nice

1. Abstract
The social cognitive theory is derived from constructing meaning and knowledge
from social influences. Albert Bandura, a well-known theorist of the social cognitive
theory, conducted an experiment to prove how social influences including the media
have adverse affects on people, especially children. People are continually learning
and constructing meaning throughout their whole life from communications within
their community and now through the Internet. This article provides an
understanding of how the mind is influenced by social interactions and how to
implement technology to enhance social learning.
keywords: social learning, social cognition, social cognitive theory, Albert Bandura, sociocultural theory,
connectivism
Social Cognition and Social Learning Theories of Education and Technology
The mind is a mysterious science. Theorists are continually studying how the
mind understands and interprets information. Some focus on the cognitive
components of learning while others focus on behavioral influences. Theories are
constantly changing with the advancements of technology. One theory that draws
on both cognitive and behavior influences and benefits from technology is that of
social learning or the social cognitive theory.
The social cognitive theory thrives on the advancement of new technologies.
“Social and technological changes alter, often considerably, the kinds of life events
that become customary in the society. Indeed, many of the major changes in social
and economic life are ushered in by innovations of technology . . . (Elder, 1981)”
(Bandura, 1989, p. 5-6). Technology provides new and innovative methods to
create social learning environments. One aspect of technology is the ability to
interact and observe others. “Human expectations, beliefs, emotional bents and
cognitive competencies are developed and modified by social influences that convey
information and activate emotional reactions through modeling, instruction
and social persuasion” (Bandura, 1989, p. 3). Students are constantly surrounded
by social influences whether it’s a community influence or a media

2. influence. Regardless of the model, the influence is still there. “Humans have
evolved an advanced capacity for observational learning that enables them to
expand their knowledge and skills rapidly through information conveyed by the rich
variety of models” (Bandura, 2008, p. 96). There are varieties of models both
immediate and distant that socially influence people’s learning or cognition.
Modeling is a major component of the social learning theory.
In social cognitive theory, learning from the effects of actions is a special
case of observational learning. In learning by direct experience, people
construct conceptions of behavior from observing the effects of their actions;
in learning by modeling, they derive the conceptions from observing the
structure of the behavior being modeled. (Bandura, 1989, p. 46)
Learning from the effects of actions of others can directly influence ones choices.
Any factor that influences choice behavior can profoundly affect the direction
of personal development. This is because the social influences operating in
selected environments continue to promote certain competencies, values,
and interests long after the decisional determinant has rendered its
inaugurating effect. (Bandura, 2001, p. 10-11)
Observing behaviors or the effects of one’s own actions are types of social learning.
Social psychology takes this one step further to explain how learning is influenced.
“Social cognition has its roots in social psychology which attempts ‘to understand
and explain how the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of individuals are influenced
by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others’ (Allport, 1985, p.3)” (Huitt,
2006, para. 1). The presence of others has a great push in how people act, but in
order to understand how great the social influence is, we must first examine the
role of the ‘self.’
Social psychologists confirm that learning is not obtained through independent
factors; they take into account all influences. “Thoughts are not disembodied,
immaterial entities that exist apart from neural events. Cognitive processes are

