Unlike the theorists responsible for many of the popular learning theories, the only true laboratory I have available is my life experiences. Thus, trying to develop my personal learning is a challenging task. However, after careful consideration of the major learning theories, I have been able to “extract” concepts which I feel have accurately reflected my experience both as a developing child, a student, and an educator. Since my personal learning theory is a combination of ideas from other learning theories, it is helpful to first have an overview of the major learning theories: behaviorism, social cognitive theory, and cognitive psychology.

Behaviorists see learning as a continuous process which is based on a series of stimulus-response behaviors. The development of different responses to different stimuli is generally referred to as either classical conditioning or operant conditioning. The classic example of classical conditioning was the experimentation and research done by Ivan Pavlov in his study of the reactions of dogs to different stimuli such as scents or sounds. What Pavlov found was that some responses could be taught and some were unconditioned inborn reactions. Another follower of classical conditioning was John Watson who continued experiments of conditioning on humans and came to the conclusion that all behavior was a result of conditioning by what we have learned from our experiences and the environment. B. F. Skinner was a behaviorist who proposed a theory of operant conditioning. Skinner believed that the likelihood that something would occur was based in the nature of the consequences. Put simply, if behavior resulted in something positive, the behavior would be “reinforced” and was likely to occur again. Similarly, if behavior resulted in something negative, the likelihood that it would occur again decreases (Ormrod & Rice, 2003).

Social cognitive theorists accept some of the concepts of behaviorism. In particular, they accept that behavior is essentially learned and that the environment does influence our learning and development. They do not, however, accept that all behavior is simply mechanically organized as a series of stimulus-response actions. Social cognitive theorists believe that the mind is powerful and that we use our cognitive abilities combined with our environmental inputs and experiences to alter our responses to new situations. These theorists also believe that a lot of what we learn is based on what has been modeled to us, including observations of rewards or punishments for various behaviors. Social cognitive theorists also note that we do not always adjust our behavior based on our observations or that there may be a time lag between learning a behavior and imitating it. Contemporary social cognitive theorists believe that the relationship between our cognitive abilities, our environmental inputs, and our behavior is an interdependent one. From this view of interdependence, one can recognize that just as the environment influences our behavior, so too can our behavior change the environment (Ormrod & Rice, 2003).

Cognitive psychology is a more recently developed learning theory and is different from the above mentioned theories in the lack of significance it places on the role of the environment in learning and the emphasis it places on mental processes themselves. This is in stark contrast to behaviorists who specifically avoid considering mental processes with the justification that mental processes are not measurable. Cognitive psychologists are concerned with how the brain works. Their interests include looking at the process of remembering and retrieval of information and the development of problem solving skills. Many cognitive psychologists such as Jean Piaget also identify specific stages of development that each individual sequentially goes through. Cognitive psychology is very good at explaining how individuals at different stages of development will have different perceptions of or different reactions to the same reality (Ormrod & Rice, 2003).

Of these three broad groupings of theories, the one I have the most criticisms of is behaviorism; ultimately, behaviorism reduces us to beings with no free will. I believe, on the other hand, that we make decisions based on things that we value and values are different for each individual. If strict behaviorism were true, why can’t we simply exert stronger control on individuals we would like to see changed? Is our ability to engage in strong conditioning limited by our moral or ethical ideas about human treatment? If this were true, couldn’t we theoretically be conditioned to not care about ethics or justify our actions by saying that conditioning and uniformity is in their best interest? Additionally, when looking at human behavior, we see that people act irrationally very often, as illustrated in the following few examples. Some people gamble and keep thinking that they are going to “beat the system” despite the negative consequences of losing their hard-earned money. Many people smoke cigarettes or eat fattening foods despite the negative long-term health effects of such consumption. People may drive above the speed-limit despite the threat to their safety and the safety of others, and despite the possibility of a hefty ticket and increased insurance costs. Are these actions all simply products of conditioning, or is there an element of free will which should be factored in?

As mentioned before, social cognitive theories also consider the environment to be important to our learning, but in contrast to behaviorism, social cognitive theories also include observations of how our interpretation or analysis of the environment factors into the decisions we make on how we behave. Cognitive psychology will, similarly, introduce our thought process in illustrating what we have learned. In the three examples above, there may be explanations about why people behave irrationally which may, ultimately, help to explain the behavior as rationally chosen behavior. We may be missing the point of gambling if the act of gambling brings the individual a greater sense of value than the monetary value being lost. The person living the decadent life with smoking and consumption of unhealthy foods may also engage in healthy activities like regular exercise that makes it easier for him to justify his actions. Furthermore, his health check-ups may show no significant reason for him to modify his behavior. Finally, the person driving quickly may have observed that traffic is not heavily regulated in a particular area and believes the risks of getting caught breaking the law are negligible compared to the thrill of the ride or the value of getting to her destination earlier. All of these explanations factor in cognitive processes as the basis of our decisions and illustrate that we may not simply be puppets of determinism.

