3 pages due in 12 hours

combs

04CH_Learning_Rosser-Majors.pdf

Home >Education homework help >3 pages due in 12 hours

4 Cognition, Learning, and the Environment

Altrendo images/Stockbyte/Thinkstock

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

• Compare and contrast the stages of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development.

• Classify behaviors into Piaget’s stages of cognitive development.

• Relate schema development to current understandings of cognition.

• Identify and define types of comprehension-associated schemata.

• Explain the relationship between social learning theory and social cognitive theory.

• Summarize and explain the significance of the Bobo doll study.

• Define attribution theory and describe its role in learning.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 129 8/31/17 3:23 PM

130

Introduction

Introduction Have you ever

• believed something as a child, only to change your belief as you grew older? • decided not to do something because others were not doing it either? • changed your behavior to match those around you? • changed your belief system (what you knew to be true) to match those held by your

family and friends? • avoided something, such as a new food or carnival ride, because of the facial expres-

sions you saw on others’ faces after they tried the same thing?

In Chapter 3, you learned that cogni- tion includes perception, attention, and memory development. This chap- ter introduces the complexities associ- ated with social phenomena that affect cognition, often referred to as social cognition. Social cognition was ini- tially introduced as a subset of social psychology that endeavored “to under- stand and explain how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others” (All- port, 1985, p. 3). Social cognition con- siders how individuals perceive and store information and form memories about other people and social events. It also focuses on how environmental interactions can affect behaviors, including learning. To be clear, despite its focus on the indi- vidual’s surroundings, social cognition is still the study of cognition; it is concerned with the role mental processes play in social interactions and vice versa.

As noted in the text’s Introduction, researchers are not always clearly aligned to a single psychological theory or perspective during their careers. In fact, some researchers are aligned to more than one theory or perspective. For example, Albert Bandura (1965b) and Jerome Bruner (1957) started their careers studying learning from behavioral and purely cognitive perspectives, respectively, and then in later years moved toward social cognition. Several other researchers highlighted in this chapter are considered cognitivists, but their theories align with social cognition in that they rely on the environment and other external variables.

This chapter will explore the theory of cognitive development (Jean Piaget), schema theory, social learning theory (Albert Bandura), and attribution theory. Your knowledge gained in the previous chapters will help you to evaluate and understand the new material included in this chapter. Every theory you encounter in this text is a building block, the raw materials

MachineHeadz/iStock/Thinkstock A teenager smoking because others in his or her social circle are doing so is an example of a social interaction.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 130 8/31/17 3:23 PM

131

Section 4.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development

that will help you construct a deeper understanding about learning. As you review the differ- ent aspects of the social and environmental effects on cognition, consider if and how these elements overlap with elements of other theories and frameworks you have learned about.

4.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development Prior to behaviorism, much of the discussion about learning focused on intelligence quotient (IQ) testing. Research in behaviorism (e.g., the findings associated with Skinner and Watson) prompted academics and psychologists to consider how learning could occur (and be improved) through the use of reinforcers. This point of view conflicted with the underpinnings of IQ test- ing, which relied on numerical information to identify if students were on target level, under the target, or above the target level (i.e., gifted students). It was even common to use IQ tests

to align a child with a specific mental age or to sug- gest that intelligence was part of a child’s personality (Hussain, Jamil, Saraji, & Maroof, 2012). As cognition became the greater focus of the academic commu- nity, however, new ideas about behavior and learn- ing emerged.

Jean Piaget, a leading psychologist during this period, had confidence in the idea suggested by behaviorism that children reacted to their environments. But after many years of observing children, including his own, Piaget also believed that children participated in learning in a more active way. Thus in 1936, Piaget’s theory of cognitive development was introduced to the academic community, placing increased atten- tion on the child’s ability to successfully construct schema (to review schema construction, see section 2.3). The model suggests that although the child’s age is an important factor, age does not definitively determine when a child will move through each stage of development. Rather, the theory proposes that each stage is also dependent upon maturity, experi- ence, culture, and the child’s aptitude (Papalia, Olds, & Freeman, 2005). This dependency on external vari- ables places the theory of cognitive development within the purview of social cognition, although some researchers categorize Piaget’s work as purely cognitive.

The excerpts in this section are from DeWolfe (2016). DeWolfe discusses the four stages of cog- nitive development, illustrates each stage, and assesses some of the implications that Piaget’s theory has in education. As you read, consider how each stage of development supports an indi- vidual’s ability to form and modify knowledge and to learn new information.

Associated Press Jean Piaget introduced the theory of cognitive development, which focuses on a child’s development as dependent upon maturity, experience, culture, and aptitude. Therefore, the theory places more emphasis on external factors.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 131 8/31/17 3:23 PM

132

Section 4.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development

Excerpts from “Jean Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development”

By T. E. DeWolfe

Overview of Piaget’s Theory Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist, generated the 20th century’s most influential and compre- hensive theory of cognitive development. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development describes how the maturing child’s interactions with the environment result in predictable sequences of changes in certain crucial understandings of the world about him or her. Such changes occur in the child’s comprehension of time and space, quantitative relationships, cause and effect, and even right and wrong. Children are always treated as an actor in their own devel- opment. Advances result from the active desire to develop concepts or schemata that are suf- ficiently similar to the real world that this real world can be fitted or assimilated into these schemata. Schemata can be defined as any process of interpreting an object or event, includ- ing habitual responses, symbols, or mental manipulations. When a schema (“Cats smell nice”) is sufficiently discrepant from reality (“That cat stinks”), the schema itself must be accom- modated or altered (“That catlike creature is a skunk”). For children everywhere, neurologi- cally based advances in mental capacity introduce new perceptions that make the old ways of construing reality unsatisfactory and compel a fundamentally new construction of reality—a new stage of development. Piaget conceptualizes four such stages: sensorimotor (in infancy), preoperational (the preschool child), concrete operational (the school-age child), and formal operational (adolescence and adulthood). See Table 4.1 for a brief overview of each stage.

Sensorimotor Stage In the sensorimotor stage, the infant orients himself or herself to objects in the world by consistent physical (motor) movements in response to those sensory stimuli that represent the same object (for example, the sight of a face, the sound of footsteps, or a voice all repre- sent “mother”). The relationship between motor responses and reappearing objects becomes progressively more complex and varied in the normal course of development. First, reflexes such as sucking become more efficient; then sequences of learned actions that bring pleasure are repeated (circular reactions). These learned reactions are directed first toward the infant’s own body (thumb sucking), then toward objects in the environment (the infant’s stuffed toy).

Babies seem to lack an awareness that objects con- tinue to exist when they are outside the range of their senses. When the familiar toy of an infant is hidden, the infant does not search for it; it is as if it has disappeared from reality. As the sensorimo- tor infant matures, the infant becomes convinced of the continuing existence of objects that disappear in less obvious ways for longer intervals of time. By 18 months of age, most toddlers have achieved such a conviction of continuing existence, or object permanence.

M-image/iStock/Thinkstock In the sensorimotor stage of infant development, the infant relates sounds or movements to a specific object or person.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 132 8/31/17 3:23 PM

133

Section 4.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development

Table 4.1: Stages of cognitive development

Stage Age range Description Example

sensorimotor Birth to age 2 • Develops knowledge of – him/herself – the world around him

or her • Develops understanding

through sensory percep- tions and motor activities (interactions) with the environment

• Assimilates and accommo- dates to form schemata

• Learns that a shaking rattle makes noise

• Feels sensation when play- ing with toes

• Learns that crying gains help/food/holding

preoperational Ages 2 to 6 or 7 • Continues to assimilate and accommodate information through sensory percep- tions and motor activities (interactions) with the environment

• Is unable to think abstractly and requires concrete physi- cal experiences

• Develops language develop- ment and uses egocentric talk

• Develops mental represen- tations of objects

• Imitates

• Begins to use language • Uses rocks on the ground as

play money • Believes everyone has a

boat, because he or she has a boat

• Believes there is “more” candy when it is broken up into pieces

concrete operations

Ages 6 or 7 to early adolescence

• Is no longer egocentric • Finds abstract thought

difficult • Develops logical thought • Applies inductive thought • Understands reversibility,

conservation, and seriation

• Does not believe that everyone has the same likes, dislikes, beliefs, etc.