3. emergent brain activities that exert determinative influence” (Bandura, 2001, p. 4).
This determinative influence is reciprocating, in that it is a bit of give and
take. Bandura (1986) developed the concept of reciprocal determinism, where “a
person’s behavior is both influenced by and is influencing a person’s personal
factors and the environment” (Huitt, 2006, para. 4). Multiple factors are taken into
account when studying social learning. One key component of social leaning is the
self and how one perceives the events occurring around them. “People are self-
developing, proactive, self-regulating, and self-reflective, not just reactive
organisms shaped and shepherded by environmental events or inner forces”
(Bandura, 2008, p. 95). These inner thoughts are all shaped by outer influences
and they are what make us all human.
People don’t model or copy every social influence they encounter; they
determine which course of action to take through self-reflection. Inner thoughts are
key aspects of learning and socializing; they are what make people human. “The
core features of personal agency address the issue of what it means to be human”
(Bandura, 2001, p. 6). A major personal agency of the social cognitive theory is
forethought. “Through the exercise of forethought, people motivate themselves and
guide their actions in anticipation of future events. When projected over a long time
course on matters of value, a forethoughtful perspective provides direction,
coherence, and meaning to one's life” (Bandura, 2001, p. 7). Forethought allows
people to choose their course of action.
People anticipate the likely consequences of their prospective actions, they
set goals for themselves, and they otherwise plan courses of action that are
likely to produce desired outcomes. Through exercise of forethought, people
motivate themselves and guide their actions anticipatorily. (Bandura, 1989,
p. 39)
Forethought allows people to examine their actions and choose to act in favor of
one course of action or another.
The other key personal agencies of the social cognitive theory are self-efficiency
and self-regulation. “Two principles of human functioning related to student

4. learning involve the processed of self-efficiency (can this be done; can I do it [. . .])
and self-regulation (goals, plans, perseverance)” (Huitt, 2006, para. 5). The
conative process accounts for these two principles, in which “[c]onation refers to
the connection of knowledge and affect to behavior and is associated with the issue
of ‘why’” (Huitt, 2006, para. 5). These two principles are choices students will plan
and make based on their social influences and these influences are ever-changing
with technology. “The rapid pace of informational, social, and technological change
is placing a premium on personal efficacy for self-development and self-renewal
throughout the life course” (Bandura, 2001, p.11). These informational, social and
technological changes provide incentives and drive the desire to learn in
people. “Efficacy beliefs are the foundation of human agency. Unless people believe
they can produce desired results and forestall detrimental ones by their actions,
they have little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties” (Bandura,
2001, p. 10). Social influences motivate people to meet standards set by society
and achieve success. “[S]elf-efficacy appears at the top of the motivational
hierarchy; that is, without belief in one’s ability to succeed, there will be little
chance for learning or achievement” (Bowers-Campbell, 2008, p. 77). With a belief
in success, people can strive to reach their goals. Bowers-Campbell quotes, Weiner
(1979) on the definition of self-regulated learning as “the active, goal-directed, self-
control of behavior, motivation, and cognition for academic tasks by an individual
student” (2008, p. 77). Both self-regulation and self-efficiency are key components
of the social cognitive theory. The components are formed from social influences
that may or may not be good influences for driving students to be motivated to
learn.
Albert Bandura created an experiment to show just how much children are
influenced by social influences. “The most famous experiment on the modeling of
aggression is Albert Bandura’s bobo-doll experiment” (Boeree, 1999). To conduct
the experiment, Bandura used a technological media to influence the children.
“Nursery school boys and girls saw a film in which an adult male or female model
assaulted the clown. The kids themselves then had a chance to ‘play’ with the bobo
doll without adult supervision” (Griffin, n.d., p. 372). The experimental data is quite
shocking in how young children could be so violently influenced by a TV clip. “Since

5. children in the control group didn’t normally say and do these things, the
experiment demonstrated that the youngsters had acquired the new, aggressive
behavior by watching the film” (Griffin, n.d., p. 372). The experiment put into
perspective what Bandura had already presumed. “Bandura concludes that
reinforcement doesn’t affect the learning of novel responses, but it does ‘determine
whether or not observationally acquired competencies will be put into use’” (Griffin,
n.d., p. 373). Children were strongly influenced by observing different types of
behavior through the media, which proves the effects of the media and social
influences.
Social influences can create positive learning environments. One of the greatest
social influences on social learning is the community. ‘Community of practice,’ a
term coined by Lave and Wenger, “is based on the premises that humans are social
beings, and their knowledge is developed through active engagement in valued
undertakings throughout their lives” (Kop & Hill, 2008, p. 6). From day one people
are learning through social interactions. ‘“Vygotsky (1934/1986) described learning
as being embedded within social events and occurring as a child interacts with
people, objects, and events in the environment’ (p. 287)” (Scherba de Valenzuela,
2002, para. 1). These interactions are increasing with online communications and
influences. According to the theories of Jean Piaget,
[K]nowledge is not simply transmitted from teacher to student, but actively
constructed by the mind of the learner. [. . .] learners are particularly likely to
make new ideas when they are actively engaged in making some type of external
artifact [. . .] which they can reflect upon and share with others. (Karai & Resnick,
1996 , p. 1)
Technology is a good medium for actively engaging students. Through technology,
reflecting and sharing people are able to construct meaning in what they have
learned. “Constructing meaning comes from interacting with others to explain,
defend, discuss, and assess our ideas and challenge, question, and comprehend the
ideas of others” (Sherman & Kurshan, 2005, p. 12). Social interactions create
learning where students are able to apply meaning and thoroughly comprehend.

