Bandura's Social Learning Theory in Adult Education

Introduction

As an educational theory that seeks to explain learning as a concept, the social learning theory is predicated on the notion that human beings learn by observing and imitating others — whether peers, relatives, or simply anyone within their vicinity. According to this theory, by observing the behaviors or actions taken by other people, a person can be induced to modify their own behavior with the aim of achieving, or in some cases avoiding, the experiences and consequences faced by the model (Newmann & Newmann, 2007; Bandura, 1997; Bandura & Walters, 1963; Miller & Dollard, 1941; Lien, 1999). This behavioral orientation is perceived by theorists such as Bandura (1977) to serve as a connecting bridge between cognitive and behaviorist orientations, given that it often involves using the mind to understand and alter mental constructions in ways that reflect the actions of others. Another reason why theorists in Bandura's school of thought view social learning as such a bridge is that observing the consequences of others' actions may or may not produce a significant behavioral change in the observer.

This paper succinctly explores specific applications of Bandura's social learning theory in the pedagogy, practice, and praxis of contemporary adult education. A fundamental starting point is an elaborated examination of the key tenets of Bandura's social learning theory.

Overview of Bandura's Social Learning Theory

Bandura's social learning theory elaborately emphasizes the importance and relevance of interactions among people as the primary mechanism that enhances learning, especially when such learning is based on the subject's capability or subconscious willingness to observe others in different or similar social settings (Newmann & Newmann, 2007; Bandura, 1997; Bandura & Walters, 1963; Miller & Dollard, 1941; Lien, 1999). The observational component of learning, according to Bandura's theory, may encompass any scenario — from a student who watches mischievous friends violate school rules, to a fan observing a favorite celebrity drink a sports beverage with enthusiasm. If the student's rule-breaking friends are punished, the student will naturally and subconsciously avoid similar behavior to protect himself or herself from comparable punishment. Likewise, if the celebrity wins a competition shortly after consuming sports drinks, the fan may subconsciously incorporate this into their mindset, believing that consuming similar drinks will be beneficial and thus emulating the celebrity's behavior.

Bandura identified three models that explain observational learning, believing each to be relevant to learning through observation. The first — which he considered most significant — involves demonstration, or mimicking behavior exhibited by a role model. This entails a person's willingness to perform and incorporate a recognizable act into their mindset or schema. The second model involves verbal instruction: explanations and descriptions conveyed through auditory communication or interaction. The third model involves the subject's interpretation of behaviors observed in media, including books, films, and other materials depicting the behavioral patterns of characters who may be real or fictional. It is important to note that even when people recognize that media characters are not real, the actions of such fictional characters can still have lasting effects on the individual.

According to Bandura's social learning theory, social learning results from observation and instruction, making it fundamentally different from learning through trial and error. It may sometimes appear that a child's behavior changes after observing an event. However, the core concept is that the child is not receiving any punishment or reward from the observation itself; rather, the child is invoking their own rationality by first considering the consequences of behaving in a certain way and then acting accordingly. Bandura's theory also posits that the behavior being modeled may or may not be adopted by the observer. This is where the influence of the cognitive layer begins to manifest. People tend to add what they learn from observing others' consequences to their preexisting schema, and in doing so, they construct a new model of reality — one that may induce the observer to repeat the same actions repeatedly.

A key distinction in this discussion is the difference between Bandura's social learning theory and behaviorism. Behaviorism holds that the environment is the main determinant of an individual's behavior. For instance, if a child is caught painting on the wall and is punished by a parent, that child will typically change their behavior. In contrast, Bandura's social learning theory posits that rather than treating the environment as the sole determinant of behavior, it is more logical to infer that an individual's behavior is largely determined by the forces resulting from the interaction between the individual and their environment. For example, the child may have previously witnessed a sibling being punished for the same act and is therefore aware of the potential consequences. It is then up to the child to weigh the pain of punishment against the pleasure of drawing on the wall, and to use this knowledge as a guide. The key insight is that while people can be the "consequences" of an environment, they can equally be "consequential" to their environment through the outcomes of their own actions and experiences.