• Recognizes that Fido → dog → animal → mam- mal = all the same object (reversibility)

• Recognizes that when candy is broken into pieces, it is still equivalent to the one piece (conservation)

• Recognizes that blocks can be stacked from smallest to largest (seriation)

formal operations

Early adolescence through adulthood

• Can speculate • Understands unique con-

cepts: joy, love, peace • Presents abstract ideas and

thoughts • Can theorize • Develops deductive reason-

ing and systematic planning skills

• Solves word problems • Plans for the future • Counts without using

objects • Forms hypotheses and tests

them • Effectively develops increas-

ingly accurate schemata

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 133 8/31/17 3:23 PM

134

Section 4.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development

Preoperational Stage In the preoperational stage, the preschool child begins to represent these permanent objects by internal processes or mental representations. Now the development of mental representa- tions of useful objects proceeds at an astounding pace. In symbolic play, blocks may represent cars and trains. Capable of deferred imitation, the child may pretend to be a cowboy according to his memory image of a motion-picture cowboy. The most important of all representations are the hundreds of new words the child learns to speak.

As one might infer from the word “preoperational,” this period, lasting from about age 2 through ages 6 or 7, is transitional. Preschool children still lack the attention, memory capac- ity, and mental flexibility to employ their increasing supply of symbolic representations in logical reasoning (operations). It is as if the child remains so focused on the individual frames of a motion picture that the child fails to comprehend the underlying plot. Piaget calls this narrow focusing on a single object or salient dimension centration. The child may say, for example, that a quart of milk the child has just seen transferred into two pint containers is now “less milk” because the child focuses on the smaller size of the new containers. Fido is seen as a dog, not as an animal or a mammal. Children uncritically assume that other people, regardless of their situation, share their own tastes and perspectives. A 2-year-old closes his eyes and says, “Now you don’t see me, Daddy.” Piaget calls this egocentrism.

Concrete Operations Stage The concrete operations stage begins at age 6 or 7, when the school-age child becomes capable of keeping in mind and logically manipulating several concrete objects at the same time. The child is no longer the prisoner of the momentary appearance of things. In no case is the change more evident than in the sort of problem in which a number of objects (such as 12 black checkers) are spread out into four groups of three. While the 4-year-old, preopera- tional child would be likely to say that now there are more checkers because they take up a larger area, to the 8-year-old it is obvious that this transformation could easily be reversed by regrouping the checkers. Piaget describes the capacity to visualize the reversibility of such transformations as “conservation.” This understanding is fundamental to the comprehen- sion of simple arithmetical manipulations. It is also fundamental to a second operational skill: categorization. To the concrete-operational child, it seems obvious that while Rover the dog can for other purposes be classified as a household pet, an animal, or a living organism, he will still be a “dog” and still be “Rover.” A related skill is seriation: keeping in mind that an entire series of objects can be arranged along a single dimension, such as size (from smallest to largest). The child now is also capable of role-taking, of understanding the different per- spective of a parent or teacher. No longer egocentric (the assumption that everyone shares one’s own perspective and the cognitive inability to understand the different perspective of another), the child becomes able to see himself as others see him and to temper the harshness of absolute rules with a comprehension of the viewpoints of others.

Formal Operations Stage The formal operations stage begins in early adolescence. In childhood, logical operations are concrete ones, limited to objects that can be visualized, touched, or directly experienced. The advance of the early adolescent into formal operational thinking involves the capacity to deal with possibilities that are purely speculative. This permits coping with new classes

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 134 8/31/17 3:23 PM

135

Section 4.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development

of problems: those involving relationships that are purely abstract or hypothetical, or that involve the higher-level analysis of a problem by the systematic consideration of every logical (sometimes fanciful) possibility. The logical adequacy of an argument can be examined apart from the truth or falsity of its conclusions.

Concepts such as “forces,” “infinity,” or “justice,” nowhere directly experienced, can now be comprehended. Formal operational thought permits the midadolescent or adult to hold abstract ideals and to initiate scientific investigations.

Illustrating Stage Development Piaget was particularly clever in the invention of problems that illustrate the underlying premises of the child’s thought. The crucial capability that signals the end of the sensorimo- tor period is object permanence, the child’s conviction of the continuing existence of objects that are outside the range of one’s senses. Piaget established the gradual emergence of object

permanence by hiding from the child familiar toys for progressively longer periods of time, with the act of hiding progressively less obvious to the child. Full object permanence is not con- sidered achieved until the child will search for a familiar missing object even when the child could not have observed its being hidden.

The fundamental test of concrete operational thought is conservation. In a typical conservation task, the child is shown two identical balls of putty. The child generally affirms their obvious equivalence. Then one of the balls of putty is reworked into an elon- gated, wormlike shape while the child watches. The child is again asked about their relative size. Younger children

are likely to say that the wormlike shape is smaller, but the child who has attained conserva- tion of mass will state that the size must still be the same. Inquiries concerning whether the weights of the differently shaped material (conservation of weight) are the same and whether they would displace the same amount of water (conservation of volume) are more difficult questions, generally not answerable until the child is older.

Standardized Tests to Measure Piaget’s Concepts Since Piaget’s original demonstrations, further progress has necessitated the standardization of these problems with materials, questions, procedures, and scoring so clearly specified that examiners can replicate one another’s results. Such standardization permits the explanation of the general applicability of Piaget’s concepts. Standardized tests have been developed for

Hero Images Inc./Hero Images/SuperStock One reason babies love the peekaboo game is because they have not developed object permanence yet. Until they go through this stage, they believe objects to disappear when they leave their sight.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 135 8/31/17 3:23 PM

136

Section 4.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development

measuring object permanence, egocentricity, and role-taking skills. The Concept Assessment Kit: Conservation, for example, provides six standard conservation tasks for which compari- son data (norms) are available for children in several widely diverse cultures. The relative conceptual attainments of an individual child (or culture) can be measured. It is encouraging that those who attain such basic skills as conservation early have been shown to be advanced in many other educational and cognitive achievements.

Implications for Education Piaget’s views of cognitive development have broad implications for educational institu- tions charged with fostering such development. The child is viewed as an active seeker of knowledge. This pursuit is advanced by the child’s experimental engagement with problems that are slightly more complex than those problems successfully worked through in the past. The teacher is a facilitator of the opportunities for such cognitive growth, not a lecturer or a drillmaster. The teacher provides physical materials that can be experimentally manipu- lated. Such materials can be simple: Blocks, stones, bottle caps, and plastic containers all can be classified, immersed in water, thrown into fire, dropped, thrown, or balanced. Facilitating peer relationships and cooperation in playing games are also helpful in encouraging social role-taking and moral development.

Since each student pursues knowledge at his or her own pace and in his or her own idiom, great freedom and variety may be permitted in an essentially open classroom. The teacher may nudge the student toward cognitive advancement by presenting a problem slightly more complex than that already comprehended by the student. A student who understands conser- vation of number may be ready for problems involving the conservation of length, for exam- ple. Yet the teacher does not reinforce correct answers or criticize incorrect ones. Sequencing is crucial. The presentation of knowledge or skill before the child is ready can result in super- ficial, uncomprehended verbalisms (phrases or sentences that have little or no meaning). Piaget does not totally reject the necessity of the inculcation of social and cultural niceties (social-arbitrary knowledge), the focus of traditional education. He would maintain, however, that an experimentally based understanding of physical and social relationships is crucial for a creative, thoughtful society.

Finessing Piaget’s Research Piaget hypothesized sequences of age-related changes in ways of dealing with reality. His conclusions were based on the careful observation of a few selected cases. The voluminous research since Piaget’s time overwhelmingly supports the sequence he outlined. The process almost never reverses. Once a child understands the conservation of substance, for example, the child’s former conclusion that “Now there is more” seems to the child not simply wrong but absurd. Even within a stage, there is a sequence. Conservation of mass, for example, pre- cedes conservation of volume.