Social cognitive theories and behaviorist theories do share some similar ideas. One similar idea is the impact of punishments or rewards on an individual’s decision-making process. Behaviorists believe that reinforcers or rewards which follow a behavior will increase the likelihood of the behavior repeated, and the opposite is true of punishing a behavior. This is based on personal experience the reward or punishment, thus reducing the behavior to something that is essentially based on a stimulus-response model; the individual strives to engage in behaviors that bring them some form of satisfaction. According to social cognitive theorists, simply observing the punishment or reward of certain behaviors can influence an individual to act a certain way. However, learning does not always lead to a change in behavior, and this is where the individual’s cognitive abilities based on values, past experiences, and vision of future expectations come into play (Ormrod & Rice, 2003).

Although I mentioned earlier that I have the most criticisms of behaviorism, there are elements of conditioning that I feel are valuable. Repetition can lead to improved learning, especially in things like memorizing the alphabet or learning the multiplication tables. Additionally, as difficult as it can sometimes be, habits can be broken. In the same way that conditioning can lead to the development of habits, so too can conditioning be used to break bad habits. Finally, and most significantly, behaviorism is ultimately looking at behavior, and behavior means some sort of action has taken place (Ormrod & Rice, 2003). I do believe that taking an active role in learning does lead to an improved learning experience providing that the action can be channeled in a positive manner.

Theories aside, there have been many personal experiences that have contributed to my beliefs about learning. As you will see below, much of the behavior illustrated here can be grounded in the modeling of desired behavior by people who are strong role-models for me. Additionally, you will see how my family experience and my education in the United States helped build my self-efficacy. Self-efficacy can briefly be summarized as being the idea that people behave more based on their perceived belief in their own ability rather than their knowledge or skill (Ormrod & Rice, 2003).

In my personal home experience, I was given a lot of flexibility in my education. My parents provided me with the necessary structure and modeled behaviors that they hoped to see me engage in. From my earliest memories, I remember both my parents reading bedtime stories to my brothers and me. Both my parents also read the newspaper each morning. My brothers and I each had a dedicated space for us to do our own work as well as (somewhat financially limited) supplies-pencils, paper, and so on-to do our work with. We could mimic our parents’ behavior by sitting at our own desks while they worked at theirs in the next room. My whole immediate family sat down together for dinner every night and we also spent a considerable amount of time together with our uncles, cousins, and other relatives. My paternal grandmother lived next-door to us while I was growing up and I observed firsthand the level of care shown to her by my gather and her other children.

Growing up, my family encouraged my interests to the best of its abilities. I learned how to cook from observing my father cooking, and I learned how to draw and engage in other artistic activities from observing my mother doing embroidery and quilting. When I moved to the United States towards the end of my elementary school years, my mother and my maternal grandfather encouraged me to develop my musical abilities by buying me a cassette recorder and a microphone. One of my uncles gave me one of his acoustic guitars from when he was a teenager, and another uncle introduced me to some graphic design software to help me extend my artistic abilities to my growing interest in computers.

My family also tried to stress the importance of self-ownership of physical items. While they were willing to support me when they could, many of my material possessions-for example my first car, the majority of my musical instruments, and all of my computer hardware-were bought with my own money saved either from allowances when younger, or from my work earnings past the age of 15. This led me to appreciate things better because I knew how much time and work had gone into each item. Because I was responsible for these things, I also learned how to best “research” the items before I purchased them. This in itself is a very valuable skill to me.

Things were not always so easy. In my elementary school experience, I had considerably less flexibility. The learning environment was highly structured, very competitive, and very clearly designed in terms of grade specific requirements. There was little deviation or individual choice in many school matters. For example, all students wore a uniform and teachers assigned permanent seats which were organized in straight rows facing the front of the class. Corporeal punishment was commonly used and in many cases was an effective source of diminishing negative student behavior. This could be seen both as an example of behaviorism and of social cognitivism. From the behaviorist perspective, the individual student misbehavior is decreased because the experience is unpleasant and non-reinforcing. However, from the social cognitive theorist’s perspective, group misbehavior also decreased because the class was able to observe the punishment that went along with certain behavior patterns. Students were able to decide how to act based on what they saw as punishment. For some students this was a big deterrent-they would not only be punished in school, but some would also get in trouble at home because of their actions at school.

