What is Social Learning Theory?

Last Updated on 18/03/2025 by James Barron

Introduction

I’m trying to explain a tricky concept but Nyla and Mimi are whispering. They are both generally good students and will get the work done in the lesson, so I’ll let it slide for now and press on with my explanation. Oh, now Tom and Kaspar are talking. I’ll raise my voice a bit, I’ve only got another minute of explanation left. Now Niamh has joined in the girls’ chatter, and was that a laugh from Chandan? Here we go, Sam has thrown a pencil sharpener at Kyle and now they are trading insults. Great, now I’ll have to stop teaching and wrestle back control of the room.

We’ve all been there. In the 2000s and 2010s, the phrase “low-level disruption” was a popular way to describe children whispering, fidgeting, clicking pens and staring out or the window. Too often, however, so-called low-level disruption escalates: two pupils whispering become four chatting, then six shouting, the pupils that want to listen cannot hear and the teacher must intervene. Why does this happen? According to former UK “behaviour czar” Tom Bennett (Bennett, 2020) and school principal Sam Strickland, author of “The Behaviour Manual” (Strickland, 2022): “we promote what we permit”. If we give pupils the message that whispering is permitted, we promote the disruptive behaviour and others feel justified in joining in.  

The Canadian social scientist, Albert Bandura (1925-2021), could have predicted this outcome. Known for his Social Learning Theory (SLT), Bandura showed that children learn through observation, imitation and modelling (Bandura, 1977). SLT explains why observing pupils whispering without consequence encourages others to imitate the behaviour, just as babies and toddlers learn through watching, copying and responding to feedback. Toddlers in nursery learn that snatching a toy from another child results in a stay on the “naughty step”, but importantly, other toddlers witnessing the behaviour being reprimanded also change their behaviour.

The infamous Bobo Doll experiments

Bandura developed his Social Learning Theory through a now infamous series of studies known as the “Bobo doll experiments” (Bandura, 2013). From 1961 to 1963, Bandura studied the reactions of children aged between three and six to the stimulus of adult models playing with a Bobo Doll – a metre-high roly-poly doll, sometimes called a wobble doll – in either an aggressive or gentle manner. Children who witnessed the adult models kicking or hitting the doll would themselves act aggressively to a similar doll. In a later variation of the experiment, children who saw an adult model rewarded for aggressive behaviour towards the doll were more likely to imitate that behaviour, while those who saw the model punished for such aggression were less likely to do so. Bandura concluded not only that children learn by observation and modelling but also respond to vicarious reinforcement – seeing others praised or punished for their choices.

Social Learning Theory

Bandura’s Social Learning Theory provided an important critique of Pavlov and Skinner ‘s behaviourism, and some support for Vygostky’s sociocultural theory. Before Bandura, Ivan Pavlov’s (1849-1936) classical conditioning and B.F. Skinner’s (1904-1990) operant conditioning had attempted to explain learned response to stimuli (Skinner, 1974). In the classroom we use classical conditioning when we develop a signal such as a bell or a “3-2-1” countdown that indicates silence is expected, while operant conditioning is in play when we give reward stickers for good work or a learning app like Duolingo plays a cheerful sound.

Meanwhile, Lev Vygostky’s (1896-1934) Sociocultural Theory of Cognitive Development – like SLT – emphasises the role of social interaction, arguing that children progress through their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) through interactions with more knowledgeable others such as parents, teachers, or peers (Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky’s scaffolding is similar to Bandura’s modelling: teachers or peers provide temporary support until learners achieve independence. Bandura extends Vygotsky, however, by suggesting that development happens not only through participation but through observational learning.

Observational Learning

For Bandura, observational learning requires four key processes:

• Attention – the learner must focus on the model’s behaviour. We can increase attention on favourable behaviours through storytelling, multimedia presentations, and interactive demonstrations, by reducing distractions and narrating what we wish the learner to observe.
• Retention – the behaviour must be stored in memory. We might recount the important events, repeating what we want learners to remember to improve retention
• Reproduction – the learner must be capable of replicating the behaviour. We can provide immediate opportunities to replicate the desired behaviour, remembering Vygostky’s ZPD, allowing learners to move successfully from what they can do independently to what they can do with guidance.
• Motivation – there must be a reason (or reinforcement) for imitating the behaviour. Here we may use rewards, praise and recognition, and make the learning relevant. A growth mindset (Dweck, 2006) is relevant here.

Strengths of SLT

Bandura’s later revisions of SLT incorporated reciprocal determinism, that is, the world and a person’s behaviour cause each other, moving the debate forward from Skinnerian/Pavlovian behaviourism which stated simply that environment caused behaviour. This enabled educators to move away from the problematic idea of punishment and reward as the only motivators, towards the practices of modelling, narration and praise.