Post-Piagetian research has nevertheless led to a fine-tuning of some of his conclusions and a modification of others. Piaget believed that transitions to more advanced cognitive levels awaited neurological maturation and the child’s spontaneous discoveries. Several research- ers have found that specific training in simplified and graded conservation and categorization

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 136 8/31/17 3:23 PM

137

Section 4.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development

tasks can lead to an early ripening of these skills. Other research has called into question Piaget’s timetable. The fact that, within a few months of birth, infants show subtle differences in their reactions to familiar versus unfamiliar objects suggests that recognition memory for objects may begin earlier than Piaget’s age for object permanence. If conservation tasks are simplified—if all distraction is avoided, and simple language and familiar materials are used—it can be shown that concrete operations also may begin earlier than Piaget thought. Formal operations, on the other hand, may not begin as early or be applied as universally in adult problem solving as suggested by Piaget’s thesis. A significant percentage of older ado- lescents and adults fail tests for formal operations, particularly in new problem areas.

More basic than readjustments of his developmental scheduling is the reinterpretation of Piaget’s stages. The stage concept implies not only an invariant sequence of age-related changes but also developmental discontinuities involving global and fairly abrupt shifts in an entire pattern or structure. Yet the prolonged development and domain-specific nature of many operational skills, cited above, suggest a process that is neither abrupt nor global. An alternative view is that Piaget’s sequences can also be understood as the results of continu- ous improvements in attention, concentration, and memory. Stages represent only transition points on this continuous dimension. They are more like the points of a scale on a thermom- eter than the stages of the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a moth.

Piaget’s Impact Even with the caveat that his stages may reflect, at a more fundamental level, an underly- ing continuum, Piaget’s contributions can be seen as a great leap forward in approximate answers to one of humankind’s oldest questions: how human beings know their world. The 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant described certain core assumptions, such as quan- tity, quality, and cause and effect, which he called “categories of the understanding.” Human beings make these assumptions when they relate specific objects and events to one another— when they reason. Piaget’s work became known to a 1960s-era American psychology that was dominated by B. F. Skinner’s behavioral view of a passive child whose plastic nature was simply molded by the rewards and punishments of parents and culture. The impact of Piag- et’s work shifted psychology’s focus back to a Kantian perspective of the child as an active reasoner who selectively responds to aspects of culture the child finds relevant. Piaget him- self outlined the sequence, the pace, and some of the dynamics of the maturing child’s devel- opment of major Kantian categories. Such subsequent contributions as Lawrence Kohlberg’s work on moral development and Robert Selman’s work on role-taking can be viewed as an elaboration and extension of Piaget’s unfinished work. Piaget, like Sigmund Freud, was one of psychology’s pivotal thinkers. Without him, the entire field of developmental psychology would be radically different.

Piaget was not necessarily interested in how we learn at first, but his stages of cognitive devel- opment became an important foundation for research about learning. Before Piaget, it was assumed that children processed information like adults did—just less proficiently. Piaget dem- onstrated that children in fact constructed mental models of the world around them as they matured and interacted more with their environment. This discovery was an important milestone

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 137 8/31/17 3:23 PM

138

Section 4.2 Schema Theory

in the field of psychology—specifically encouraging the study of child psychology—but was also enormously influential in broader educational theory (e.g., constructivism) and research on early childhood education. It addressed the influence of social context on development, and thus social cognition. As with many original theoretical frameworks, Piaget’s comprehensive theory of cognitive development has been debated and reformulated by additional researchers over the years, but Piaget’s core principles have endured. His stages are still considered applicable in many domains, including counseling, child development, and developmental psychology.

As discussed earlier in this chapter and in previous chapters, schema development was an impor- tant part of Piaget’s work. It is this piece of his model that became a key element to studying learning. In the next section, we examine the social cognitive aspect of schema development, focusing on how the social context also affects schema formation.

4.2 Schema Theory Chapters 2 and 3 evaluated schema development and its roles in information processing and memory development. As noted in these chapters, the ability to effectively develop accurate and retrievable schema is essential to the learning process. However, research also has suggested that there is more to this process than the arbitrary creation of these abstract representations. Schemata can be affected by environmental variables (e.g., friends, past and vicarious experi- ences, preexisting beliefs, one’s culture). Thus, it is valuable to understand both schemata as knowledge building blocks (cognition) and schema development affecters (social cognition).

The excerpts featured in this section are from Smith (2015). The information she shares will reinforce your under- standing of schemata by elaborat- ing on specific types of schemata that can be developed. The discussions will address the influence of social contexts, the potential effects social contexts can have on successful schema construc- tion, and how successful schema devel- opment can be supported within learn- ing environments. As you read, consider how your own social experiences may have affected your ability to form accu- rate and automated schemata, which would allow you to perform familiar tasks accurately with little thought.

Hjalmeida/iStock/Thinkstock Schemata take on an added emphasis in relation to cognition. Schemata play a role in how the brain processes new information, but they also play a role in long-term memory. When new information is introduced, the brain places it in either an existing or a new schema; if the information is not relevant or doesn’t fall into an existing schema, the learner can forget or ignore it.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 138 8/31/17 3:24 PM

139

Section 4.2 Schema Theory

Excerpts from “Schema Theory”

By T. Smith

Schema-Theoretic Perspectives Schema theory explains how learning occurs when learners integrate new knowledge with prior knowledge stored in long-term memory. Tompkins and McGee (1993) define schema as “a mental bundle of knowledge that holds everything we know about a topic” (p. 143). When learning occurs, schema is modified as new knowledge is stored in the brain. In other words, learning occurs when schemata grow and change. Schema (plural schemata) is an abstract framework that organizes knowledge into long-term memory by putting information into what might be considered slots, with each slot containing related information. As knowl- edge is stored into these slots, these structures set up expectations for the learner when new knowledge is encountered for interpretations. Within this framework are clusters of related knowledge, experiences, feelings, and ideas that guide learners’ interpretations, inferences, expectations, and attention as ideas are comprehended (Roe, Stoodt-Hill, & Burns, 2007). This theory asserts that learners comprehend a text or new situation when they bring to mind a schema that illustrates the ideas in the message. Schema is internalized in the brain, and that guides and controls a learner’s use of subsequent information and response to expe- riences. Without schemata to guide comprehension, learners could make little sense out of texts or new information. Schemata aid learners in making connections to their prior knowl- edge. Learners comprehend a message when they are able to bring to mind a schema that gives a good account of the objects and events described in the message. Comprehension is a matter of activating this schema and then constructing a new schema that provides a coher- ent explanation of these new ideas (Anderson, 1994).

The original concept of schema was introduced in 1932 by British psychologist Sir Frederic Bartlett. His seminal work in reconstructive memory demonstrated that long-term memories are neither fixed nor immutable but are constantly being adjusted as schemata evolve through experience. The theory was further developed through Brewer and Treyens (1981), building on Bartlett’s ideas. They state that new information that falls within a learner’s schema can be easily remembered and incorporated into the learner’s worldview. In other cases, when new information is perceived that does not fit into a schema, then learners either ignore or forget it. When this information can’t be ignored, existing schemata must be changed and a new schema is formed.

Originally, cognitive theoreticians saw the child as a “tabula-rasa,” a blank slate not yet affected by knowledge or impressions gained by experience. In the 1970s, a new focus on schema theory evolved as a result of work by computer scientist Marvin Minsky (1975). Through his work with computers and their corresponding human-like abilities, such as perceiving and understanding the world, Minsky concluded that humans were using their stored knowledge about the world to carry out many of the processes that he was trying to emulate in his com- puters. Through transition of thought processes, cognitive psychologists now see that young minds are a set of empty shelves or slots that are filled, modified, or expanded by learning. These slots constitute the schemata by which the child organizes information.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 139 8/31/17 3:24 PM

140

Section 4.2 Schema Theory

Minsky’s work impacted the field of cognitive psychology, through cognitive psychologist David Rumelhart’s (1980) work on mental representation of complex knowledge. In the 1990s, Richard Anderson’s work on schemata theory in education provided an account for how prior knowledge might influence the acquisition of new knowledge. The term schema originated with Piaget in 1926 and was expanded by Anderson’s work. Anderson (1994) states that what teachers need to do to activate and enhance schema is to teach general knowledge and generic concepts; to strengthen connections between schemata and new ideas, through discussion, songs, role play, illustration aids, and explanations about how a piece of knowl- edge applies; and to help learners build prior knowledge. In 1988, schema theory shifted to incorporate what is called “purpose-sensitive schema.” The idea that knowledge is stored in slots has evolved to include the storage of chunks of information, as chunks of information are more complex in nature than singular points. These chunks, when paired with new knowl- edge, form more complex schemata. Purpose-sensitive schemata account for more effective problem solving and construction of meaning and for the assembling of new knowledge that goes far beyond the original and more simplistic hierarchical model presented by Rumelhart (Ruddell & Unran, 1994).