My education in the United States was more varied. I had good access to high-quality public-school education. I had a good network of friends who were considerate, smart, conscientious, and responsible, and they served as great peer-aged role models. I also attended summer programs at the local university to explore the options of at least getting a bachelor’s degree. The program was designed for students whose parents had not completed a college degree, and since both my parents had attended a nursing school and then went straight into the workforce, I qualified. Although my school educators did impart a great deal of knowledge to me, in retrospect, I would have to say that my positive peer interactions and the alternative perspective I gained from the summer programs I attended have played a stronger role in influencing who I am today. The summer programs exposed me to a wider range of opportunities than were ever mentioned in school. My peers were quite non-judgmental and accepted the range of interests that we each held as individuals. One could say that our common-ground was that there was little common ground, and it would explain why we are all scattered around the world now engaged in a great variety of work ranging from poverty research to software development to custom-designed furniture to law-enforcement. As was the case while we were classmates, there is still a lot of support and interest in what we are each doing.

A lot of what I have read about the different learning theories combined with my personal experience leads me to believe more strongly in the social cognitive theories. I have learned a lot from my observations, and as a result, have made strong conscious decisions about my behavior. For example, as a child, I observed the behavior of drunken adults since we lived next door to a bar. As a large portion of the men in my family also drink quite heavily and I decided early on that drunken behavior is undesirable to me, I have still never had a drink nor felt the pressure to do so. This is not something that I had to be conditioned to do, and as is acknowledged by social cognitivism, learning a behavior does not necessarily mean that one will exhibit that behavior.

For me as an educator, social cognitivism also matches well with many of the goals I have for my students. I want my students to be self-motivated, socially conscious, resourceful, and resilient to setbacks. To teach my students these skills, I need to be able to model them well and to be able to point to others in the community who may do the same. As such, I do not fully support the use of punishments or rewards in the classroom, but rather, I try to create an environment in which the students are engaged and have some ownership of their education. Much like the added value I felt with the material items I purchased with my early paychecks, I believe that students get added value from an education they are truly allowed to partake in. Additionally, as an educator, I have little control over the environment my students go to once they leave my classroom. As such, it is even more important for me to make my classroom one where they feel comfortable and safe. Giving students the opportunity to develop in a safe, flexible-yet structured for learning-environment will help give them the confidence or self-efficacy they need to succeed outside of the classroom too.

As can be inferred from the brief description of cognitive psychology, the stages of development are also important in education. I find this to be true in my classrooms as well. One cannot expect to teach children at a level far beyond their abilities to comprehend the material being presented. From the perspective of a cognitive psychologist and from the perspective of social cognitive theory, it is important to ensure that lessons are teaching age-appropriate skills and concepts. It is equally important that lessons are not under-stimulating since that ultimately reduces a child’s motivation to learn. Giving children a voice in the classroom as mentioned earlier can help reduce the likelihood of this happening. If students recognize your sincere concern about the lessons you are presenting them, they are more likely to respond favorably.

Finally, while I do not believe that we are simply mechanical beings, I do believe that there are times where theories of behaviorism are quite applicable to my classroom. This generally holds true in cases of classroom management goals, but is equally true in cases where rote memorization may be helpful. Multiplication facts, for example, can be learned by rote memorization first, following which the teacher can focus on the actual mathematical principles behind the work without the distraction of having students doing multiplication via addition or using some similar method. Additionally, this becomes a skill that stays with you for a long time. In my personal experience, while we were allowed to use calculators in high school, I had only one college mathematics class and no university mathematics classes where I was allowed to use a calculator. I know this is not the case for every university, but I was thankful that my basic math skills had become somewhat second-nature through-admittedly tedious-repetitious work.

As you can see, my personal learning theory is not exactly a theory, but rather a fusion of selected ideas from several theories. As my life as an educator progresses, I am likely to modify that theory. The same can be said if I am put in a position where I can conduct more comprehensive quality research; as I mentioned earlier, the only laboratory I have had available has been my life. As much as I can empathize with the different backgrounds of different individuals, I have not lived their lives, so flexibility in my teaching methods is also quite important. I have also recognized that my students will not all come to me with the same level of self-efficacy, and for those with lower self-efficacy it is important to find ways to help them develop this. As such, I cannot expect to simply teach to the class, but rather, I need to find more efficient ways to teach to the individuals.

References

• Ormrod, J. E. & Rice, F. P. (2003). Lifespan development and learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.

There are three main categories of thought distinguishing these educational theories: developmental, environmental, and crossover. While there is variation in the ideas of theorists within each group, there are a few generalizations that can be made about each. The following paragraphs will give some very basic background into each theory to help illustrate the differences between them.

Development theories include Jean Piaget’s stages of cognitive development, Lawrence Kholberg’s stages of moral development, and Eric Erikson’s stages of psychological development. These theories are primarily based on cognitive processes and rarely, if ever, include introspective processes. The individual’s perception of the world changes during each sequential development stage and individuals cannot skip development stages.