6. Social learning has multiple benefits other then being able to construct meaning.
Through social learning “higher order functions develop out of social interaction.
Vygotsky argues that a child’s development cannot be understood by a study of the
individual. We must also examine the external social world in which that individual
life has developed” (Scherba de Valenzuela, 2002, para. 1). Using social activities
develop and enhance learning. “Eccles, Wigfield, and Schiefele (1998) found that
academic peer-support was a crucial part of the learning process for adolescents,
especially through modeling specific learning strategies” (Bowers-Campbell, 2008,
p. 81). Modeling, along with other social activities, creates active learning
environments for learning to occur. “Social activities allow students to express and
develop their understandings with peers as they pursue projects through
conversations that stimulate examining and expanding their understandings”
(Sherman & Kurshan, 2005, p. 12). Peer-support can be obtained through
cooperative learning groups. Cooperative learning groups have multiple benefits
such as:
Achievement increases for all ability levels (high, medium, low); higher-level
thinking processes can result; a deeper level of understanding is possible; critical
thinking is promoted; more positive peer relationships result; students exhibit
better social skills and provide more social support for their peers; and a higher
level of self-esteem can result (Brandt, 1987: 17). (Alansari, 2006, p. 267)
Social learning is key to creating higher-order thinking and with continual
enhancement of technology learning is inevitable.
Technology provides multiple windows for social interactions. “One increasingly
common technology-based strategy is to create online communities of students and
adults who collaborate on specific problems” (Sherman & Kurshan, 2005, p. 12).
With online communities, social interactions and learning occurs with students-to-
students or even with students-to-professionals. “[One] can also facilitate depth of
understanding by integrating technologies into the fabric of teaching as intellectual
tools that students use to study, learn, and communicate with others in their
classes as well as others in different locations” (Sherman & Kurshan, 2005, p. 12).
The benefits of social interactions seem endless with the advancements of

7. communications online. “[With the] complexity of information available on the
Internet, new possibilities for people to communicate on global networks, and for
the ability to aggregate different information streams” (Kop & Hill, 2008, p. 7). The
improvement in communications increases social learning; it’s only a matter of how
to implement these communications.
Communications through the use of technology create student centered, social
learning environment. “[A] shift to a more student-centered instruction may occur
initially only whenever technology is used” (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007, p. 418). This
shift can occur with social networking. “According to NSBA, adolescents of the Net
Generation are ‘beyond basic communication, many students engage in highly
creative activities on social networking sites – and a sizeable proportion of them are
adventurous nonconformists who set the pace for their peers’” (Bowers-Campbell,
2008, p. 79). Children are continually communicating with peers online, especially
through social networking sites. “Social networking sites, virtual online locations
where users create profiles to connect to other users, already engage incredible
numbers of adolescents” (Bowers-Campbell, 2008, p. 79). Children have a high
interest in these types of sites already, so to motivate students to learn, one could
create a safe learning environment using a social networking site. “[T]eachers build
students’ self-confidence when they care about them as individuals; thus, a
teacher’s Facebook profile may function as a pedagogical tool for communication
interest and concern in student learning in an arena where students are the
‘experts’” (Bowers-Campbell, 2008, p. 81). Children are already using these sites to
seek out help with school assignments, so to create a group for them to exchange
knowledge would increase their interest and responsibility in the subject. “The
group feature of Facebook renders it especially helpful in empowering students to
take responsibility for their own learning goals” (Bowers-Campbell, 2008, p. 82).
Facebook is only one site for social networking. With the continual advancement of
the Internet, more helpful and safer sites are appearing. Social networking is just
one benefit of technology; another is video games.
Technologies have created many educational social games. “[Video games] are
a central part of the late 20th-century children’s culture. In the playing of video