According to Ruddell and Unran (1994), a schema appears to function by way of the following properties:

• Presenting procedural information allows schema to become activated • Schema can acquire knowledge from higher-level schema • Schema inferences can be triggered by text • Schema is stored hierarchically

This schema-theoretic perspective of comprehension works on the premise that what learn- ers know about a topic—their prior knowledge—affects the ease or difficulty in understand- ing new knowledge. Pearson and Johnson (1978) state that the process of activating and building schemata into long-term memory builds bridges between new and prior knowledge. Underdeveloped schemata—a lack of prior knowledge—result in learners’ inability to under- stand. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1982) assert that by the time learners reach school age, they have learned the schemata common to conversations; they have less schemata concerning written composition.

Types of Comprehension-Based Schemata There are several schemata types associated with comprehension, which will be discussed in the next paragraphs: Content schema, textual, intertextual, and linguistic content [. . .] are based on world knowledge. When learners have prior knowledge of a subject, they bring schemata of that given topic to new information. Learners’ schema, or their organized knowl- edge of the world, provides much of the basis for comprehending, learning, and remember- ing the ideas in stories and texts (Anderson, 1994). This schema represents a wide range of experiences and understandings that have been acquired both in and out of school. Content schema also includes systems of factual knowledge, values, and cultural conventions. Life experiences can also impact interpretation. As Ruddell and Unran (1994) point out, “Meaning that is understood from text is not in the text itself, but in the learner, in his or her . . . sche- matic knowledge” (p. 1056).

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 140 8/31/17 3:24 PM

141

Section 4.2 Schema Theory

In textual schemata (the rhetorical structure of different modes of text), learners have prior knowledge of the structural characteristics of written language. This schema of prior knowl- edge of the structural characteristics of text helps students to anticipate, follow, and organize information and enables learners to find important information in a new text. For example, once learners activate schemata, they can anticipate ideas and information and make infer- ences about content. Learners can understand a text, based on past schematic understand- ings of that type of text. Once learners have experience with poetry, they have developed a mental schema of poetry and can apply this understanding when experiencing new poetry (Roe et al., 2007). Narrative text structure is called story grammar, and relates to setting, characters, plot structure, climax, and resolution.

Intertextual schemata occur when there appear to be links between ideas discovered in one text that can be applied to another. Comprehension occurs when knowledge of ideas in one text aids in students’ understanding of ideas in another. Linguistic schemata are schemata by which we produce and comprehend language rules. Innate language capacity must be stimu- lated and supported by new knowledge about language that learners acquire over time. These linguistic schemata include sentence structure, grammatical inflections, spelling, punctuation, vocabulary, and cohesive structures. See Table 4.2 for a summary of these comprehension- associated schema types.

Table 4.2: Types of comprehension-associated schema

Schema type Description Examples

content schema A person’s prior knowledge, about the content within a text, that assists the learner in clarifying and creating meaning of included infor- mation. Includes learned informa- tion within the educational context as well as the personal experience context.

• Jackie has taken her Introduction to Psychology course, and her next course is Psychology of Learning. Her previous knowledge about this specific content has developed her current schema, which will affect her understanding of the new knowledge.

• Max has ADHD. This previous knowledge will affect his understanding of the new knowledge about ADHD included in his psychology text.

textual schema A person’s prior knowledge of the structural characteristics of the written language

• Jackie has taken several writing courses over the past 5 years. Her previously devel- oped schema about the written language will affect her understanding of this vari- able in future writing circumstances.

intertextual schema

The links between ideas discovered in one text that can be applied to another

• While reading the Psychology of Learning text, Max recalls connected information that he read about in the Introduction to Psychology text.

linguistic content schema

A person’s developing schema that focuses on the capacity of language use

• Jackie is an excellent writer and speaker; thus, she has an accurate and effective linguistic content schema.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 141 8/31/17 3:24 PM

142

Section 4.2 Schema Theory

Promoting Effective Schema Development There are many ways in which teachers can enhance building of schemata, such as provid- ing discussion; developing dramas and storytelling; oral reading; viewing television shows, videos, and websites; examining models; and using computers. Teachers can maximize sche- mata by tapping into learners’ prior knowledge so that schemata can be applied from one idea to the next. As teachers present relevant background information, learners can construct meaningful interpretations of text and create new schemata. Effective teaching can also build schemata to promote strategies that tap into forgotten schemata or by filling in the gaps of learning for those learners who lack critical information to make connections.

Typical ways to activate knowledge include deter- mining the background or prior knowledge that learners already possess. Teachers then implement preliminary activities such as small group discus- sions to relate new concepts to prior knowledge. If learners already understand some concepts, they are now ready for more in-depth understanding of the topic. By making more links, learners’ sche- mata change and learning takes place.

For most people, day-to-day activities that require schemata are fairly automatic; learners quickly organize new perceptions into schemata and act quickly and effectively without effort. There are some impediments to the development of schema in English language learners (ELL). For ELLs, cul-

turally determined first language schemata can interfere with building new understanding. However, these ELL schemata can be overcome by avoiding cultural bias and providing ELL learners with information that helps build bridges and create schemata. Schallert and Martin (2003) suggest that what learners already know influences the quantity and quality of what they can learn. Learners can fail to learn because of missing or unactivated prior knowledge. If learners hold misconceptions of a subject—or incorrect prior knowledge—this can inter- fere with learning. Even though misconceptions are hard to change, teachers have an oppor- tunity to change these misconceptions by creating instructional settings that enable learners to reject their former misconceptions and learn new schemata.

Schemata should be viewed as webs, rather than hierarchical (see section 2.4). The theory of schemata has evolved most recently to include the concept that schema not only inter- prets but also predicts situations (Windmayer, 2007). Information that does not fit into schema may not be comprehended, or comprehended correctly. Through an extension of schemata theory, learners are thought to actively build schemata and revise them in light of new information, involving a context-specific body of knowledge that learners apply to new situations. What really matters, though, is that learners are able to construct knowledge through their prior learning, and that they also have knowledge about how they learn and plan their goals. [. . .]

Wavebreakmedia/iStock/Thinkstock Leading discussions, reading aloud, and showing models and figures allow teachers to enhance the building of schemata in their students.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 142 8/31/17 3:24 PM

143

Section 4.2 Schema Theory

Reinforcing Your Understanding: Schema Development

How learners develop schemata, their mental representations of related information, and exactly how schema development can be a help or a hindrance to their learning can be a confusing concept to grasp. It is important to consider how you, as a learner, can continue to expand your knowledge about how you learn. For example, think again about how schemata are activated and how they may affect your perceptions of new information.

Consider the following terms:

• perception • behavior • reciprocal determinism • knowledge acquisition

Based on the information that you’ve considered in this text up to this point, which of these terms have similar meanings and form a schema about how humans learn?

For some readers, maybe perception, behavior, and knowledge acquisition fit into this schema. But what about reciprocal determinism? This term has not been used in the text yet (but it will be introduced in section 4.3). Once you read about how these four terms align with views about how humans learn, you can successfully add it to your “how humans learn” schema.

But what if other readers recognize the word determinism because of prior studies in philosophy? In philosophy, determinism is the belief that all events are caused by things that happened before the previous one—that no one is responsible for his or her actions (to an extent). How might knowing this word affect their understandings of the term reciprocal determinism as it is used in psychology?

(continued)

Schema development is essential to our learning and is affected by our surroundings, interac- tions, beliefs, and experiences. The development of schemata is progressively more abstract as we mature, so, whether we are acting as an educator, a trainer, a counselor, or a parent, it is invaluable to be aware of the learner’s developmental ability when determining the best way to encourage effective schema development. As noted, the activation of prior knowledge is impor- tant; however, also important is the learner’s ability to not only assimilate the information but accommodate it, which may require a change in one’s present schema. (See Reinforcing Your Understanding: Schema Development for an example of schema activation and accommoda- tion.) Without a willingness to modify one’s own perceptions and representations, new knowl- edge can become diluted or inaccurate.

