Social Cognitive Theory - Research Paper Example

? room Application of Cognitive Theory Social cognitive theory describes learning in terms of the interrelationship between personal factors, behavior and environmental factors. It also develops cooperative learning and constructivism through theoretical frameworks used for interactive learning. According to SCT, the learner gets knowledge through the convergence of personal experience, personal characteristics and environment. The new experiences are viewed in light of prior experiences, and they inform the student on how the present should be investigated. The social -cognitive theory is a function of self efficacy, self regulation and the outcome expectations. This paper aims at discussing the types of interactive and collaborative learning in view of the aspects of social -cognitive theory. Students’ learning mannerisms replicate their implicit individual theories regarding variables for creating failure and success within schools. In the scientific context, children enter schools and proceed to discover what makes them successful in the learning atmosphere. Children make judgments based on the experiences they have in schools (Levine &Lezotte, 1995). These judgments help develop theories that contribute the success or failure of children in schools. According to Ross, the attribution and behavior connection is both complex and subtle. According to research, children who expect to do well in school succeed compared to children with the same potential but expect to fail. Research shows that children in a controlled environment behave differently compared to children in classroom settings (Flower, 1994). From the perspective of attribution, children can explain the connection between ability and success if they enter school and success (Fuchs & Dutka, 1997). This happens when they are able to explain the connection between success and ability through their classroom experiences. The journey of finding out the amount of success needed to achieve the intended educational outcome is a continuous process for most students (Levine &Lezotte, 1995). As a result, students are constantly choosing among diverse educational sets and personal ambitions. Students are endlessly collecting information concerning tasks (Fuchs & Dutka, 1997). The aim is to increase mastery on the task or performance on their tasks relative to the performance of other students (Flemming, 1995). Students are constantly involved in measuring the effort amounts and tasks desirable to accomplish the set target. This makes it easy to understand the student discrepancy expectancies in favor of achievement in multiple focus areas. Students work through diverse teachers on the way to effecting the expected change with a view of meeting the expectancies in the school environments and meet the demands (McGilly, 1996). There exist several theories that explain the differences in the willingness of the students to expend school efforts. Most of these theories differences in view of efforts by the students and that difficulty of the task (Fuchs & Dutka, 1997). According to these theories, this explains the difference in the abilities of students to achieve. Students’ confidence is affected by differences in effort expenditure (Cooper & Kiger, 2008). This postulation explains differences in the students’ ability to perform. It also explains the differences in students’ efficacy, goal orientation (Flemming, 1995), differentiated concept and how it emerges with age. Students’ attribution to success or failure should be viewed in a holistic way. The expectance cost conjecture postulates to facilitate the extent to which a student expends endeavor on a given undertaking is a utility of the prospect to execute the chore effectively (Fuchs & Dutka, 1997). This is also inspired by the rewards expected upon the successful completion of the given task. Students’ effort is also a function of the value placed on the expected reward upon successful completion of the task. (Fuchs & Dutka, 1997) This model assumes that amount of effort invested in a given task is a product of the value of the expected reward. This means that effort will not be expended in the student if the expected results or reward is of no value (Flower, 1994). It also indicates students fail to perform tasks which they do not expect to perform with success. A case study of a faction of students with an assignment of a complex mathematical problem can give a synoptic view of the theory. Assuming the students are good mathematically, they suppose to conclude the task productively as well as garner the reward of the accomplishment (Levine &Lezotte, 1995). The reward can be either internal or external (Fuchs & Dutka, 1997). External reward is based on high marks or material reward that the teacher may give to the students. Internal reward is the inner sense of satisfaction that the students get upon doing what others have failed to do (Flemming, 1995). The reward can be a combination of both premises (Cooper & Kiger, 2008). Consider second groups who have the same mathematical task. Unlike the previous group, this group has a history of failing in mathematics and found it extremely difficult to complete mathematical assignments (Fuchs & Dutka, 1997). They argue that the assignments are time consuming. The second group completes the assignment but do not necessarily expect high marks (Thorkilden &Nicholls, 1998). For the second group, finishing the task eliminates the chances of deteriorating. To the group, completing the assignment also lessens the external and internal consequences of receiving the poor grades (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Miller, 1995). This explains why the second group is unlikely to expend maximum efforts on the assignment. In case of the third group who have a history of difficulty in mathematics and are on the verge of giving up, they may not attempt the assignment (Fuchs & Dutka, 1997). This is a strong indicator they do value the internal and external reward system in the school. A research was conducted to find out the focal point in effort calculation theory, and individual expectancies for various expectancy levels. These parameters were measured against the assignment complexity as well as individual aptitude. Statistics concerning precedent achievements, expected grade, effort expenditure, perceived ability and time spent studying were composed from 145 undergraduates studying psychology. According to the pathway scrutiny of the research, the time spent studying and the perceived ability have a substantial impact in the prediction of the expected grades. The actual grade was accurate predicted through controlling past achievements, preparation time and perceived abilities. The expected grade and efforts expended on the exam had a weak relationship, contrary to the theory (Thorkilden &Nicholls, 1998). The research noted that the number of words used in examination responses and the measure of the effort expenditure could have been confounded by the prior knowledge of the students. Another study showed that graders who believed tasks are vital and of enormous interest reported a higher use of cognitive strategies that the rest. The level of self regulation and use of strategy in the study of classroom behaviors was significantly correlated with students’ achievement initiatives (Barone & Maddux, 1997). Computing a basic linear regression indicated that the value placed on a task was correlated with high achievement. However, this was not the same case with compound regression examination that incorporated self regulation and echelon of the tactic used in the study of the behavior. The conclusion was that the value assigned to work and exams influenced the willingness of the students to engage in self regulation and social -cognitive concepts with in turn affected classroom achievements. Bandura‘s social learning theory explains the differences in the hard work students apply to school responsibilities. The theory is built up 2 key concepts. One is based on the fact that students make interpretations of a personal nature from the past accomplishments and failures they have had (Ross, 1992). The students then proceed to set clear goals based on these interpretations. The theory suggests that people tend to avoid situations that are perceived to exceed their capabilities (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Miller, 1995). This means that people are comfortable performing tasks they believe they can accomplish successfully (Barone & Maddux, 1997). The second concept or principle is the set personal targets that translate into the values for evaluation of presentation. Attaining goals is met by self satisfaction and effort that is necessary to attain the goals (Thorkilden & Nicholls, 1998). At the same time, failure to attain the set goals results in outright discontentment with the below standard performance. The theory also suggests that internal rewards are more influential than external rewards. Self efficacy is built upon the individual beliefs concerning their abilities (Weiner, 1994). Self efficacy determines whether a student shall persist in the face of difficulty and expend efforts on a task. Therefore, people with a high self efficacy attempt and persist in tasks when that they are faced with difficulties according to this theory. Low self efficacy means little effort will be expended, and cases of giving up are often rampant. However, there is a difference between efficacy expectations and outcome expectations. The belief that some actions will lead to outcomes is called the outcome expectations (Flower, 1994). The belief that an individual is capable of completing a course of action successfully is called efficacy expectations. Students are known to believe that courses lead to success and fail to accept that actions lead to success. SCT argues that learners are able to observe the behavior or those similar to them and learn through imitation. For any given task, in a classroom atmosphere, students will have either low or high expectations, which goes together, r with low or high efficacy expectations (Cooper & Kiger, 2008). The students with high efficacy and outcome expectations approach academic tasks with the confidence that enables them to persist even in the face of difficulty (Thorkilden & Nicholls, 1998). According to this theory, high self efficacy is related to high targets as well as firm commitments to attain the set goals. Students having