A further important concept in social learning theory is that of reciprocal determinism which is also referred to as triadic determinism. This sug- gests the reciprocal relationship between environment, the individual and behaviour. Unlike the other components of social learning theory, recip- rocal determinism provides a higher-level organising principle which links together observational learning and self-efficacy. As such, reciprocal de- terminism does not lend itself to direct empirical testing but is indirectly supported with evidence from the investigation of observational learning and self-efficacy.
What is important about reciprocal triadic determinism is that it is the conceptual basis, in social learning theory, for linking the psychological with the social setting and cultural context. Observational learning has greater emphasis on individual learning and psychological processes, even though there are implicit and necessary social processes. Reciprocal determinism conceptualises the relationship between the cognitive and social and places observational learning within an organising scheme.
The most effective way of explaining reciprocal triadic determinism is through a description of the way it was developed by Bandura (1977). He began with a fundamental symbolic representation of behaviourism, B = f (E). Behaviour, B, is a function of environmental stimuli, E. This is a behaviourist view of the formation of behaviour: our behaviours are a response to external stimuli. From the direct response to stimuli there grew interest in individual thought and cognition in the formation of be- haviour. This is later developed to give B = f (P, E). So, behaviour, B, is actually some function of the individual, P, and the environment, E, —the person is not a passive responder to stimuli, the individual contributes to their behaviour with their own ideas and motivations. Bandura then con- sidered there to be reciprocal interaction between the individual, P, and the environment B = f (P ←→ E). Now the individual is represented as
having an influence on their environment and vice versa. Behaviour is a function of this reciprocal interaction. Bandura’s final move was to make this relationship triadic and reciprocal (see Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2: Reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1977, p. 10) B signifies behaviour, P the person and E the environment.
Bandura summarised it thus:
Personal and environmental factors do not function as inde- pendent determinants, rather they determine each other. Nor can ‘persons’ be considered causes independent of their behav- ior. It is largely through their actions that people produce the environmental conditions that affect their behavior in a recipro- cal fashion. The experiences generated by behavior also partly determine what a person becomes and can do which in turn, affects subsequent behavior (Bandura, 1977, p. 9).
In such a way then, the social context influences the individual’s be- haviour and thinking. How we think and behave is influenced by the social, environmental and contextual setting and can be seen as the individual re- sponding to prevailing norms and modes of behaviour. At the same time thinking and behaviour influence the social setting and environmental con- text (and indeed permits us agency). This aspect of social learning theory further contributed to my decision to use this theory. As I highlighted earlier, it was important that professional learning theory account for both individual cognition as well as the social effects. Reciprocal determinism provides a theoretical basis for this observation.
Like with observational learning, prominent scholars in professional de- velopment research have also proposed that research should consider indi- vidual thinking as well as the social influence on learning, although they made no reference to social learning theory. Most notably, Borko (2004), ar- gued for a situative perspective in professional development research. This
is how she characterized a situative perspectives in relation to classroom research.
Research in a situative tradition allows for multiple concep- tual perspectives and multiple units of analysis. These multi- ple perspectives provide powerful tools for understanding stu- dent learning in classroom settings. Using psychological con- ceptual frameworks and the individual as the unit of analy- sis, researchers can study students’ activities as individuals and their evolving knowledge and understanding. They can use so- ciocultural conceptual frameworks and the group as the unit of analysis to examine the social context of the classroom and patterns of participation in learning activities. Both perspec- tives are essential to understanding how students learn through participation in classroom practices (Borko, 2004, p. 4).
This can be applied to professional learning where we consider teach- ers as individuals from a psychological perspective and as participants in groups in departments and schools. Within the situative perspective, re- ciprocal or triadic determinism can be seen.
There is further evidence of a reciprocal deterministic perspective abroad in professional development research. Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002) pro- posed an Interconnected Model of PD, which has much in common with the situative approach suggested by Borko (2004). The Interconnected Model linked a personal domain of knowledge and beliefs with the external domain of information and stimuli and the domain of practice which is concerned with professional experimentation (Clarke and Hollingsworth, 2002, pp. 950–951).
The literature review conducted as part of the RECME study (Joubert and Sutherland, 2008) also identified the situated nature of professional learning. It drew on broader professional learning literature and points to the complex interplay between informal on-the-job learning and formal learning as part of a PD programme (Eraut, 1994).
The introduction of reciprocal or triadic determinism is an important move in this research. It marks a significant development in thinking about learning and in particular the professional learning of mathematics teachers. Mathematics education research is influenced by two groups of theory (for an analysis of this, see Lerman, 2002, for example).
The first, constructivism, is influenced by the thinking of Vyg¨otsky and Piaget. While there is a great deal of variance in constructivist learning the- ory, similar principles are shared: that thinking and cognition is influenced by the social context, situation or environment and learning processes are principally psychological (Schunk, 2013, p. 232). Cognition then influences behaviour. The influence of the constructivist perspective can be seen in the discussion of teacher beliefs. Teachers construct beliefs about teach- ing and learning mathematics through contextual experience—to change
beliefs requires a reconstruction through challenging existing beliefs com- bined with experience. Similar principles underlie professional learning associated with teacher knowledge.
A second theoretical position has been given increasing attention. This gives greater emphasis to the influence of social context on behaviour through participation in discourse communities and through peripheral par- ticipation (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998).
Social learning theory, in terms of reciprocal determinism, brings these two strands together. Drawing attention to this and utilising an integrating theory is, I believe, an important part of the contribution of this research. In sum, reciprocal determinism proposes that individual thinking, be- haviour and the social setting are reciprocally related. As such, in this research I consider contexts, social settings, cultural settings and individ- ual experiences within these contexts, as well as individual cognitive pro- cesses as teachers learn through observation and in relation to their existing knowledge and perceptions.
In the next section, I consider the final component of social learning theory, self-efficacy.