and Vohs, K.D. (2007). Self-Regulation, Ego Depletion, and Motivation. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass 1 (2007): 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00001.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

34
Boeree, C.G.(2006). Personality Theories. Albert Bandura. Retrieved from:
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/bandura.html on 5/10/2010.

Cooke, P. (1993). TV Causes Violence? Says Who? The New York Times.

Dittmann,M. (2004). Changing behavior through TV heroes. APA's 2004 Annual Convention.
Vol 35, No. 9.

Funderstanding. (n.d).Observational learning. Retrieved from :

http://www.funderstanding.com/content/observational-learning on 3/10/2010

Gibbs, C. (2003). Explaining effective teaching: self-efficacy and thought control of action.
Journal of Educational Enquiry, Vol. 4, No. 2.

Gibson S & Dembo MH (1984) Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, vol 76, pp 569–582.

Heslin, P.A., & Klehe, U.C. (2006). Self-efficacy. Encyclopedia of Industrial/Organizational

Psychology.Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Isom, M.D. (1998). The Social Learning Theory. Retrieved from:

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/bandura.htm on 5/10/2010.

Learning Theories.com. (n.d). Social Learning Theory (Bandura).Retrieved from

http://www.learning-theories.com/social-learning-theory-bandura.html on 10/10/2010.

Margolis, H., McCabe, P. (2006). Improving Self-Efficacy and Motivation: What to Do,
What to Say. Intervention in School and Clinic , Vol. 41, issue 4, 218-227.

Haraszti, M. (2008). The Media self-regulation guestbook. Office of the Representative on

Freedom of the Media Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
Wallnerstrasse 6:Vienna

Miller, N. & Dollard, J. (1941). Social Learning and Imitation. New Haven, NJ: Yale
University Press.

Ormrod, J.E. (1999). Human learning (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Pajares (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved from:
http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.htmlon 5/10/2010.

Perry, D. B. (n.d). teachers: where teachers come first. Retrieved from :

http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/bruceperry/self_regulation.htm on
6/10/2010.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Predictive validity
and reliability of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Educational
and Psychological Measurement,53, 801-813

35
Polivy, J. (1998). The effects of behavioral inhibition: Integrating internal cues, cognitive
behavior, and affect. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 181–203. Psychology, 7, 109-134.

Rahil Mahyuddin, Habibah Elias, Loh Sau Cheong, Muhd Fauzi Muhamad, Nooreen Noordin
And Maria Chong Abdullah. (2006). The Relationship Between Students' Self
Efficacy And Their English Language Achievement. Jurnal Pendidik Dan
Pendidikan, Jil. 21, 61–71.

Resnick, (2004). Restorative care nursing for older adults: a guide for all care settings.
NY:Springer Publishing Company.

Schunk D (1986) Vicarious influences on self-efficacy for cognitive skill learning. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, vol 4, pp 316–327.

Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport

Shea, N. (2009). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. vol. 364 no. 1528 2429-
2443.

Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1997). Efficacy and experience: Perceptions of efficacy among
preservice and practicing teachers. Journal of Research and Development in
Education, 30, 214-221.

TIP: Theories.(n.d). Social learning theory (Albert Bandura). Retrieved from

http://tip.psychology.org/bandura.html on 5/10/2010.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher-efficacy: Its

meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.

Yong, F.L (2010). A Study on the Self-Efficacy and Expectancy for Success of Pre-
University Students. European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 13, Number 4

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.

Journal Of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining Self-Regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., & Zeodmer, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation.
Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B.J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.

Educational Psychologist, 25, 3-17.

36