Teaching methods tend to be highly structured and teacher directed. Banduras theory suggests an alternative form of classroom practice with respect to fostering student agentic self-regulation. Under typical developmental conditions young children acquire rudimentary agentic capability through everyday participation in sociocultural events and contexts. The development of agentic self-regulation by students can be developed through active engagement within richly furnished curricular settings with the support of teachers who encourage student risk taking and active, self-directed experimentation with alternative possibilities. The teacher becomes a facilitator of learning instead of a dispenser of knowledge.
Social Cognitive Theory and Choice Theory: A Compatibility Analysis, by Yvonne Malone
This paper is an examination of Banduras Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), and William Glassers Choice Theory (CT). The concurrent theme of both these theories is that individuals are active participants in their own development. SCT contends that learning is accomplished by vicarious reinforcement, symbolic activities, forethought activity, self-regulatory capabilities, self-reflecting capabilities, self-efficacy and self-reinforcement. Both theories subscribe to the premise of individual responsibility, but there are major differences in terminology. SCT believes in rewarding oneself, while CT followers would argue that rewarding oneself for “staying on the straight and narrow” is not the same as getting what you want and feeling good about getting what you want.
Banduras and Glassers view on punishment differ greatly. Banduras research demonstrated the adaptation of violent behavior by children after witnessing models strike a doll, and the diminishment of this violent behavior after children witnesses models punished for violent behavior. Glasser views both punishment and rewards are ineffective and unethical because they are a type of coercion used to manipulate people into desired behavior.
The views of SCT and CT are often diametrically opposed, but there are a few contributions that SCT can make to CT. First, SCT breaks down and lists specific performance that takes place at various stages of planning and executing behaviors. The language of SCT helps individuals give focus and direction to their goals. Terms used in SCT can be used to clarify CT principals such as quality world pictures (visualization), planning change in behavior (forethought activity) and evaluating whether current behavior is getting what you want (self-reflection). Finally, SCT can contribute to CT in the way it defines some of the concepts Glasser uses, but without specifics, for example future time perspective, self-efficacy and self-evaluation.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian journal of social psyshology,2(1), Retrieved July 11, 2010, from Academic Search Premier database http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&hid=109&sid=c8c83cd3-a0b1=49e0=8871-dffd0904343fd%40sessionmgr104
Malone, Y. (2002). Social cognative therory and choice theory: A compatablity analysis. International journal ofreality theropy.Vol. XXII, No. 1, 10-15. Retrieved July 11, 2010, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=10&hid=1112&sid=78cbb354-63f2=4afl-bd6b-0bad71c31dd6%40sessionmgr110
Martin, J. (2004). Self-regulated learning, social cognative theroy, and agency. Educational psycholoigst, 39(2), 135-145. Lawrence Erilbaum Associates, Inc. Retrieved July 11, 2010, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&hid=106&sid=429b1e1d-4fa8-46f1-b702-7037d2b25bba%40sessionmgr111.