Consider this text and its contents. Have you studied some of these theories or strategies for another course using a different text? Any connections you make between the two texts would be called intertextual schema. What if the connections are not clear? Schema theory suggests that your understanding of the content in this text is affected by how easily (or not so easily) you are able to accommodate the new knowledge you are learning from this text.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 143 8/31/17 3:24 PM

144

Section 4.2 Schema Theory

As you read the next section, be cognizant of your previous readings about schemata and con- sider how Bandura’s social learning theory further suggests how our environment (contextual factors) affects how we make connections to new knowledge based on previously existing sche- mata. It’s important for us to develop effective schemata because they support our understand- ing of the world around us and the content aligned with our personal and professional goals.

Reinforcing Your Understanding: Schema Development (continued)

As you will learn, in psychology, reciprocal determinism is when environmental (contextual) and personal factors affect the behavior and, in turn, the behavior affects the contextual and personal factors. (See Figure 4.1.)

Though both philosophy and psychology use a similar term, the word is used to define very different concepts. If readers aren’t attentive to potential differences in meanings, then their previous knowledge may simply tell their brains that the distinctions are not important and that they do not need to attend to the word as they read it, and thus they will miss the opportunity to clarify any alternate meanings.

Figure 4.1: Reciprocal determinism

In psychology, the term reciprocal determinism refers to the two-way relationship between contextual and personal factors and behavior. Previously developed schemata can affect a learner’s understanding of a new term such as reciprocal determinism.

Behavioral factors

Personal factorsEnvironmental factors

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 144 8/31/17 3:24 PM

145

Section 4.3 Social Learning Theory

4.3 Social Learning Theory Yet another theory that attempts to describe how the environment affects how we learn is social learning theory (SLT), later enhanced and renamed social cognitive theory (SCT). Origi- nally proposed by Albert Bandura in 1976, social learning theory stated that learning took place through simple observations, emphasizing the role of modeling. In other words, humans learn by observing an environment and those in it; there are a number of contextual factors that modify and affect our learning behavior. (See Figure 4.2 for examples.)

Figure 4.2: Contextual factors affecting behavior

One individual’s decision to learn how to rock climb can be affected by different environmental (contextual) and personal factors.

Behavioral factors

Personal factors

Knowledge, expectations, and attitudes

Example: Do I think that I

could rock climb?

Environmental factors

Skills, practice, and self-efficacy

Example: I can take a class to

learn how to rock climb.

Social norms, community access, and one’s influence

Example: My new group of friends

loves to rock climb.

As we have previously discussed, every theory has its critics, and Bandura’s SLT does as well. As noted in section 4.1, early researchers connected learning with human development, including the architecture of the mind, age factors, etc. Critics of SLT feel that it does not include enough emphasis on human development and focuses too much on the environmental (contextual) influencers (Conner & Norman, 1996; Smedlund, 2000; Sutton, 1998). This critique essentially encouraged new, more holistic investigations into learning, including Bandura himself. As a result, Bandura renamed social learning theory as social cognitive theory in 1986. He also expanded his theory to include self-efficacy—one’s beliefs and judgments about one’s abili- ties—replacing the emphasis on modeling. Bandura suggested that self-efficacy is an important motivator for regulating how dedicated an individual is to learning and what observations the individual is more attentive to.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 145 8/31/17 3:24 PM

146

Section 4.3 Social Learning Theory

The excerpts in this section are from Kretchmar (2015) and discuss key concepts in social learn- ing theory, including the later changes that spurred its name change to social cognitive the- ory. (Note that Bandura’s SLT should not be confused with the social learning theory devel- oped by Akers [1990]. Akers’s theory is a sociological theory and focuses on deviant behaviors.) As you read the material, consider how your social environment and the people around you may have affected your learning, whether about simple processes, values, or maybe spirituality. How indicative are your beliefs and values based on what you learned from those around you? Have they changed as you changed social groups? How might biases affect your opportunity to develop your knowledge in some domains? These are the types of questions you should ask as you become more aware of your learning behaviors and continue to apply skeptical inquiry dur- ing the knowledge acquisition process.

Excerpts from “Social Learning Theory”

By J. Kretchmar

Learning by Observation Social learning theory is often characterized as a stepping stone between two diametrically opposed theories of learning (Ormrod, 1990). By defining human learning as a function of both the environment and mental processes, social learning theory blended behaviorism— the dominant theory of learning in the 1950s and 1960s—and cognitive theories of learning, which gained prominence in the 1970s and have remained popular today. Although many individuals contributed to the development of social learning theory, Albert Bandura—a Stanford professor whose career has spanned more than 60 years—is most often recognized as its creator. The following summary will outline Bandura’s work, showing that what began as a blending of behaviorism and cognition has shifted more heavily toward the latter, follow- ing the lead of larger trends in psychology and education (Ormrod, 1990). [. . .]

Given the limitations of behaviorism, and operant conditioning more specifically, Bandura’s theory of social learning—which he first called a theory of observational learning—began to take shape. Before delving into the specific mechanisms through which people learn by observing others, the key elements of social learning theory—as discussed by Ormrod (1990)—are outlined below.

• People can learn by observing the behavior of others, as well as from the consequences of those behaviors.

• Learning and performance are not neces- sarily the same thing; people can learn behaviors at the time they observe them, but not perform them until a later time, or not at all.

Jon Brenneis/The LIFE Images Collection/ Getty Images

Albert Bandura is recognized as the creator of social learning theory. This theory includes four components: attention, retention, motor reproduc- tion, and motivation/reinforcement.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 146 8/31/17 3:24 PM

147

Section 4.3 Social Learning Theory

• Reinforcement plays a role in learning, although it is not a necessary component of the learning process.

• Cognitive processes play a role in learning. As Crain (2000) elaborates, “When new behavior is acquired through observation alone, the learning appears to be cognitive. Thus, Bandura, unlike Skinner, believes that learning theory must include internal cognitive variables” (p. 194).

Bandura (1977) identifies four components to observational learning:

• Attention: The learner first attends to what he or she is learning. Variables such as lack of interest, emotional arousal, perception, and identified importance can influ- ence attention.

• Retention: The learner must then remember what is being observed, which is affected by his or her ability to develop effective schemata for future retrieval (see Chapter 2).

• Motor reproduction: The learner must then be able to physically perform the learned behavior.

• Motivation/reinforcement: The learner must want to apply the learned material. If there is no motivation to imitate or produce the new behavior, the event will not be practiced and, thus, not reinforced.

Bandura writes, “People cannot learn much by observation unless they attend to, and perceive accurately, the significant features of the modeled behavior” (p. 24). Secondly, the observer must remember what was observed. Thus, the behavior observed must be retained, and this occurs, Bandura argues, by using two different symbolic systems—by representing the behavior in image form, as a visual picture, or by representing it in verbal form, as a series of instructions. If a child is learning how to play tennis, for example, she may retain an image of her instructor demonstrating the proper forehand technique, and she may also retain a series of instructions, such as “I step forward with my left foot, turning my body perpendicular to . . .” Next, as the previous example suggests, one must be able to replicate the behavior. In other words, the individual must have the motor reproduction skills to enact the behavior she observed. If the tennis student doesn’t have the strength to swing a racquet, she might not be able to reproduce the behavior. The final component of observational learning is motivation; people do not imitate all the behavior they learn but rather must be motivated to do so. Two points deserve emphasis; again, the distinction between learning and performance—people don’t perform all behaviors they have learned, only those they are motivated to perform. And secondly, expectation of reward can be as motivating as the reward itself. Bandura (1977) writes, “Reinforcement does play a role in observational learning, but mainly as an anteced- ent rather than a consequent influence. Anticipation of reinforcement is one of several factors that can influence what is observed and what goes unnoticed” (p. 37). It also influences what is performed, and what is not. [. . .]

Reciprocal Determinism Before turning to the many ways in which social learning theory has been applied in the class- room, and toward understanding human development more generally, it is apropos to con- clude with Bandura’s notion of reciprocal determinism. Bandura introduced the notion of

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 147 8/31/17 3:24 PM

148

Section 4.3 Social Learning Theory

reciprocal determinism to represent the interaction of environment, person, and behavior. Importantly, Bandura conceptualized these interactions as two-way interactions. Thus, the environment might influence a person’s behavior, for example, but behavior can also change the environment. Modeling itself—an environmental factor—influences both the person (e.g., her expectations) and her behavior (e.g., what she chooses to perform). In sum, each factor is capable of influencing the other two factors, as well as being influenced by them in return. Through the notion of reciprocal determinism, Bandura was able to meld together both behaviorist and cognitive principles. [. . .]