B. F. Skinner’s operant conditioning, Edward Thorndike’s law of effect, and Ivan Pavlov’s classical conditioning are all examples of environmental theories. For many environmental theorists, the idea of free will is an illusion. Behavior is fully conditioned and determined by outside forces including genetic factors or environmental inputs.

Some examples of crossover theories include William Glasser’s choice theory, Lev Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, and Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory. Crossover theorists may ask questions like “What is the role of consciousness in behavior and development?” or “How does one’s self-identity affect their decision making process?” In addition to acknowledging the impact of external forces, crossover theorists also often include cognitive processes when analyzing behavioral choices.

Unlike other species, humans are not born with instinctive survival skills, yet we are the most developed species on Earth, having constantly adapted the environment to suit our needs. As humans, we are constantly learning from each other and always building on what we know. For example, parents raising children today have much more information about how to prepare for the moments before childbirth. Doctors are better prepared to conduct the delivery of a child and ensure that both the mother and child survive the process. With such a view, can we really say that all of our learning is structured, intentional and pre-determined as would be the perspective of environmentalism? Similarly, can we fully remove the effect of the environment-imagine someone unable to afford a decent hospital in a developing country-on our development and focus on cognitive processes?

Albert Bandura felt that neither approach was entirely satisfactory. From the point of view of behaviorism, all that we know is a series of conditioned responses. This view, while it did help explain some behaviors, was very narrow and mechanical and would not explain why we have such advanced cognitive abilities and how we have progressed so far. To deal with these shortcomings, Bandura expanded the work of development theories to include ideas from cognitive theories. He promoted the concept of what he ultimately termed “social cognitive theoryAlthough Bandura’s work is often referred to as social learning, he chose to change his theory’s label from learning to cognitive because he wanted to place an emphasis on the role of cognition on things like our perception of reality and out ability to self-regulate (Pajares, 2002).,” a key component of which is an individual’s perception of their self-efficacy. He also wrote of how we learn to make the best of chance encounters-an subject in psychology he felt was particularly lacking. This paper will look at Bandura’s social cognitive theory in more detail and explain what he means by self-efficacy.

Before jumping into Bandura’s theories of human development, here is a brief biographical sketch. Bandura was the youngest of six children and grew up in a small town in Canada. His elementary school and high school years were spent at the only school in this small town where, because of scarce resources, students often worked based on their own initiative. He happened onto psychology by chance when he was attending the University of British Columbia and needed an early class to complete his schedule. He continued his study of psychology at the University of Iowa where he went on to receive his master’s degree and his PhD (Pjares, 2004).

Bandura’s earlier work focused on aggressive behavior developed through social learning. His initial theories were based on his observations of adolescents coming from families where the parents also displayed aggressive behavior. However, his most significant work in this area involved his study of preschool children (Ormrod & Rice, 2003). His experiment involved the placement of a blow-up doll in a room of toys and exposing three separate groups of preschool children to different behaviors in the playroom. One group saw an adult being aggressive towards the doll, hitting it with wooden mallets and other objects and using aggressive language towards it. A second group saw an adult come in and play constructively with other toys in the room and display no violent behavior. A third group had no adult modeled behavior in the playroom. Later placed in the room with the blow-up doll, the children who saw the aggressive behavior were the most aggressive of the three groups and the children who saw the adult engaged in constructive, non-aggressive behavior were the least aggressive of the groups.

What this illustrated for Bandura was the importance of modeling in social cognitive theory. In one of his earlier articles, Bandura (1963) acknowledges that some behaviors are indeed the result of direct training or conditioning of some form. He feels that certain things, personality patterns for example, come from modeled behavior, usually the behavior of the parents. He gives the example of a parent hitting a child as punishment for things like bullying or fighting with peers. The purpose of the punishment is to decrease the aggressive behavior, but in fact, the act is teaching the child other forms of aggression to imitate.

This form of modeling is not restricted to parents, however. Bandura repeated the blow-up doll experiment (1963) to have children watching videos, some with human models and some with cartoon characters, with videos portraying similar behavior to the earlier mentioned example. Bandura had other groups this time; some videos were extended to let children see the aggressor being punished as a consequence of bad behavior. Bandura observed the same pattern of behavior was displayed by viewers who did not see the extended videos, but observed a decrease in the undesirable behavior by children who saw the consequences of the action. This reinforced the idea that we can learn how to act based on our observations alone and that the subjects we observe do not have to be live models but can be abstractions of reality. In fact, in a more recent study, Bandura (2001) wrote:

Televised representations of social realities reflect ideological bents in their portrayal of human nature, social relations, and the norms and structure of society (Adoni & Mane, 1984; Gerbner, 1972). Heavy exposure to this symbolic world may eventually make the televised images appear to be the authentic state of human affairs. (p. 12)

Modeling is also present in how we develop language abilities (Bandura, 1989). While we may use abstract terms when talking with adults, we do not model that action with children. Parents who use language that matches the cognitive abilities of their children at different stages will help children develop language skills more quickly. Parents can also actively promote language development by modeling more progressive linguistic concepts as their children’s language skills develop. In addition to introducing new elements of language into children’s experience, parents can also promote language development by restating their children’s comments using a different syntax than the syntax used by their children. This models different ways of expressing the same things and helps children develop linguistic and cognitive skills more quickly.

