Social Learning Theory - Essay Example

?Social Experiences: The Essence Of Child Development Introduction Human being is a social being. Human being’s environment plays a major role in thedevelopment and growth of his personality. It has been observed that not only the development of external aspects of personality, but also the development of internal aspects of personality like thinking patterns and beliefs, are influenced by his environment. However, different psychologists have different views regarding how the child development occurs and what role the social experiences play in child’s development. This paper aims to study and understand the essence of four grand theories of ‘behaviourism’, ‘social learning’, ‘constructivism’, and ‘social constructivism’, and their beliefs towards the role of social experiences in child development. From the comparison of four grand theories, it is clear that only the theory of ‘social learning’ and the theory of ‘social constructivism’ truly acknowledge the role of social experiences in the process of child development and hence, prove to be more humane and positive than the other two grand theories of ‘behaviourism’ and ‘constructivism’. Behaviourism The theory of ‘behaviourism’ is based on the understanding that human being is a trainable being and hence, can be trained to behave in any particular way. Behaviourism believes that through certain methods of training and discipline, not only a person’s behaviour pattern can be changed, but even his reflexes can trained to respond in certain way to certain stimuli. Behaviourists rejected the child development theories which focused on ‘mental events’ as the cause of child development, and focused their attention on understanding how the behaviour of a child is influenced by his environment (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.51). Behaviourists considered any relatively permanent change in behaviour, that was caused by environmental events, as ‘learning’ (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.51). As behaviourists believed that learning was ‘conditioned’ by environmental events, they referred to the process of learning as ‘conditioning’ (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.51). According to the behaviourists, there are two types of conditioning and they are ‘classical conditioning’ and ‘operant conditioning’ (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.51). Classical conditioning refers to the reflex behaviours when presented with stimuli in environment (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.53). However, it was realized that classical conditioning, as it produced only reflex behaviour, was useful in re-training only the reflex behaviours and not the behaviours which were not the part of reflex behaviours (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.53). Hence, behaviourists came up with method of ‘operant conditioning.’ It was B.F. Skinner (1905-1990), who demonstrated through an experiment on rat, that people can be made to learn and maintain certain behaviours by modifying the consequences of those behaviours (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.53). Hence, according to beahviourism, consequences of behaviour make a person to learn and maintain all his behaviour patterns (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.51). Skinner found that when a particular behaviour is associated with positive consequence, then that behaviour tends to increase in frequency (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.54). However, when a particular behaviour results in pain or negative consequence, then that behaviour tends to decrease in a person (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.54). From this relationship between behaviour and its consequences, Skinner demonstrated that the methods of ‘reinforcement’ and ‘punishment’ can be used to increase and reduce the frequency of given behaviour, respectively (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.54). It means that a person can be made to learn or maintain a particular behaviour by ‘conditioning’ his behaviour with positive reinforcement or reward, and can be made to unlearn or reduce a particular behaviour by ‘conditioning’ it with negative reinforcement or punishment (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.54). In this way behaviourists proposed that human behaviour can be controlled through the process of ‘conditioning’. However, behaviourism failed to acknowledge the importance of environment and internal pattern of human being in the development of behaviour pattern. The behaviourists understood the role of social experience in child development in term of ‘control’ and ‘conditioning’ of child’s behaviour, but not in term of social interaction or cultural influence. That is, the behaviourists failed to acknowledge the influence of culture, social interactions and behaviour of adults on the development of a child. The behaviourists failed to realize that human behaviour is not just influenced by external stimuli, but is also influenced by internal patterns like beliefs, values, culture and mental images, which are formed by social experiences. However, the role of social experiences in child development was considered by Albert Bandura, who explained the process of child development through the theory of ‘social learning’. Social Learning Theory ‘Social learning theory’ considers that social experiences of a child play an important role in his development. Albert Bandura, a Canadian psychologist, believed that more than the consequences of behaviour, it is the behaviour of people around them that shapes the behaviour of children (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.59). That is, children learn behaviour patterns which they observe in adults around them. To prove his theory that children learn their behaviour from what they observe in adults, Bandura conducted an experiment. Bandura (1965) chose aggressive behaviour pattern for the experiment, in which 4- year old children were made to watch a film, showing an adult man being physically and verbally aggressive towards a doll (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.60). The children were divided in three groups and were shown three different versions of the film (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.50). The first version showed the man being rewarded for his aggressive behaviour, the second version showed the man being punished for his behaviour and the third version showed no consequence for his behaviour (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.60). The result of the experiment proved the strength of social learning theory over the theory of ‘behaviourism’. When children were sent to a room with dolls and toys, to see how the observation has affected them, Bandura found that they all displayed aggressive behaviour towards the doll (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.61). The only difference was that the children, who saw the aggressive man being punished for being aggressive, displayed less aggression towards the dolls (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.61). However, all the children displayed aggression equally when told that they will be rewarded for it (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.61). This proved that merely through observation of behaviour of an adult, all the children learnt and imitated the aggressive behaviour. However, what was more interesting to note was that even though the ‘consequences’ of the behaviour shown to three groups were different, the aggressive behaviour was still learnt and displayed in all the children equally. This shows that more than the consequences of the behaviour, it is the observation of the behaviour that shapes the behaviour pattern of children. Hence, social learning theory successfully proved that the theory of ‘behaviourism’ does not explain child development completely, as it failed to acknowledge the role of social experiences in the process of child development. However, the social learning theory ignored the role of child’s own mental images and thinking in development of behaviour. It was the theory of ‘constructivism’ that explained the role of child’s thinking in development of his behaviour. Constructivism The theory of ‘constructivism’ was developed by Jean Piaget (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.63). According to Piaget, children’s behaviour is influenced by their mental representation of the world (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.63). He proposed that children’s actions on the