PSY 331 Psychology of Learning Wk3-A

Chapter 4

Cognition, Learning, and the Environment

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.

· My Bookshelf

· TOC/Annotation menu

· Downloads

· Print

· Search

· Profile

· Help

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

MachineHeadz/iStock/Thinkstock

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

In Chapter 3, you learned that cognition includes perception, attention, and memory development. This chapter introduces the complexities associated with social phenomena that affect cognition, often referred to as social cognition. Social cognition was initially introduced as a subset of social psychology that endeavored “to understand and explain how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others” (Allport, 1985, p. 3). Social cognition considers 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 individual’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 that will help you construct a deeper understanding about learning. As you review the different 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.

· Knowledge Check

· Notebook

· My Bookshelf

· TOC/Annotation menu

· Downloads

· Print

· Search

· Profile

· Help

4.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Develop…

Previous section

Next section

4.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development

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.

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 testing, 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 suggest that intelligence was part of a child’s personality (Hussain, Jamil, Saraji, & Maroof, 2012). As cognition became the greater focus of the academic community, however, new ideas about behavior and learning 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 attention 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, experience, culture, and the child’s aptitude (Papalia, Olds, & Freeman, 2005). This dependency on external variables 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 cognitive 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 individual’s ability to form and modify knowledge and to learn new information.

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 comprehensive 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 development. Advances result from the active desire to develop concepts or schemata that are sufficiently 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, including 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 accommodated or altered (“That catlike creature is a skunk”). For children everywhere, neurologically 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.

Table 4.1: Stages of cognitive development

© Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Sensorimotor Stage

M-image/iStock/Thinkstock

In the sensorimotor stage of infant development, the infant relates sounds or movements to a specific object or person.

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 represent “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 continue 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 sensorimotor 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.

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 representations 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 capacity, 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, preoperational 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 comprehension 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 perspective 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 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 sensorimotor 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 considered achieved until the child will search for a familiar missing object even when the child could not have observed its being hidden.

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.

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 elongated, 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 conservation 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 measuring object permanence, egocentricity, and role-taking skills. The Concept Assessment Kit: Conservation, for example, provides six standard conservation tasks for which comparison 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 institutions 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 manipulated. 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 conservation of number may be ready for problems involving the conservation of length, for example. 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 superficial, 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, precedes 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 researchers have found that specific training in simplified and graded conservation and categorization 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 adolescents 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 continuous 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 thermometer 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 underlying 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 quantity, 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 Piaget’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 himself outlined the sequence, the pace, and some of the dynamics of the maturing child’s development 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.

Source: DeWolfe, T. E. (2016). Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. Salem Press Encyclopedia of Health. Copyright © EBSCO.

Piaget was not necessarily interested in how we learn at first, but his stages of cognitive development became an important foundation for research about learning. Before Piaget, it was assumed that children processed information like adults did—just less proficiently. Piaget demonstrated 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 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 important 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.

· Knowledge Check

· Notebook

· My Bookshelf

· TOC/Annotation menu

· Downloads

· Print

· Search

· Profile

· Help

4.2 Schema Theory

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 experiences, 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 understanding of schemata by elaborating 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 construction, and how successful schema development can be supported within learning environments. As you read, consider how your own social experiences may have affected your ability to form accurate and automated schemata, which would allow you to perform familiar tasks accurately with little thought.

Excerpts from “Schema Theory”

By T. Smith

Schema-Theoretic Perspectives

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.

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 knowledge 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 experiences. 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 knowledge. 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 coherent 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 computers. 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.

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 knowledge 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 knowledge, 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 learners know about a topic—their prior knowledge—affects the ease or difficulty in understanding 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 understand. 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 knowledge of the world, provides much of the basis for comprehending, learning, and remembering 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 . . . schematic knowledge” (p. 1056).

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 knowledge 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 inferences about content. Learners can understand a text, based on past schematic understandings 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 stimulated 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

© Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Promoting Effective Schema Development

There are many ways in which teachers can enhance building of schemata, such as providing discussion; developing dramas and storytelling; oral reading; viewing television shows, videos, and websites; examining models; and using computers. Teachers can maximize schemata 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.

Wavebreakmedia/iStock/Thinkstock

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

Typical ways to activate knowledge include determining the background or prior knowledge that learners already possess. Teachers then implement preliminary activities such as small group discussions 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’ schemata 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, culturally 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 interfere with learning. Even though misconceptions are hard to change, teachers have an opportunity 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 interprets 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. [. . .]

Source: Smith, T. (2015). Schema theory. Research starters: Education. Copyright © EBSCO.

Schema development is essential to our learning and is affected

· My Bookshelf

· TOC/Annotation menu

· Downloads

· Print

· Search

· Profile

· Help

4.3 Social Learning Theory

Previous section

Next section

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) . Originally 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.

· Knowledge Check

· Notebook

· My Bookshelf

· TOC/Annotation menu

· Downloads

· Print

· Search

· Profile

· Help

4.4 Attribution Theory

Previous section

Next section

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 evaluate 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 successes 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 individuals believe they are good at something, they often attribute their successes to internal factors, or personal 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 attributed 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 personal learning opportunities by being more aware of how the attributions you assign can support effective 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; Zimmerman, 2002).

Excerpts from “Attribution Theory”

By S. Thompson

Self-Perceptions and Learning

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 attribute 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.

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 potential? These types of questions are often answered through the application of attribution theory. 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 adjustment (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 continuing 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 people 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 learning experiences (i.e., social learning theory). More recently, researchers have linked attribution theory to expectancy theory, which has helped them to better explain the role of persistence and resiliency in the learning process.

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 internalized 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 circumstances (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 personally 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. 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 experience, 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 students 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 success 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 controls 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 (Rotter, 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 optimize the learning that can be gleaned from failures (Weiner et al., 1976).

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 situation with a loved one. This is an example of stability because the student thinks the cause of the test score could be changed.

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 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 partner 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 subjective 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 personally 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). [. . .]

Source: Thompson, S. (2015). Attribution theory. Research starters: Education. Copyright © EBSCO.

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) versus 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.

<span id="w65204" class="werd"> </span>

· Knowledge Check

· Notebook

· My Bookshelf

· TOC/Annotation menu

· Downloads

· Print

· Search

· Profile

· Help

Summary & Resources

Previous section

Next section

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 suggested 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 cognitive 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 development? 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 learning 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 interactions 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 operational (the school-age child), and formal operational (adolescence and adulthood).

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

· Learners must activate schemata and subsequently construct a new schema, providing 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 originally 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 learning experiences.

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

· Bandura believed that learning theory must include internal cognitive variables.

· Observational learning includes four components: attention, retention, motor reproduction, 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

· 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. Friedman [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 development: 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.

Key Terms

attribution theory

Bobo doll study

categorization

centration

concrete operations stage

conservation

controllability

formal operations stage

locus of control

object permanence

observational learning

preoperational stage

reciprocal determinism

self-efficacy

sensorimotor stage

seriation

social cognition

social cognitive theory (SCT)

social learning theory (SLT)

stability

standardized test

theory of cognitive development

· Knowledge Check

· Notebook