There is good reason that Bandura puts a lot of weight on the social cognitive theory that he proposes. Using the principles of the theory shows us that not only can modeling teach us behaviors, it can also teach us judgment, morality, and help develop cognitive abilities (Bandura, 1989). The development of cognitive abilities is of particular interest because it shows us that modeling can be seen in two fundamentally different-yet both relevant and applicable-ways. From one perspective, responses to modeling are somewhat concrete; individuals mimic the modeled behavior very closely as in the case of aggressive behavior. From an alternate perspective, responses to modeling are quite abstract; individuals can transpose information they have gained from one modeled scenario and apply it in different areas. These ideas are important because they mean that we do not necessarily have to experience something to know how to behave or respond. An example, again using linguistics, would be our ability to construct similar sentences about entirely different things based on an abstract idea of appropriate syntax. This also means that we are able to develop a sense of empathy in our emotions.

Notice from the above explanations that there is still a considerable amount of determinism that factors into social cognitive theory. For example, not everyone will have parents who can appropriately model sequentially advanced linguistic structures, so the development opportunities for those children may be more limited. Because social cognitive theory accepts a certain element of determinism in development, it is helpful to consider the position of the individual amongst other deterministic inputs (Pjares, 2002). Bandura proposes a form of what he terms reciprocal determinism which is a tri-modal interplay between the individual, behavior, and the environment. Essentially, what Bandura is trying to illustrate with this model is that we are not simply reactive organisms but that we have the ability to actively alter our environment and our behavior (1998). Consider the following interdependencies and their modes of reciprocity. In considering the dynamics between the individual and behavior, behavior depends on elements such as the individual’s expectations or goals. Similarly, behavior can be conditioned, thus controlling the individual. Individual achievement can be hindered by environmental inputs such as socioeconomic factors; these effectively limit the individual’s access to certain developmental opportunities. However, just as the environment affects individuals, so too can individuals affect their environment; a strict boss, for example can alter the environment of a room with their only action being their entry into the room. Our behavior also determines our environment. In our daily lives, our environment may be quite limited, consisting only of our work or home settings. Similarly, since our environment is not a static one, it can have an effect on our behavior.

Basically, all of these interrelations and the inclusion of the individual in the process of their own development help lay the groundwork for one of the main recurring theories underlying Bandura’s work. In his paper Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation, Bandura (1991) writes:

People possess self-reflective and self-reactive capabilities that enable them exercise some control over their thoughts, feelings, motivations and actions. In the exercise of self-directedness, people adopt certain standards of behavior that serve as guides and motivators and regulate their actions anticipatorily through self-reactive influence. Human functioning is, therefore, regulated by an interplay of self-generated and external sources of influence. (p. 249)

As we can see, in comparison to many other theories of human development, this places a lot of responsibility on the individual in terms of how much they are affected by determinism.

Central to social cognitive theory and critical for the ability for individuals to engage in the sort of self-regulation that Bandura refers to above is the concept of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the idea that people decide how to behave based more on their belief in their own capabilities of accomplishment rather than in their knowledge or skills (Pajares, 2002). Self-efficacy is not a simple “believe in yourself and you will succeed” concept because certain knowledge, skills, and experiences are also prerequisites to success. Still, self-efficacy is important for several reasons. It helps determine our life choices, it motivates us, and it helps us deal with failures and setbacks in life (Bandura, 1994). That said, people’s self-efficacy and their actual skills or abilities do not always match or combine in productive ways. Sometimes, someone who is extremely skillful or knowledgeable may actually have low self-efficacy, thus hindering their abilities to accomplish grander things. Having varied levels of self-efficacy among individuals can help explain why two individuals with very similar skills and knowledge can end up exhibiting extremely different behaviors.

The good thing about self-efficacy is that it can be developed over time. Bandura (1994) identifies four main sources of self-efficacy. First, experiences in which the individual can experience success helps build self-efficacy. However, success should not come too easily, since if success always comes easily, it is likely that when the individual encounters failure, they will have a harder time recovering from it. Second, self-efficacy can be built by the observation of models similar to the individual who are achieving success. The strength of the self-efficacy is more strongly influenced if the individual associates very closely with the model. Third, encouragement or persuasion by others is another source of self-efficacy. While not usually totally effective on its own, persuasion accompanied by the identification of elements which may enhance the likelihood of success are more likely to improve self-efficacy. Finally, self-efficacy is also built based on an individual’s judgment of the state of their bodies-for example personal strength or tiredness-and their emotional state.