8. games, children mobilize energies that many educators, parents, and researchers
wish would be dedicated to learning” (Kafai & Resnick, 1996, p. 4). To harness
these energies, one could implement video games into the classroom or have the
children make their own video games (Kafai & Resnick, 1996, p. 4). Games could
be created, tested and discussed in a group setting or even online. Video games are
continually available online, where people are able to discuss and solve adventures
together. “In a prototype Fifth Dimension system, a dozen or more 6 to 14-year old
children encounter a large variety of off-the-shelf computer games and game-like
educational activities” (Brown & Cole, 2000, p. 198). In these games, students
socialize with other students and collaborate to solve educational games.
A Cognitive Evaluation team comprised of both implementers and external
evaluators documented improvement in children’s demonstrations of verbal,
mathematical, and technical ability as well as gains in their abilities to follow written
instructions as an effect of Fifth Dimensions participation. (Brown & Cole, 2000,p.
208)
Social influences enhanced the learning of the children in this setting, and they
enhance the learning of many others in numerous other social technology settings.
One theory that draws on both cognitive and behavior influences and benefits
from technology is that of social learning or the social cognitive theory. Learning
continually occurs through social interactions and influences from the community,
media and the Internet. People determine how these influences will affect them
based on their inner thoughts. Through social interactions learning will occur and
meaning will be constructed. There are numerous opportunities for people to
enhance their learning through social interactions online. Global networking and
creating/interacting with educational games as a group are a few resources to
enhance social learning. Social learning is ever increasing with the continual
advancements of technology and online communications.
References

9. Alansari, E. M. (2006). Implementation of cooperative learning in the center
for community service and continuing education at Kuwait
University. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 46(2), 265-282.
Brown, K. & Cole, M. (2000). Socially shared cognitions: System design and
the organization of collaborative research In D. H. Jonassen & S. H. Land
(Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 197-214).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. Annuals of child development. 6,
1-60.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual
Review of Psychology. 52, 1-26.
Bandura, A. (2009). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J.
Bryant & M. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects 3rd edition (pp. 94-124). New York:
Routledge.
Boeree, G. (1999). Social learning. Shippensburg, PA: Shippensburg
University. Retrieved Mar. 9, 2009, from
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/socpsy.html
Bowers-Campbell, J. (2008). Cyber "Pokes": Motivational antidote for
developmental college readers. Journal of College Reading and
Learning, 39(1), 74-87.
Griffin, E. Social learning theory of Albert Bandura. Chapter 31: A first look
at communication theory (pp. 367-377). McGraw-Hill.
Huitt, W. (2006). Social cognition. Educational Psychology Interactive.
Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved Mar. 13, 2009, from
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/soccog/soccog.html.

10. Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing,
thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Kop, R. & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or
vestige of the past? International Review of Reserarch in Open and Distance
Learning, 9(3), 1-13.
Matzen, N. J. & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change:
The role of professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 39(4), 417-430.
Scherba de Valenzuela, J. (2002). Sociocultural Theory. Albuquerque, NM:
University of New Mexico. Retrieved Mar. 13, 2009, from
http://www.unm.edu/%7Edevalenz/handouts/sociocult.html
Sherman, T. M. & Kurshan, B. L. (2005). Constructing learning: Using
technology to support teaching for understanding. Learning & Leading with
Technology, 32(5), 10-39.