|
Article Excerpt
When designing curriculum and instructional services for students with exceptional academic ability it is important to have a strong theoretical base for understanding how learning occurs. Social cognitive theory emphasizes a dynamic interactive process among environmental, behavioral, and personal factors to explain human functioning. This view of human interactions and functioning evolved in the work of Bandura (1986) and came to be called a system of triadic reciprocal causation. This theory ascribes a central role to cognitive processes in which the individual can observe others and the environment, reflect on that in combination with his own thoughts and behaviors, and alter his own self-regulatory functions accordingly. Because students considered to be academically gifted are usually thought to have more well-developed cognitive skills and capacity in relation to their same-age peers, a learning model that emphasizes the central role of cognition seems natural when investigating learning interventions for that population. In the social cognitive model there are the elements of human agency and perceived self-efficacy that contribute to cognitive development and performance.
Although any of several definitions of giftedness might be used, one definition of academic giftedness is outlined briefly here and social cognitive theory is extended and elaborated upon so that we might consider the relevance of various components to gifted education. Social cognitive theory applies to learning in general, not just the learning for those of advanced academic potential. However, educational opportunities available to gifted children may not be designed with sufficient challenge to foster the development of learning strategies needed for advanced learners. The purpose of relating the theory to gifted education is to examine the implications of the theoretical extensions for planning curriculum and instructional experiences. Some of the more commonly found gifted education service models are considered in terms of how well they align with and address what is known to be integral to student learning according to social cognitive theory.
CONCEPTION OF GIFTEDNESS
Who are gifted learners? There is no single agreed-upon definition of giftedness; in fact, a recent book edited by Sternberg and Davidson (2005) contains 24 chapters in which noted scholars in the field of gifted education discuss different conceptions, theories, or aspects of giftedness. However, while there is no consensus on an exact definition of giftedness or identification criteria or methods, there is wide agreement that highly able learners need appropriately challenging and interesting learning experiences in order to develop their potential. The problem is that school curricula are geared for the average learner of a particular age. Able students need to have access to learning that is faster paced and more complex than what is usually available in a classroom of mixed abilities. The concern then becomes whether or not the learning experiences and context provided are consistently modified to fully develop the gifted student.
One of the definitions that is consistent with social cognitive theory is Cross and Coleman's (2005) school-based conception of giftedness. This conception portrays giftedness as advanced development and, in order to sustain the description of having advanced development, a student will have to make use of her high abilities to continue to develop, so as to maintain the same advanced position in relation to others. In this view, a student might not retain the gifted designation unless performance continues at an advanced level. Higher performance requires more advanced educational opportunities and to do well in an advanced curriculum a student will likely have to acquire the self-regulatory behaviors that will foster continued mastery. This view of giftedness includes advanced ability, effort, and new skill acquisition.
OVERVIEW OF BANDURA'S SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY
Bandura (1986) argued that what people think and feel about themselves affects their own behavior. Because introspection is a frequently listed characteristic of the gifted, a model that includes the influence of self-reflection is appealing when considering applications to gifted education. Bandura viewed individuals as agents involved in their own development; human learning and functioning then is more proactive than reactive and allows us to consider modifications to the students' social environment in order to influence processes and competencies that improve performance and well-being. Personal, contextual, and self-processes would all be interacting to influence motivation and therefore influence behavior (performance).
Using this model, motivation would be seen as depending upon one's perception of self-efficacy and agency. Others in the environment would also be influential through observation of their behavior, interactions with them, and the reflection about these experiences. Schools and educators could use this social cognitive model as a framework to plan programs that enhance student self-beliefs (personal factors), academic skills and self-regulation (behaviors), and social context (environment) to facilitate positive student engagement and development. Schools would structure learning experiences to emphasize student self-direction and improve self-efficacy. Schools would offer opportunities to make decisions, learn strategies, and solve problems independently. Students would learn to process information effectively, be reflective about their own experiences, and gain confidence in their ability to direct their own learning and overcome challenges as they arise. The issue at hand is whether or not a curriculum designed for average learners can provide the opportunity to emulate appropriate models for learning new strategies for the gifted student, and indeed, whether new strategies or learning will be required to complete assigned tasks.
Self-Efficacy
Individuals exercise agency, or control, over their lives through their own perceptions of self-efficacy. Bandura (1997) described self-efficacy as the "beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of actions required to manage prospective situations" (p. 2). In other words, self-efficacy is one's confidence in one's own competence to perform a given task. This is an important personal factor in Bandura's triad of functioning. Self-efficacy can vary according to the task; some people will have a broad sense of self-efficacy that would encompass many tasks across domains or levels of task difficulty, whereas others may have more limited efficacy dependent upon the particulars of the task at hand (Bandura, 1997). For example, a student could be confident that she could learn new terminology in a science class but lack confidence for learning new terms in social studies. An individual could believe that certain behavior (e.g., studying) would produce a certain outcome (e.g., a high grade) but not believe that she could perform that required behavior. This expectation of self-efficacy would influence the behaviors necessary (also called self-regulatory behaviors) to do the required steps to meet goals and perform in the desired way. Unless one believes that effort will result in successful outcomes, one will have little incentive to persevere (Mueller & Dweck, 1998).
Self-efficacy beliefs are the foundation of what people think, how they feel, how they make choices, and how they motivate themselves. Those with high self-efficacy are more likely to set high goals for themselves, develop strong cognitive strategies for acquiring skills and knowledge, seek academic challenge, and persist in the face of difficulty (Bandura, 1997; Bouffard & Couture, 2003; Pajares, 1997; Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper, 2004). Motivation is stronger if one believes one can be successful. There is greater resilience if a person has confidence in her coping strategies. Positive self-efficacy is built upon a strong base of knowledge and skills. These self-regulatory skills are teachable and can lead to increases in student motivation and achievement (Pintrich & Maehr, 2002; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998). It is also important that self-efficacy is not the only component that affects achievement and overconfidence can be detrimental to effort (Schunk, 2003). A student who is certain that a particular learning task is one that is easily mastered may not...
|