For educators, Bandura’s theories hold several implications. Ideas of conditioning can still be used in the classroom to help classroom management; however, since teachers cannot control the environment the students encounter outside school, teachers should also look into ways in which they can help students build self-efficacy. This requires a setting in which individuals can succeed, but also an environment in which individuals are adequately challenged. Teachers should use a multi-dimensional approach to disseminating knowledge to their students thus helping students develop different cognitive capabilities. Teachers should also be models for their students and be ready to explain differences in their modeled behavior from behavior that may be modeled in popular media.

Creating an educational environment as mentioned above will give individuals the tools necessary to take an active role in their education. Additionally, having helped develop high self-efficacy, teachers will have enabled students with the skills to cope with the difficulties that one encounters in life. Bandura (1999) mentions a proverb when writing of how self-efficacy can help people deal with these difficulties: “You cannot prevent the birds of worry and care from flying over your head. But you can stop them from building a nest in your hair.”

Additionally, high self-efficacy can help make people make the most of chance encounters. As we can see from the discussion above, our knowledge of cognitive abilities and an individual’s environment is not enough to predict how our lives will end up. Bandura (1982) feels that our ability to accurately predict outcomes is even further complicated by how different people deal with chance encounters. While his analysis of chance encounters is too extensive for the scope of this paper, it still does shed some light on another reason self-efficacy is important: our lives are full of chance encounters which may be quite fortuitous, and if we have low self-efficacy, we are less likely to take the chances these offer us and are more likely to be stuck in a somewhat stagnant lifestyle.

There are some things, for example our genetic makeup, that we have no real control over. However, we are not slaves to our environment. Given the necessary foundation for growth and achievement, we can escape the traditionally held confines of elements like poverty, gender constructs, or access to education and take personal control and responsibility of our life outcomes.

References

• Bandura, A. (1963). The role of imitation in personality development. The Journal of Nursery Education, 19(3).
• Bandura, A. (1984). The psychology of chance encounters and life paths. American Psychologist, 37(7).
• Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. Vol. 6. Six theories of child development (1-60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (248-287).
• Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
• Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Ed.), Handbook of personality (2nd ed., 154-196). New York: Guilford Publications. (Reprinted in D. Cervone & Y. Shoda [Eds.], The coherence of personality. New York: Guilford Press.)
• Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communications. In J. Bryant, & D. Zillman (Eds.). Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed. 121-153). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Ormrod, J. E. & Rice, F. P. (2003). Lifespan development and learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
• Pajares (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retreived March 20, 2006, from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html
• Pajares, F. (2004). Albert Bandura: Biographical sketch. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/bandurabio.html

As a child in Trinidad, I remember that fear of punishment in school was a great motivator for my good behavior and desire to perform better academically. I also remember, however, that not everyone else in my school had the same response to punishment. My friend, for example, seemed to love getting in trouble and often went home with welts from the bamboo cane. What irked my teachers even more was that he was also one of the top students in the class. For me, the threat of punishment was a form of aversive stimuli and was enough to cause me to behave a certain learned accepted way.

My elementary school also used a system of group punishment and reward. All students were randomly assigned to one of six school-wide groups when they enrolled; on different weeks, different groups were responsible for things like tending the garden, keeping the campus clean, or re-shelving library books. Also, each group was given an overall tally for personal hygiene which included clean pressed uniforms, combed tidy hair, and neatly trimmed dirt-free fingernails. Much of the regulation we engaged in was a sort of self regulation for the benefit of fitting in with the group. Based on the group’s overall score, group members would be given different things like hardcover story books, a week off of yard-duty, or honorary certificates of recognition at school-wide events like sports-day. Poorly scoring groups, conversely, were “punished” with extra duties. Again, this provided an incentive for group members to improve their individual performance or risk provoking the anger of the other group members for being punished for one person’s actions. Results similar to these were found in a 1984 study which concluded that “both rewards and punishments have been found to be effective influence modes in appropriate [group] settings, but using rewards to induce compliance seems to have no or only positive side effects, while using punishments often has the negative side effect of provoking face-saving retaliation” (Oliver, 127).

Punishment was also present in the home in different forms-usually something like a spanking, going to bed without a bedtime story, or not getting to watch Saturday cartoons. Overall, however, I do not have any strong recollections of being punished. This is not to say that they did not affect me; I know they affected me because over time I modified my behavior based on what I was getting punished for. Still, I was fortunate to not have grown up in a home where a common phrase was “This hurts me more than it hurts you.”