Bobo Doll Study What became known as the “Bobo doll study” (Bandura, 1965a) is arguably one of the most famous studies conducted under the guise of social learning theory. Through it, Bandura dem- onstrated that aggression could be learned by observing aggressive behavior in others (as cited in Mazur, 1994). This study also underscored the distinction between acquisition and performance of new behaviors. In this experiment, children watched a short film of an adult acting aggressively—punching, kicking, shouting, etc.—toward a large, inflatable rubber doll. The children were then assigned to three groups—the first group saw the model rewarded for his aggressive behavior, the second group saw the model punished, and the third group saw the model receive no consequences. When the children were then given an opportu- nity to play with a similar doll, the children who saw the model rewarded or the model who received no consequences exhibited the most aggressive behavior, while the children who saw the model punished exhibited the least. That the latter group showed the least aggressive behavior demonstrated the principle of vicarious punishment. In a second phase of the study, the same children were told they would be rewarded if they exhibited the behavior of the model; all the children were able to imitate the aggressive behavior, suggesting that all had originally learned the behavior, but not all had demonstrated it (depending on which type of consequence they observed).

As a result of the “Bobo doll study” and other similar studies, educators and parents became concerned about the influence of television and media. If children learned aggression by observing it in others firsthand, could they also learn it by watching TV characters, cartoon or otherwise? Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1963) believed the answer was “yes” (as cited in Orm- rod, 1990, p. 177). They demonstrated that children who observed aggressive behavior by an adult or a cartoon character in a film exhibited just as much aggression as those who had witnessed the live model. As Ormrod (1990) concludes, “Even cartoons that display violent behaviors, including such classics as ‘Tom and Jerry’ and ‘Roadrunner,’ may not be as harm- less as they appear” (p. 177). Others have criticized such conclusions, however, arguing that such studies show correlation between aggression and watching violent TV, but do not prove causation (Mazur, 1994). [. . .]

Evolution of Social Learning Theory to Social Cognitive Theory It is perhaps the evolution in Bandura’s own thinking that has resulted in significant changes to his theories over time. Increasingly cognitive in focus, Bandura’s theories now place less emphasis on the role of modeling and more on what he calls self-efficacy—beliefs and

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 148 8/31/17 3:24 PM

149

Section 4.3 Social Learning Theory

judgments about our abilities (Crain, 2000). (Hence Bandura’s decision to modify the theory title from social learning theory to social cognitive theory.) Self-efficacy, he believes, has a sig- nificant impact on motivation, such that an individual will work hard when she believes she is good at a task—such as math—even in the face of obstacles, but will put forth less effort and be more likely to give up when she doubts her abilities. Studies have demonstrated that stu- dents who believe they are good at a subject will perform better than those who don’t, even when actual ability levels are equal (Collins, 1982, as cited in Crain, 2000, p. 203). Although people might overestimate their abilities, Bandura believes “optimistic self-efficacy is ben- eficial,” especially in life that often presents “disappointments, setbacks, impediments, and inequities” (Crain, 2000, p. 203). [. . .]

Bandura’s social learning theory, as well as his further developed social cognitive theory, embraces the idea that learning is affected by many variables. (See Reinforcing Your Under- standing: The Bobo Doll Study to see footage of Bandura’s original studies.) Sometimes these variables are within a person’s control, and sometimes they are not. However, by being more mindful of what affects learning—such as the four components of observational learning (atten- tion, retention, motor reproduction, and motivation/reinforcement)—we can address more readily why we may have difficulty learning something. Too often, we accept learning situations as they are, when being mindful or making an adjustment would make our learning more effec- tive. However, learning, as was being discovered in the 20th century to the present, is a complex process and requires many considerations to be efficient at it. Often theories such as SLT and SCT offer us opportunities to fine-tune how we approach new learning opportunities.

Kretchmar (2015) noted that self-efficacy became an important variable to the social aspect of learning in Bandura’s SCT. This assertion can be quite confusing at first glance: Many assume that self-efficacy is about the person, not about the social environment. Yet, consider what environ- mental factors may affect your self-efficacy. For example, consider motor reproduction. If some- one shows you how to do a cartwheel and you think it looks too difficult, and thus do not believe you have the capability to succeed, then this theory suggests that you would likely not succeed. However, as we will discuss in the following section, we do not always realize that it is our efficacy affecting the learning. If we believe we are good at something, and then do not do well, we often attribute this outcome to an outside force: poor parenting, a sleepless night, or a previous bad experience. If we believe we are bad at something and do well, perhaps we attribute the outcome to luck. It is this continuum of potential variables that will continue to push researchers in under- standing more identifiable ways to positively affect successful and effective learning.

Reinforcing Your Understanding: The Bobo Doll Study

Albert Bandura researched his initial SLT (later redesigned and renamed as SCT) through the use of aggression modeling experiments. Refer to your e-book for an embedded video to get a better sense of how these experiments were performed and the findings associated with observational learning. After viewing the experiment examples, identify possible reasons why Bandura decided to adjust his initial model to emphasize self-efficacy over modeling.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 149 8/31/17 3:24 PM

150

Section 4.4 Attribution Theory

4.4 Attribution Theory Attribution theory states that individuals tend to make sense of outcomes by attributing, or ascribing, them to specific people, thoughts, feelings, or actions. In the field of learning, this

theory provides an additional point of view to evalu- ate by encouraging learners to consider why they do what they do, why they learn effectively in certain situations but not others. What we attribute our suc- cesses and failures to matters (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Cheng & Novick, 1990; Feather, 1988; Fiedler, Walther, & Nickel, 1999; Försterling, 1989; Hewstone & Jaspars, 1987; Schwarz & Clore, 1983; Weiner, 1995). If individuals believe they are not good at something, they often attribute their unsuccessful outcomes to external factors, or others’ actions and characteristics (e.g., the instructor, high stress, or a significant other). In contrast, if individu- als believe they are good at something, they often attribute their successes to internal factors, or per- sonal actions and characteristics (e.g., study habits, time management, or organizational skills).

The excerpts in this section are from Thompson (2015). Thompson discusses attribution theory, which, like social cognitive theory, considers the role of one’s efficacy. In the context of learning, this can encompass the factors that a learner will attribute positive and negative outcomes to. As you read, think about times when you or someone you know attrib- uted his or her learning outcomes to either internal or external factors. What characteristics could help explain these behaviors and learning outcomes were attributed to external versus internal factors? You should also think about how to self-regulate per- sonal learning opportunities by being more aware of how the attributions you assign can support effec- tive learning. Add this knowledge about attribution to your existing schema about learning, because it will enrich the discussions about awareness, self- regulation, and metacognition in Chapter 8, areas

that research has suggested can affect attribution and self-efficacy (Darling-Hammond, Austin, MCheung, & Martin, 2016; Marzano et al., 1988; Nickerson, Perkins, & Smith, 1985; Zimmer- man, 2002).

Jupiterimages/liquidlibrary/Thinkstock An example of attribution theory could be a runner crossing the finish line and winning his race. The runner could perceive himself as being naturally skilled at running; if so, he may attri- bute a race win to his daily practice and dedication. On the other hand, the runner may believe himself to be a mediocre runner, attributing a race win to the other runners not doing well or even climate conditions.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 150 8/31/17 3:24 PM

151

Section 4.4 Attribution Theory

Excerpts from “Attribution Theory”

By S. Thompson

Self-Perceptions and Learning What makes a winner win? Is it all in one’s attitude? Why do some people with apparent talents never seem to achieve as others predict? How can the interaction between a person’s perceptions and the actual talents a person has be used to help each student reach full poten- tial? These types of questions are often answered through the application of attribution the- ory. Attribution theory originated as a subsection of the theories of personality. Personality psychologists were working to describe what makes individuals unique by identifying the relatively unchanging aspects of people that make them unique individuals. However, there were many different approaches to the questions. Some psychologists focused on identifying and describing personality characteristics that define mental illness and poor social adjust- ment (i.e., abnormal psychology). Others chose to focus on identifying and describing the personality characteristics of people viewed as mentally healthy. They wanted to understand, and eventually be able to predict, why life events affect people in different ways. During this period of time, psychologists divided into two camps that differed on whether they believed one’s inborn traits are integral in determining personality or whether the key factor is the environment in which one is reared (this argument has often been referred to as the continu- ing nature/nurture debate). Almost everyone has come to a realization that there is most likely a mix of the two influences that work together to create uniqueness in individuals, although there is little agreement on how much of each is contributing to that mix (Ridley, 2003). Attribution theory is one of the theories formulated using an assumption that both inborn traits and one’s environment will be reflected in one’s personality. It posits that peo- ple will inherently work to organize their observations as they try to make meaning of their experiences.