environment are based on their own understanding of the environment, and not on the observation of people, as proposed by the ‘social learning’ theory (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.63). Piaget believed that children learn and develop more elaborate mental representations with increase in their exposure to consequences of their actions on environment (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.63). That is, by building up the mental representation of how the world around him works, and developing more complex ways to deal with it, the child’s cognitive process becomes more progressive and constructive (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.63). Piaget was of opinion that child’s own ‘construction’, which is based on his mental representation and images of the world, leads to his development (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.63). However, according to Piaget, the construction is not random, but takes place in progressive manner through four stages. The fist stage of Piaget’s theory of development is ‘sensory-motor stage,’ which according to him is visible in infants till about 2 years (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.66). In this stage, children’s behaviour is mostly governed by their innate behavioural patterns and ‘reflexes,’ and hence, only those new ideas and experiences which are consistent with their reflexes, are taken by children during this stage (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.66). During the second stage, i.e. the pre-operational stage that works till about 6 years, children carry out symbolic behaviour through combinations or sequences of actions (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.66). During the third stage of ‘concrete operations,’ which is visible in children from 6 to 12 years of age, children display their learning from past experience (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.66). That is, they form ‘rules’ of behaviour that are based on their own concrete experiences in the past and learn to manipulate the concepts mentally (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.66). In the fourth stage of ‘formal operations,’ which is visible in children from 12 years onwards, children shed their dependence on experiences for their mental representation, and instead, form their representations on the basis of their reasoning, and systematic, scientific and hypothetical thinking (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.66). Looking at the four stages of child development, one can understand that according to Piaget, social experience plays very little role in development of children. According to the theory of ‘constructivism,’ it is the thoughts of children, and not the observation or imitation, which shapes their behaviour. The modes and characteristics of thoughts, which are described through the four stages of development, change with growing age and lead to development of children (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.66). This shows that Piaget gave very little importance to social experiences in development of a child. In fact, Piaget believed that interaction with adults hinders children’s growth as they do not evaluate or challenge the ideas that come from adults and hence, do not develop (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.69). This shows that the theory of ‘constructivism’ did not consider social experience to have any role in child development. It stressed that it is not the social or environmental conditions that shape the child’s development, but the child’s thoughts and mental representations of those conditions that shape his behaviour. Piaget believed that with growing age, child’s thinking and his way of representation progresses. The child then ‘constructs’ his thinking in a step-by-step manner and develops it into independent and mature thinking. Hence, Piaget was of opinion that it is the ‘construction’ of child’s internal images and representation of the outer world that consists of his development and not the social experience by itself. Hence, ‘constructivism’ says that child’s behaviour and development is shaped by his ‘constructive’ thinking and not by social experiences. However, this theory was challenged strongly by the theory of ‘social constructivism’. Social Constructivism The theory of ‘social constructivism,’ proposed by Vygotsky through his books ‘Mind in Society’ (1978) and ‘Thought and Language’ (1986), is the theory that gives most importance to the social experience in child development, compared to all other grand theories of child development (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.71). In fact, according to Vygotsky, children’s development is quite impossible without their experience of social interaction. Vygotsky was in agreement with Piaget when he said that development of a child is constructive (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.71). However, contrary to Piaget, Vygotsky believed that it was the social and cultural world surrounding the child that plays a major role in his development, and not the internal construction (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.71). Theory of ‘social constructivism’ also differs a little with the theory of ‘social learning,’ as it says that children learn not only through observation of adult behaviour, as proposed by ‘social learning’ theory, but also by interacting with them and through cues from their environment. Not only that, but Vygotsky also maintained that cognitive and intellectual development of a child is also a result of social experiences. Vygotsky proposed that the behaviour pattern, beliefs and cultural tools that are passed from one generation to another, have major influence on the development of a child (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.71). Hence, not only children’s behaviour pattern and their knowledge of things, but also their thinking process and cognitive process, is shaped by the customs and norms prevalent in the culture and society in which they grow (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.71). This is the reason children who are strange to other cultures are not able to recognize the language, symbols and norms of other cultures (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.71). Vygotsky (1986) also proposed that the process of learning language, which is in fact an intellectual and cognitive process, takes place only when a child interacts and communicates with people around him (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.72). Hence, contrary to Piaget who says that child’s development occurs due to his mental representation, Vygotsky says that child’s individual development occurs only after he develops on social level (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.72). Vygotsky also says that it is through social interaction with people having appropriate ways of thinking and skills, that children learn new skills and new ways of thinking (Oates, Wood and Grayson 2005, p.73). Vygotsky, through his theory of ‘social constructivism’, proposed that it is the social and cultural surrounding of a child that influences his development. According to the theory of ‘social constructivism’, development of a child is impossible without inputs from people around him. Hence, it can be said that ‘social constructivism’ is the only theory that truly acknowledges the role of social experiences in the development of a child. It not only values the role of people surrounding the child, but also values the role of culture, language, beliefs and norms, that are practiced by people in the society that the child grows in. Conclusion From the discussion above, it is clear that the theories that acknowledge and understand the role of social experiences in the development of a child are the theories of ‘social learning’ and ‘social constructivism’. By demonstrating the role of social experiences in child development, these theories have proved that human being is not only shaped by his innate nature, but is also shaped by the society and culture in which he grows. Hence, by accepting the role of social experiences in child development, Bandura and Vygotsky have provided a humane touch to the process of child development, as they prove that human being is not an isolated being, but is a part of the ‘integrated whole,’ which is represented through different societies in the world. References Oates, J., Wood, C., and Grayson, A., 2005. Psychological development and early childhood. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Read More