At home, rewards often came in a way that is probably better classified as encouragement. A lot of my successes were greeted with phrases like “Wow! That is great! Why don’t you try doing this next?” So, for example, when I came home from school excited that my first attempt at hydroponics had been successful, my father suggested I get some different plant seeds from my grandmother and try growing them in a little patch of our back yard. I do not remember too many rewards which came in the form of either physical things like toys or treats, or as perks like getting to stay up past bedtime or not having to wash dishes; much of this probably stemmed from the strained financial situation of growing up in a small developing country. However, by the time my family had moved to the United States, I had developed a habit of looking at each accomplishment as one small step towards something better. Furthermore, it was clear to me that while I had the emotional support of my family, I was ultimately the person responsible for my advancements. According to Manning and Butcher, (2003) using encouragement instead of praise-a form of intangible reward-encourages the development of confidence and self-esteem; the use of praise alone may cause children to develop a dependence relationship between praise and the value of their work.

In a sense, that is what Alfie Kohn referred to in an interview when he proposed that rewards are just as damaging to ones motivation to learn as are punishments. Both punishments and rewards stifle the motivation to learn (Brandt, 1995). Taking a personal example, when I moved to the United States, I became very interested in playing music. If my mother had decided that an appropriate punishment for me would be taking my guitar away from me, she would be stifling my natural motivation to learn to play music better. Additionally, if the only way I would get to play my guitar was as a reward for having done my work or chores, eventually I could just decide that the prerequisite work was not worth it to me and I could become disinterested in playing my guitar. Instead, my mother encouraged me to play music-even offering to pay for music lessons. Interestingly, I refused the music lessons, as my level of interest was just as a personal hobby rather than a professional priority. When reading the interview with Kohn, one thing he said was “A lot of people have had the experience of having done something just because they loved it until they started to get paid for doing it, after which they wouldn’t dream of doing it again without getting paid. The phenomenon whereby extrinsic motivators cause intrinsic motivation to evaporate is not on the tips of our tongues, but it’s not that far from consciousness, either” (Brandt, 1995; ¶ 26). While going to guitar lessons is not the same as getting paid, in my mind attending guitar lessons would make playing the guitar more like “work” and I would be stifling my natural curiosity to learn the guitar on my own.

Reviewing the literature and my personal history, I still cannot say that I disapprove of the use of rewards. Rather, I think that rewards should be carefully designed to promote personal motivation. Too often, rewards are used inappropriately-for example upon completion of personal duties-leading children to expect rewards at the wrong times. Rewards should be offered very selectively, and should not be limited to success; in fact, sometimes effort is more important than success (Robb, 2003; Rozycki, 1999). I clearly remember getting measles in second grade, and consequently missing weeks of school and performing very poorly on my exams when I returned. My class rank dropped from third to twentieth, and I was terrified that I would be punished when I took my report book home. Instead, I found that my parents were very understanding and supportive-they even gave me a tangible reward (ice-cream, one of my favorite treats!)-and they simply encouraged me to keep my motivation up; very shortly, I was able to return to my original level of performance. In my mind, this was a perfect example of reward being used appropriately and in conjunction with encouragement. When rewards can truly empower the recipient, it should most certainly be used.

References

• Brandt, R. (1995, September). Punished by rewards: An interview with Alfie Kohn. Educational Leadership, 53(1).
• Manning, M. L. & Bucher, K. T. (2003). Classroom management: Models, applications, and cases. Upper Saddle River, NJ; Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
• Oliver, P. (1984). Rewards and punishments as selective incentives: An apex game. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28(1), 123-148.
• Robb, M. (2003). Rewards and punishments: A continuing debate. Retrieved March 1, 2006 from http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/social_emotional_learning/103854
• Rozycki, E. G. (1999). Rewards, reinforcers and voluntary behavior. Retrieved March 1, 2006 from http://www.newfoundations.com/EGR/RewRein.html

Questions about learning are complicated and have been debated for many years. Philosophers across cultures have debated questions about the root of education and what makes us who we are. In more recent times, behavioral studies have also been conducted both on humans and animals. Many of these questions are ultimately incorporated into a more fundamental question of human nature, specifically whether humans are born good or otherwise. Central to this debate is the importance of “nature” and “nurture” in how we develop. The nature theory proposes that certain parts of who we are as individuals are hereditary. Certainly, we are born with a genetic makeup that is hereditary, but even our development before birth can be affected by our environment. This view that the environment affects our development is referred to as the nurture theory. When looking at the nature or nurture debate, the question is not exactly an either/or one, but rather a recognition that human development is a combination of both theories.

Looking more closely at the nurture theory and accepting that the environment we live in does affect our learning and development, we can begin asking more specific questions. How much of our environment, for example—including factors such as culture, economic class, or a family’s educational level—plays a part in how we learn and develop? I will present some arguments and examples below which illustrate the nurture perspective and which should at the minimum serve as a foundation for further debate.