This organizing will necessitate the creation of categories into which the observations can be sorted. The categories will be created and labeled by each person and will be influenced by both personal temperament and life experiences (Weiner, Nierenberg, & Goldstein, 1976). For example, two students might attend the same campus party and, on telling their friends about their weekends, one might describe the party as fun and exciting while the other describes it as out of control and dangerous. The two students attended the same event but, based on their temperaments and past experiences, chose different categories in which to store their memories of the party.

As the theory of attribution was further refined and developed, researchers realized its impact on how people are motivated, moving the theory from ideas about what makes personalities unique to a theory of understanding how a student’s self-perceptions intersect with all learn- ing experiences (i.e., social learning theory). More recently, researchers have linked attribu- tion theory to expectancy theory, which has helped them to better explain the role of persis- tence and resiliency in the learning process.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 151 8/31/17 3:24 PM

152

Section 4.4 Attribution Theory

Explaining Behavior Attribution theory says that people will interpret their successes and failures in life in a way that relates to their existing thinking and behavior. It assumes that people try to figure out why they do what they do. The types of explanations people provide to explain their own behaviors can predict how persistent they will be when faced with a difficult task in the future (Weiner, 1985).

Research suggests a student’s self-perceptions will strongly influence performance and expectations for success. Self-perceptions also influence the degree of effort a person will choose to put into a difficult or complex task. In most cases, students will interpret their environment in such a way as to maintain homeostasis (i.e., a stable version of one’s internal- ized self-image) (Festinger, 1957). For instance, if a person’s self-perception is one of being a poor student, any success will be attributed to factors other than personal ability, whereas a person whose self-perception is one of being a good student will tend to attribute successes to ability (Maatt, Nurmi, & Stattin, 2007).

The Three Attributes Most theorists sort out explanations of success or failure using polarities of three attributes that can help define personality:

• Locus of control (Internal/External)—this indicates whether a person attributes successes and failures to personal characteristics and behaviors or external circum- stances (Rotter, 1975);

• Stability (Stable/Changeable)—this indicates whether a person believes the causes of success or failure can be easily changed; and

• Controllability (Controllable/Not Controllable)—this indicates whether a person believes the behavior or circumstance is something he or she has the power to per- sonally alter or whether that person believes it is out of his or her control (Weiner et al., 1976).

Theorists believe future academic success can be predicted by listening to how a person describes her or his current successes and failures—combining the three attributes listed above with what the student expects to gain from the learning situation (Feather, 1988). These three attributes can be used to help define four constructs associated with learning situations:

• Ability • Effort • Task difficulty • Luck

Locus of Control Locus of control is best determined by finding who or what exercises the most control over the factors that lead to a learning outcome. If a student believes personal characteristics or behaviors are primarily affecting the outcome of a situation, the locus of control is internal.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 152 8/31/17 3:24 PM

153

Section 4.4 Attribution Theory

Some examples of internal control characteristics include attitude, intelligence, and ability. Some examples of internal control behaviors include class attendance, time spent studying, and quality of effort put into studying. Hence, internal control factors can be defined as what the student is personally contributing to the learning experience.

If a student believes external factors are primarily affecting the outcome of a learning expe- rience, the locus of control is external. If a student believes luck (good or bad) or classroom politics are primarily affecting the outcome of a learning experience, the locus of control is external. Some examples of statements that attribute the outcome to external control include “good thing I brought my lucky rabbit’s foot,” “the gods are against me,” and “the teacher doesn’t like me.” Additionally, if a student is completely unable to predict the outcome of a situation, it is considered a situation affected by external control (Rotter, 1966).

Locus of control is a very important variable in the attribution equation. Good students who believe luck is guiding their successes do not appear to gain confidence in their own abilities to initiate success. They may not acquire the sense of self-efficacy that is so very important in creating resiliency and persistence in difficult learning situations (Feather, 1988). Poor stu- dents who believe bad luck is guiding them are not motivated to work at getting a better grasp of the materials that need to be learned. On the converse, good students who attribute suc- cess solely to ability and do poorly on a test may have their faith in their abilities challenged, causing them to give up in despair. Research suggests students do better in future learning situations when they attribute poor performance to external controls and credit internal con- trols for their successes (Rotter, 1966).

Stability The idea that ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck are either stable or changeable can be a bit confusing. Task difficulty and ability are identified as stable; however, practice and study can increase skills (thereby decreasing task difficulty) because of an increase in ability. Students who are taught to rely on ability (which is an internal, stable factor)—and are also taught that ability can be changed with effort—will develop a healthy resilience that will help motivate them to learn and persist in the face of failure (Rot- ter, 1975). Luck is identified as changeable because general beliefs indicate luck changes at whim. Yet it is common knowledge that one can change one’s own luck. It is detrimental for students to believe their success or failure lies purely in luck. These students will have low motivation to develop new learning strategies and will not be able to opti- mize the learning that can be gleaned from failures (Weiner et al., 1976).

Stability is best described as whether a student believes the causes of the learning outcome can be easily changed. People generally spend a lot of time thinking about past activities and outcomes. For example, if a student fails a major exam he or she may spend considerable time trying to determine what went wrong (this is sometimes referred to as

Tomwang12/iStock/Thinkstock Often, a student attributes a low score on a test to external factors, such as staying up too late or a stressful situa- tion with a loved one. This is an exam- ple of stability because the student thinks the cause of the test score could be changed.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 153 8/31/17 3:24 PM

154

Section 4.4 Attribution Theory

the causative effect) (Darke & Freedman, 1997; Weiner et al., 1976). The student might decide the failure happened because of staying up all night on the Internet and not bothering to study. Or the student might attribute the poor test score to breaking up with a romantic part- ner just prior to the test. These types of causes are considered changeable because they are circumstances the student would be able to change if that student could convince the teacher to let him or her retest. On the converse, this student might attribute the test failure to an inability to grasp the subject contents despite best efforts at studying because the subject matter was too difficult for the student. Or the student may believe the test was highly sub- jective and the teacher did not like the student. These types of causes would be considered stable because they would be difficult or impossible to change in order to create success if the student could convince the teacher to give a second chance at the test. Regardless of how the student perceives the learning outcome, the student is developing expectations for future learning experiences.

Controllability Controllability indicates whether a person believes the behavior or circumstance can be per- sonally altered should the person choose to alter it. Ability and task difficulty are generally perceived out of the student’s purview of control. Luck is seen as partially in and partially out of the person’s purview of control. Effort is primarily seen as an action controlled by the individual; however, in the face of failure, a teacher has great potential to control a student’s efforts.

Following the notion that good teaching will help children link ability to guided effort in the academic arena, some researchers have refined the word effort by renaming it strategic effort. They say a teacher can teach strategic effort by helping a student understand that failures are actually problem-solving situations for which the student will need to strategize in order to succeed (Clifford, 1984). [. . .]

Attribution theory suggests that persistence and resilience play an important role in effective learning. The ability to persevere through difficulty and recover from failure enables the learner to overcome challenges and attain increased learning success. Persistence and resilience emerge when the learner takes personal responsibility for his or her knowledge acquisition—whether she or he tends to attribute successes and failures to external (environmental and social) ver- sus internal factors. Increased self-awareness of these tendencies can increase the likelihood of effective knowledge acquisition; if necessary, you can adjust your mindset and recognize that you can control and influence your own learning.