Bandura's social learning theory is built on three main concepts:

1. People's learning capability is enhanced through observation. People learn when they interact with or observe the actions of friends, relatives, neighbors, and others. This learning process may be conscious or unconscious depending on the circumstances. When people observe and interact with others, they learn from them, which in turn induces them to make behavioral changes that reflect their new mental constructs of reality. These new constructs then become the basis for future decision-making.

2. Mental state is a key component of the learning process. Even though people generally learn from the actions and consequences experienced by others, that learning is often influenced by their preexisting constructs regarding reality. For example, one person on a camping trip may conclude that jumping into cold water risks near-hypothermia; another person in the same setting may be convinced that doing so will increase their popularity within the group. People interpret reality in different ways. In Bandura's view, internal reinforcement — such as feelings of pride, satisfaction, and accomplishment — is a potent force for bolstering the mental states of individuals and enhancing the learning process.

3. Learning does not always precipitate a change in behavior. People do not always respond predictably to environmental stimuli. This explains why some individuals behave irrationally regardless of whether that behavior carries punishable or unpleasant consequences. Human beings are not always rational actors; sometimes they are influenced to make decisions that go beyond the simple calculus of reward and punishment.

Bandura also described a four-step modeling process central to his social learning theory: attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation (Bandura, 1977). Attention means that learners notice things that occur in their environment and must pay attention to a source of information in order to learn from it. Retention means that learners remember what they have noticed; individuals with an enhanced capacity to store information will learn more from their environment. Reproduction means that people sometimes attempt to replicate scenarios or behaviors they have observed. Finally, motivation refers to the fact that learners are more likely to reproduce observed behaviors when they view the consequences of those behaviors favorably (Newmann & Newmann, 2007; Bandura, 1977).

Humanistic and Radical Theories

An integral part of the humanistic theory is the belief that the ultimate goal of a typical human being is to achieve personal growth and understanding. Humanist psychology embodies the view that an individual can attain happiness by engaging in activities that ensure consistent improvement, both personally and professionally (Elias & Merriman, 1995). The postulates of the humanist school clearly reflect the position that if a human being wishes to be mentally healthy, he or she must be willing and prepared to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions, regardless of whether those outcomes are positive or negative. Additionally, humanists hold that the "present" should be considered the most important dimension of human experience — attaining goals "here and now" is viewed as more practical and realistic than dwelling on the past or speculating about the future. It can thus be inferred that the humanist view of education centers on ensuring that educators do everything possible to help students realize their full potential (Elias & Merriman, 1995).

Abraham Maslow, a leading proponent of humanistic theory, conducted extensive research in this area and produced what is considered both the best-known and most widely discussed contribution to humanistic psychology: his hierarchy of needs. In explaining this hierarchy, Maslow noted that every human being has specific needs and that a human being can thrive only by satisfying those needs (Maslow, 1971; Maslow, 1968).

The radical theories, on the other hand, are built on the foundation that education should be used as a means of motivating students to participate in activities that bring about significant social change. Proponents of this school of thought believe that the purpose of education can only be achieved when it is used to raise awareness of social justice. To radical theorists, empowering people to work for change should be the central thrust of modern education. In this view, educators are coordinators whose primary role is to encourage positive action among students and to challenge the prevailing status quo (Maslow, 1971; Maslow, 1968).

Conclusion

Elias, J., & Merriman, S. (1995). Philosophical foundations of adult education. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co.

Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. New Jersey: Cambridge/Prentice Hall Regents.

Lieb, S. (1991). Principles of adult learning. Retrieved April 9, 2011, from

Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Esalen Books / Viking Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company.

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

Newmann, B. M., & Newmann, P. R. (2007). Theories of human development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publisher.