Social learning theory has been called a bridge between behaviourist and cognitive learning theories because it encompasses attention, memory, and motivation. Cognitive learning theories include the work of Dewey (1938) and Piaget (1952), and provide the foundation for Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory (CLT): the idea that working memory imposes a limit on learning efficiency (Sweller, 1998). In this way, SLT explains and evidences a raft of helpful techniques that can be found in popular teaching books:

• “Show call” in the book “Teach Like a Champion” by Doug Lemov – displaying exemplary student work to encourage peer learning – is an example of Bandura’s observational learning in action. (Lemov, 2014)
• “Think-Pair-Share” in Lemov and elsewhere encourages social interaction, peer collaboration and dialogue, fostering learning through shared experiences – a principle vital to both Bandura and Vygotsky (Lemov, ibid).
• “I do, we do, you do” from John Hattie, explained in this excellent article on Structured Learning (Main, 2023), also known as “guided practice ” in Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction (Rosenshine, 2012), draws on both observational learning from Bandura and reducing extraneous load from Sweller.

Bandura’s SLT also introduced the notion of self-efficacy, the notion that succeeding and being praised, or observing a peer achieving success can boost belief in our own abilities. Self-efficacy can influence a growth mindset and vice versa, and both concepts are now popular pedagogical concepts.

Weaknesses of SLT

SLT does not recognise biological influences such as learning difficulties – we mentioned earlier the importance of cognitive load – or neurodivergences such as autism or ADHD which may affect attention during observational learning or limit the effectiveness of motivation techniques.

Also, while SLT explains the imitation of observed behaviours, it can’t explain how entirely new behaviours emerge without a model, such as a pupil composing new melodies on a musical instrument or writing new programs using coding techniques not yet taught. This is where cognitive processes like creativity, problem-solving, and insight come into play – areas that SLT may not fully explain.

And it goes without saying that many of the studies supporting SLT, including Bandura’s Bobo Doll experiments, raise ethical concerns about exposing children to aggression, meaning that results have been historically difficult to replicate under modern ethical guidelines!

Is Social Learning Theory Reductionist?

The above weaknesses are a result of the somewhat reductionist nature of the theory: focusing as it does on environmental factors like observed behaviours and reinforcement, while neglecting deeper influences like genetics or unconscious processes.

Consider a pupil who regularly disrupts the class by shouting out answers without raising his hand. According to SLT, this behaviour could be explained by observing a peer who gains attention for similar actions. However, the pupil may have ADHD, affecting impulse control, might struggle with anxiety and seek validation through attention, or may process information quickly and struggle to wait, causing impulsivity. Relying solely on SLT might cause us to miss the bigger picture.

That said, SLT acknowledges that thought processes influence learning, and Bandura’s addition in the 1980s of reciprocal determinism – where personal, environmental, and behavioural factors interact dynamically rather than unidirectionally – makes the theory less reductionist and more holistic than pure behaviourism.

What does SLT mean for the classroom teacher?

In summary, Social Learning Theory recommends these behaviours:

• Model Positive Behaviours – Demonstrate the attitudes, language, and problem-solving skills you want students to adopt.
• Encourage Peer Learning – Use group activities and peer mentoring to foster observational learning.
• Use Digital Media Wisely – Incorporate videos, simulations, and virtual interactions to enhance observational learning opportunities.
• Provide Feedback and Reinforcement – Reinforce positive behaviours immediately to strengthen learning outcomes.
• Promote Critical Thinking – Encourage students to evaluate the behaviours they observe rather than blindly imitating them.

I wish I had known about SLT earlier in my career, and the folly of ignoring “low-level disruption”. I now live by the maxim “what you permit you promote”, conspicuously praising good choices, ensuring observational learning of all the desirable behaviours.

Epilogue

I’m trying to explain a tricky concept but Nyla and Mimi are whispering. I continue talking to the class but walk slowly towards them and near-silently tap the desk. They hush. Later, Tom and Kaspar begin talking over me. I don’t raise my voice, as that would signal that talking over me is OK. Instead, I stop talking and wait, looking in the boys’ direction. It only takes a second. They stop. Using Lemov’s “Least Invasive Correction,” I have maintained control without confrontation. I know this approach draws on Bandura’s Social Learning Theory: I model calm, respectful behaviour through subtle signals, and I reinforce expectations through quiet, confident presence. By applying SLT  in this way, I have created a classroom culture where positive behaviours are expected, internalised and imitated. My classroom is now a focused, supportive environment for learning.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (2013). Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment. Retrieved from YouTube: https://youtu.be/dmBqwWlJg8U

Bennett, T. (2020). Running the Room. London: John Catt Educational Ltd.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan.

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House.

Lemov, D. (2014). Teach like a champion 2.0. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Main, P. (2023, Novermber 1). I Do We Do You Do. Retrieved from Structural learning: https://www.structural-learning.com/post/i-do-we-do-you-do

Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press.

Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of Instruction: Research-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know. American Educator 36(1), 12-39.

Skinner, B. (1974). About Behaviorism. New York: Knopf.

Strickland, S. (2022). The Behaviour Manual. London: John Catt Educational Ltd.

Sweller, J. (1998). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12, 257-285.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.