self-perceptions of low ability get easily discouraged by failure. This results to decreased effort expenditures in the face of hard responsibilities. Most students enlarge efficacy and outcome viewpoints that are connected with achievement in schools (Weiner, 1994). For example, a student may believe a proclamation from a teacher on the first day that suggests that every hard work in school results to success. However, as students get performance feedback in the course of the learning, they start to change their self efficacy expectancies. It may be probable for a student to be doing well in class; but lack the work ethics necessary to be triumphant. Learners with elevated result expectancies and stumpy personality worth start to reduce their exertion expenditure. Groups expand individual logic of effectiveness from 4 sources. They include presentation achievement, social influences and verbal persuasion, personal capabilities and vulnerabilities that cause physiological judgments and observing performances from other people (Barone & Maddux, 1997). Mastery experience that the strongest influence on the students efficacies. Whenever a student masters a task, they expect to master similar tasks in future (Thorkilden & Nicholls, 1998). Success needs to be attributed to efforts for efficacy expectations to be enhanced. Research on middle school students reveals that the link between student achievement and efficacy is proportional to student’s social- cognitive engagement level. A research by Motivated Strategies learning suggested that a correlation between high performance and high efficacy on work and examination existed. The result suggested an increased use of social- cognitive strategies (Weiner, 1994). However, in case of cognitive strategies and multiple regression analysis, the issue of self efficacy scores did not explain the resultant variance. The research concluded that students who believed they were competent were to be expected to use cognitive strategy. They were also likely to have stronger self regulation and dependence on metacognitive strategies than other students. The research also observed that students with believed that were capable were likely to persist in difficult tasks. A classroom teacher is expected to establish the means-end belief at the initial stage of the learning process (Flower, 1994). This shapes the belief that success is a strong act of self awareness and employment the multiple disciplines necessary to achieve it. Ability is explained as a stable and uncontrollable factor which is internal (Barone & Maddux, 1997). Failure is perceived as lack of effort. Effort is internal but unstable and controllable factor. The attribution theory suggests that assign effort in the outcomes. Social cognitive theory suggests that students’ perceptions and goals are influenced by multiple factors. Having to expend extraordinary effort in order to succeed has the potential of showing that a student could be weaker than those who succeed with moderate effort. In conclusion, the social- cognitive theory is based on the understanding that the reality construct of a student is useful when deployed to intervene with an aim of improving the personality and behavior pathology of the student. SCT suggests that the willingness and the environment of a student are helpful when it comes to academic success. Observational learning, self efficacy, reproduction and self regulation can interact to enhance the social-cognitive theory and promote learning in classrooms. References Barone, D. F., & Maddux, J. E. (1997). Social Cognitive Psychology: History and Current Domains (1st ed.). Springer. Cooper, J. D., & Kiger, N. D. (2008). Literacy: Helping Students Construct Meaning (7th ed.). Cengage Learning. Fleming, K. K. (1995). The effect of self-efficacy and goal orientation on student effort expenditures. Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Kansas. Flower, L. (1994). The Construction of Negotiated Meaning: A Social Cognitive Theory of Writing (1st ed.). SIU Press. Fuchs, L., Hamlett, C., and Dutka, S. (1997). Effects of task-focused goals on low-achieving students with and without learning disabilities.Am. Educat. Res. J. 34: 513–543. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Miller, N. (1995). Interaction in Cooperative Groups: The Theoretical Anatomy of Group Learning (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. Levine, D. U., and Lezotte, L. W. (1995). Effective schools research. In Banks, J. A., and Banks, C. A. M. (eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education, Macmillan, New York, pp. 525–547. McGilly, K. (1996). Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice (1st ed.). MIT Press. Morgan, L. (2008). Improving Student Engagement: Use of the Interactive Whiteboard as an Instructional Tool to Improve Engagement and Behavior in the Junior High School Classroom (1st ed.). ProQues. Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Can. J. Educat. 17: 51–65. Thorkildsen, T. A., and Nicholls, J. G. (1998). Fifth graders’ achievement orientations and beliefs: Individual and classroom differences. J. Educat. Psychol. 90: 179–201. Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving. Rev. Educat. Res. 64: 557–573. Read More