One environmental input that I think is significant in learning and development is the role of the family unit. I grew up in Trinidad where my family was very close both in terms of our relationship with each other as well as in our physical proximity. Most of my extended family of aunts, uncles, and cousins lived within easy walking distance from my home. Traditionally, individual actions were often thought of in terms of our larger family unit, and it was using that organizational method that my grandparents were able to send their three youngest children (of whom my father was one) to a professional school following graduation from high-school. One benefit of this extended family was that there was always adult supervision available for children, usually an uncle, aunt, or grandparent. Because of the strong family unit and because caretaking roles were being shared among adults, there was always a good commitment from everyone involved.

When I moved to the United States just before my teenage years, I found that many of my new friends had somewhat different experiences growing up. Caretakers during the hours following the end of the school day were not relatives; my friends were usually sent different places for after-school care. More notably was the emphasis on the individual as opposed to the family unit. What was remarkable was that we shared a similar respect for family and elders, and we all took education equally seriously—even at a relatively young age. The expectations of our elders were clear to us, and perhaps that was one of the most significant contributions from our families to our development.

Clearly, family is influential, but what about other environmental elements like technology? Technology is becoming more commonplace across the United States, and children have much easier access to media today. Many households have more than one television—sometimes even a television in almost every room. Computers are increasingly becoming ubiquitous in homes across the country, and internet access along with them. Radio programs are less censored today than they were in the past. With all these changes, how much effect do media have on how people learn and develop? Judging by news reports, one would be tempted to say that media plays a huge role in how and what we learn. One can think of both reported and hypothetical situations of when media is blamed for children’s behavior. A child guilty of a school shooting says in an interview that he listens to certain kinds of music which, upon analysis of the lyrical content, encourages antisocial behavior and glorifies suicidal tendencies. A teenager is arrested for stealing a car and informs us that she was acting out a scene from a videogame. A student touches a classmate inappropriately and justifies his actions saying that he saw it in a music video. A teenage girl speaks disrespectfully of her mother and other authority figures and reports that she learned these ideas from a song on a CD she owns.

Despite the sensational media coverage that these incidents may get, is the media truly to blame? Does the media really have that strong of an influence on our behavior? If the media were such an important player in where we learned how to act, shouldn’t we expect that incidents like the ones above should be occurring at much higher rates all around the country—maybe even the world? If the media were so powerful in shaping our lives, would that mean that we have no free will and instead that our lives are determined by the creators of the things we see and hear in the media? If the media were found to be as powerful as it is sometimes presented to be, why wouldn’t a larger portion of the public, thinking in terms of benefits for society overall, “disallow” its existence? Clearly, while the media is influential, it cannot bear the burden of all the blame for these incidents.

Many of the issues about how people learn are further complicated by matters of economics and by parent’s education. Lower income families, for example may have a higher tendency to use media as an impromptu babysitter especially if they do not have adequate resources to provide quality after-school care for their children. Older children may be given responsibilities which are not age appropriate (such as starting working young to bring in additional family income or being assigned the role of a babysitter for younger siblings) and these responsibilities may negatively affect their academic performance and their outlook on life. Parents with low education levels or migrant parents who do not know English very well are at a disadvantage because even if they were concerned with their children’s well-being, they may not be able to make the connection between what their children are exposed to and how they are behaving. Additionally, because of their own educational shortcomings, they may be more intimidated by the school environment, and consequently participate less in their children’s education.

With all these factors influencing how we develop, who is responsible for the education of children? Education should start from the home in the moments following birth. This is not the same education we expect from school, but during this time, children should be supported in their development of things like routines, structure, respect and responsibility. Children should be clearly shown that some behaviors result in rewards and some end unpleasantly. They should begin to understand why the results are as they are so that in our teaching of discipline, we are not just try to achieve automatic conditioning, but rather trying to develop a process whereby children start being more aware of their actions.

School naturally is the place where much of what we would consider traditional education would occur. Within the school students can begin to develop teamwork skills and build a sense of community. As students develop a stronger sense of how they fit into society, they can become more successful being autonomous in their decisions and actions. Although some parents place unreasonably high expectations on teachers, it is important for parents to recognize that while teachers do get to be with children for a significant portion of children’s daily lives, teachers do not usually get to be with the children in the after-school hours or during summer recess. Additionally, in some cases, the relationships which develop only last the academic year, so it is important that the responsibility isn’t perceived to be one which is borne by teachers alone.

This paper is just an introduction to some of the many things we need to consider when we think of the question of how people learn. Learning begins at birth and continues through the course of life. Some of the learning in our lives is structured and intentional. Some of the learning happens without our knowing, or are things “learned” by living in a particular environment. Being more aware of how we learn and of how others may learn allows teachers (who can be anyone in one’s environment) to be more effective at increasing the body of knowledge available.