Learning in Schools: Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Social Learning

When it comes to learning in school, it’s not just about memorizing facts or completing assignments. It’s about how we, as students, process and understand the information we’re given, how we apply it in different situations, and how our experiences in the classroom shape our learning journey. Throughout my educational journey, I’ve learned that there are various theories that explain how learning happens. Three of the main ones are behaviorism, cognitivism, and social learning theory. Each one offers a unique perspective on how we learn and why certain teaching methods work better than others. In this post, I’ll reflect on these theories and discuss how they impact learning in schools.

Behaviorism

Behaviorism, developed by John B. Watson (1913) and later expanded by B.F. Skinner (1953), is all about how outside factors shape our behavior. This theory suggests that learning happens through conditioning, where behaviors are either reinforced or punished, affecting whether we continue or avoid certain actions. There are two main types of conditioning: classical and operant.

Classical conditioning, as explained by McLeod (2024), is when we learn by associating a neutral stimulus with something that naturally induces a reaction. In a classroom, this might look like students associating certain subjects or activities with positive or negative feelings. For example, if a student feels embarrassed after giving a wrong answer in math, they might start to associate math with fear. This could make it harder for them to enjoy learning that subject, even if it’s something they were once interested in.

While this helps explain how we can form associations in learning, it doesn’t account for the fact that we all have free will. As humans, we can choose how we react to certain situations. This is one reason why I think behaviorism can’t fully explain human learning: we’re not simply products of conditioning. We can think critically and choose our responses based on our own experiences.

Operant conditioning, another part of behaviorism, involves learning from the consequences of our actions. If we’re rewarded for something, we’re more likely to do it again. If we’re punished, we might try to avoid it next time. For example, a teacher might offer extra credit for perfect attendance. Cherry (2024) explains, this kind of positive reinforcement encourages students to attend class regularly. While it can work in the short term, I’ve had experiences where I’ve questioned whether simply reinforcing good behavior really addresses the deeper reasons behind why we act the way we do. For instance, in therapy sessions my child had, positive reinforcement helped improve some behaviors, but it didn’t always address the emotions or reasons behind those behaviors. I sometimes wonder whether positive reinforcement truly helps, or if it just changes the behavior temporarily.

Cognitivism

Cognitivism, championed by theorists like Jean Piaget and later expanded upon by researchers such as George Miller (1956) and Seymour Papert (1970) takes a different approach. Instead of focusing on external behaviors, it looks at how we process and organize information in our minds. Learning happens when we make connections between what we already know and new information. It’s like building a mental framework where new knowledge fits into our existing understanding of the world.

One key part of cognitivism is the information processing model, which compares the brain to a computer. We take in information, store it in our memory, and retrieve it when needed. I think this approach makes a lot of sense, especially in subjects like science or history, where understanding concepts and recalling facts is important. It’s not just about memorization; it’s about processing and making sense of information. Cloke (2022) explained that strategies like spaced repetition and chunking information are helpful ways to organize and store new knowledge effectively.

But cognitivism isn’t perfect either. One challenge is that it assumes all students can process information in the same way. For example, if a student has a learning disability or a sensory impairment, they might struggle to process the information. I can see how this can be a limitation. If the learning strategies rely on sensory input (like visual or auditory learning), what happens to students who may not have access to these senses in the same way? This is something that needs more consideration in classrooms today.

Social Learning

Social learning theory, developed by Albert Bandura (1963) and later expanded by researchers such as Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger (1991), brings a social element into how we learn. According to this theory, we learn by observing others, imitating their behaviors, and understanding the consequences of those behaviors. We are influenced by people around us, whether they’re teachers, classmates, or even people we see in the media. This theory focuses on how our environment and the people around us shape our learning experiences.

In the classroom, social learning is everywhere. We learn from each other by observing our peers and teachers. For example, if we see a classmate praised for speaking up in class, we might be more motivated to do the same, hoping to receive similar feedback. Cherry (2024) explains that social learning involves attention, retention, and motivation, meaning we are more likely to mimic someone if we are paying attention, if we remember the behavior, and if we feel motivated to do so.

Social learning theory also has its downsides. Not all students interpret what they observe in the same way. If two students see the same behavior, one might view it as a good example to follow, while the other might not. People’s experiences, emotional responses, and motivations all influence how they learn from observation. For instance, I’ve noticed that some students might mimic a peer’s behavior because they’re trying to fit in, even if that behavior isn’t necessarily something positive. This shows that social learning is more complex than just copying what others do; it’s affected by our own feelings, beliefs, and experiences.

Combining the Theories for Effective Learning

Effective learning often involves a combination of all three. For example, a teacher might use behaviorist techniques like rewards to encourage participation while also adopting cognitive strategies like problem-solving and critical thinking. Social learning can play a role too, as students observe and learn from one another in group projects or discussions.

What I’ve learned through my experiences is that learning is not one-size-fits-all. Each student comes with their own background, strengths, and challenges. No single theory fully captures the complexity of how we learn. But by understanding how behaviorism, cognitivism, and social learning work together, teachers can create a more inclusive and effective learning environment that helps all students thrive. 

References

Cherry, K. (2024, July 15). How Social Learning Theory Works. Verywell Mind.

Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/social-learning-theory-2795074

Cloke, H. (2022, August 2). What is Information Processing Theory?. Growth Engineering Blog. Retrieved from https://www.growthengineering.co.uk/information-processing-theory/

McLeod, S. (2024, February 1). Classical Conditioning: How It Works with Examples.

Simply Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/classical-conditioning.html