Attribution theory might be considered a bridge to the information that will be presented in the next chapters in that the theory considers the potential effects of our ownership in the learning process. The next chapters will explore additional considerations about how we learn and how we learn effectively based on our predispositions, culture, attitudes, preexisting knowledge, and emotions (both internal and socially derived variables). Each of these variables can affect the effectiveness of our cognitive processing, including what we pay attention to and are willing to accommodate during memory development.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 154 8/31/17 3:24 PM

155

Summary & Resources

Chapter Summary The discussions in this chapter continued to develop your understanding of cognition. Each section addressed the role of socially derived variables on cognition that research has sug- gested affect how we learn. By addressing how each area discussed in this chapter may be affected by the other areas, you can continue to reinforce the development of your schema for this material. For example, in the section about Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, we addressed a systematic approach to learning that occurs based on four stages of cogni- tive development. In contrast, schema theory, social cognition, and attribution theory do not clearly address these human development phases, but considering how they intersect could aid in your own schema development process as you continue to develop an understanding about the psychology of learning.

How different might the schemata be for individuals in different stages of cognitive develop- ment? Asking these types of questions supports your ability to successfully connect this new knowledge. The key is to apply what you learn from this text to your past or current learning experiences. Taking time to apply the theories and strategies can help you during the learn- ing process by supporting knowledge development and encouraging you to ask questions, investigate, and seek out additional information within the field of learning psychology.

Key Ideas • Social cognition focuses on how individuals perceive, store, and form memories or

information about other people and social events, and how environmental interac- tions can affect their behaviors, including learning.

• Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development identifies four development stages: sensorimotor (in infancy), preoperational (the preschool child), concrete opera- tional (the school-age child), and formal operational (adolescence and adulthood).

• Schema theory explains how learning occurs when learners create connec- tions between new knowledge and knowledge already stored in their long-term memories.

• Learners must activate schemata and subsequently construct a new schema, provid- ing a coherent explanation of the new ideas to successfully grasp new information.

• Social learning theory (SLT) suggests that individuals can learn by observing the behavior of others, as well as from the consequences of those behaviors. It was origi- nally proposed by Albert Bandura in 1976.

• Social cognitive theory (SCT) emphasizes the importance of reciprocal determinism and self-efficacy in the process of social learning. It was proposed by Albert Bandura in 1986, modifying his earlier social learning theory (SLT).

• Individuals can learn behaviors at the time they observe them but may not perform them until a later time or not at all.

• Attribution theory suggests that a learner’s self-perceptions intersect with all learn- ing experiences.

• Reinforcement plays a role in learning, although it is not a necessary component of the learning process.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 155 8/31/17 3:24 PM

156

Summary & Resources

• Bandura believed that learning theory must include internal cognitive variables. • Observational learning includes four components: attention, retention, motor repro-

duction, and motivation or reinforcement. • A learner’s self-perceptions will strongly influence performance and expectations

for success. • Research suggests that future academic success can be predicted by listening to how

individuals describe their current successes and failures. • Attribution theory suggests three characteristics that affect success: locus of control,

stability, and controllability. • Encouraging a learner to be aware of four areas where attributions of the learning

environment occur (ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck) can potentially affect the learner’s success.

Additional Resources Looking at learning through the lens of social cognition allows you to take into account some of the important social variables that can influence learning. Visit the following websites to further your understanding of the topics and prominent individuals that were introduced in this chapter. Some resources may also be accessible via your university library.

Jean Piaget

• Jean Piaget Society, a biographical sketch: http://www.piaget.org/aboutPiaget.html • Association for Psychological Science, about Piaget’s lasting influence:

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/jean-piaget#.WMmu9m_yu00 • Funderstanding, applying the stages of cognitive development in the classroom:

http://www.funderstanding.com/educators/jean-piaget-cognitive-development -in-the-classroom/

• Biography, a snapshot of Piaget’s contributions: http://www.biography.com/people /jean-piaget-9439915

• Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International University Press.

Schema Theory

• Bem, S. L. (1983). Gender schema theory and its implications for child development: Raising gender-aschematic children in a gender-schematic society. Sign: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 8(4), 598–616.

• McVee, M. B., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J. R. (2016). Schema theory revisited. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 531–566. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub .com/doi/abs/10.3102/00346543075004531

Albert Bandura

• Stanford University, Psychology Department, a biographical sketch: http://stanford .edu/dept/psychology/bandura/bandura-bio-pajares/Albert%20_Bandura%20 _Biographical_Sketch.html

• Association for Psychological Science, Bandura receiving the National Medal of Science: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/albert-bandura-to -receive-national-medal-of-science#.WMmsoG_yu01

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 156 8/31/17 3:24 PM

http://www.piaget.org/aboutPiaget.html

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/jean-piaget#.WMmu9m_yu00

http://www.funderstanding.com/educators/jean-piaget-cognitive-development-in-the-classroom/

http://www.biography.com/people/jean-piaget-9439915

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00346543075004531

http://stanford.edu/dept/psychology/bandura/bandura-bio-pajares/Albert%20_Bandura%20_Biographical_Sketch.html

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/albert-bandura-to-receive-national-medal-of-science#.WMmsoG_yu01

157

Summary & Resources

Key Terms attribution theory Poses that learning success may be contingent upon whether an individual characterizes his or her successes or failures as due to internal or external factors.

Bobo doll study Albert Bandura’s widely controversial study in 1961 that suggested learning could occur by observing others. Children observed adults who were asked to model behaviors using a Bobo doll and then emulated the adults’ behaviors.

categorization The ability to more effec- tively develop schemata.

centration The inclination to focus on only one part of a situation, problem, or object.

concrete operations stage The third stage in Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. It begins around age 7 and ends around age 11 and is characterized by children applying logic about concrete and specific things but struggling with more abstract ideas.

conservation The ability to conceive reversibility (one object whole versus the same object in pieces equates to the same amount).

controllability One’s belief that one has the ability to alter or change a situation or behavior.

formal operations stage The fourth, and final, stage in Jean Piaget’s theory of cogni- tive development. It begins around age 12 and develops throughout adulthood and is characterized by the emergence of increased understanding about abstract and theoreti- cal concepts.

locus of control The attribution of suc- cesses and failures to either personal or external factors.

object permanence An understanding that a missing object is not gone but is simply not visible; associated with Jean Piaget’s senso- rimotor stage of cognitive development.

• Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York, NY:Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Fried- man [Ed.] [1998], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego, CA: Academic Press). Retrieved from https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/BanEncy.html

• Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child develop- ment: Vol. 6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1–60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Retrieved from https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1989ACD.pdf

Attribution Theory

• Bernard Weiner, a professor and researcher who is interested in attribution theory: http://weiner.socialpsychology.org/

• Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.

• Nowicki‚ S.‚ & Strickland‚ B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology‚ 1‚ 148–154.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 157 8/31/17 3:24 PM

https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/BanEncy.html

https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1989ACD.pdf

http://weiner.socialpsychology.org/

158

Summary & Resources

observational learning The process of learning by observing others; includes the processes of attention, retention, motor reproduction, and motivation or reinforcement.

preoperational stage The second stage in Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive devel- opment. It begins around age 2 and ends around age 7 and is characterized by chil- dren carrying out symbolic play and manip- ulating symbols.

reciprocal determinism Suggests that behavior is influenced by and also influences environmental (contextual) and personal factors.

self-efficacy An individual’s beliefs and judgments about his or her personal abilities.

sensorimotor stage The first stage in Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. It begins at birth and ends around age 24 months and is characterized by children utilizing the senses, skills, and abilities they were born with.

seriation The ability to arrange objects by size (small to large).

social cognition Focuses on how individu- als perceive, store, and formulate memories and information about other people and social events, as well as how environmental interactions can affect our behaviors, includ- ing learning.

social cognitive theory (SCT) Identified by Albert Bandura, this theory is a redevelop- ment of social learning theory (SLT), and it emphasizes the importance of self-efficacy in behavior development, more so than modeling.

social learning theory (SLT) Identified by Albert Bandura, this theory suggests that learning can take place through simple observation and that modeling modifies the behavior; renamed social cognitive theory (SCT) in 1986.

stability An individual’s belief that the rea- sons for his or her successes or failures are either fixed or fluid.

standardized test Any form of test that includes the same questions and is scored in a consistent manner for all test takers.

theory of cognitive development Jean Piaget’s theory that describes how the maturing child’s interactions with the envi- ronment result in predictable sequences of changes in certain crucial understandings of the world about him or her.

maj83688_05_c04_129-158.indd 158 8/31/17 3:24 PM