Introduction This study will compare and contrast the behavioral theory of classical conditioning and the cognitive theory of social cognitive. Both are theories that have been well investigated to produce an outcome of effective learning. This study will examine the conditions of learning from both theories and ague their differences as well as their similarities. Evidence will be present on both sides to support this thesis claims on conditions, similarities and differences. This study will focus on the two theories assumptions, measurements of learning, and its implications to the field.
Classical Conditioning and Social Cognitive Classical Conditioning was first discovered by Ivan Pavlov in 1903. This theory is also known as the respondent conditioning (Olson and Fazio, 2001). Pavlov became well known for this theory through his series of dog experiments that tested the connection the dogs made with the ringing of the bell and its relation with food (Ormrod, 2012). This is explained through stimuli and responses. Social Cognitive came from the root of Edwin B. Holt and Harold Chapman Brown’s 1931 book “Animal Drive and The Learning Process”(Lent, Steven, Gail, 1994).
Although, “American psychologists Albert Bandura (1986, 1998, 2000) and Walter Mischel (1973, 1995) are the main architects of social cognitive theory’s contemporary version, which Mischel (1973) initially labelled cognitive social learning theory” (Boyd, Bee, and Johnson, 2006). We learn from this theory how learning through observation and imitation by interacting with the environment affects students leaning and behaviors (2012). Comparison. Classical Conditioning and Social Cognitive are similar in ways that both theories offer a change within its immediate environment on how one may learn.
For example, through social cognitive, teachers that treat students with politeness and value their opinion will see that students will start to associate and adapt more with the classroom environment based on what the teacher is modeling and the student is observing. The students will cognitively start to see their teacher’s caring behaviors. In addition, through classical conditioning, the students may learn to respond to the school environment positively or negatively.
It is believed that the cognitive process is a significant attribute of students’ environmental behavior connections (Bandura and Mischel, 1965). According to Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, and Rhoades (2001), teachers can increase students’ moods of aptitude by modeling the efforts and persistence they want to see, and also by reinforcing candid achievements. This process may also be done reversibly. Contrast. Classical Conditioning and Social Cognitive are different based on their assumptions, measurements of learning, and implications.
Although these theories may have some similar tendencies, they are quite different in many ways: starting with one theory having a learned condition through practice (classical conditioning), and the other theory having a learned conditioning through modeling and observation (social cognitive). Because classical conditioning only happens when a previous sustainable stimulus becomes associated with a natural unconditioned stimulus, it will yield a response parallel to a reflexive response (Baccus, Baldwin, & Packer, 2004).
Classical conditionings help educators understand sensitive responses when students are dealing with comfortability within a school environment and test anxiety through reinforcement and punishment and trial and error. Whereas, social cognitive theory does not support leaning through reinforcement and punishment and trial and error, but it rather affect students’ motivation by modeling positive behavior. Modeling and observation is the essential of social cognitive theory (Russell, 2003).
Modeling and observation can be directed from live models, it can also be symbolic from the use of books, movies, media, and television, or it can be synthesized by combining the acts of different models (Pintrich, and Schunk, 2002). When students learn from models and observations, they observe the processes of paying attention, retaining, imitating behaviors that are being modeled, and motivation that will hopefully foster positive behaviors in the future. Modeling and observation have the ability to generate different behaviors, enable current behaviors, alter behaviors, and stir-up emotions.
Argument Statement. Therefore, it can be argued that because classical condition theory is presented as a change of behaviors through stimuli and re response; and social cognitive redirects behaviors through modeling and observation, students should be able to have a cognition of self-regulating their own goals, monitoring their own progress, and assessing their own success of those goals. According to Sharby (2005), the cognition of the new behaviors or the elimination of the old behaviors should happen in the environment in which the students will need it the most.
The models of behavior alteration have been developed to guide strategies to encourage and motivate positive behaviors and help with effective adaptation to learning (2005) so that students can be successful in self-regulating their own learning goals and outcomes. Nonetheless, by combining these two theories, it would work well towards the educators and students’ benefit. This would be merely similar to John Watson using Pavlov classical conditioning theory in the 1920 to make a baby fearful of rats.
This theory had not been tested on humans before to see if the same theory would work on human beings as it did with dogs. Although the baby experiment was an unethical practice and he was not combining two theories, the point is, Watson did not know the classical theory would work so well on human subjects until he tried. The same goes for the educators and students, they too can also use those same theories to learn through classical conditioning, as well as, use their environment to cognitively learn by modeling and observing through social conditioning.
According to Schachtman, and Reilly (2011), research suggest that instructing fear to learn (classical condition) draws on the same neural cortex patterns as it does in modeling fear to learn (social cognitive). Cooperatively, these two theories work well together to produce the learning outcomes teachers expect. Summary To reiterate this theory, classical conditioning, uses learning to partner with an unconditioned stimulus. This new stimulus generates a specific response with a conditioned stimulus.
Therefore, this will help to bring about the same response from the subject. In other words: learning by association. Nevertheless, social cognitive theory lengthens and shift behaviors. This theory focuses on the effects that modeling and observing others’ behaviors. This theory adds that the environment, behaviors, and students’ cognition and expectations are all connected. Social cognitive theory proposes that trial and error, reinforcement and punishment do not bring about effective learning outcomes.
Rather, modeling and observing other behaviors will cognitive foster learning. Students will eventually form self-regulated concepts and goals that either may display positive or negative behaviors based what they see in their environment. Based on this comparison and contrast summary and the research information presented, classical condition (behavioral) and social cognitive theory (cognitive) work to change, improve and enhance learning and behaviors.
Studies have reflected that the evidence within these two theories will support to foster the goals of learning. It has been seen through research and experiments the capability of these two theories. Educators benefit as well as their students. Making this immediate shift and impact in their environment could make all the difference in their learning outcomes. Separately, classical condition and social cognitive theory make a small significate impact on the learning process, but together these two theories could impact learning significantly.
