Albert Bandura: A Short Biography

Albert Bandura was born on December 4, 1925, in Mundare, Alberta, Canada. He was the

youngest and only son, of six children of immigrant parents from Eastern Europe

(Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003). His primary and secondary education took place at the one

and only school in Mundare and as a result of this meagre academic environment, he soon

discovered that learning is largely a social and self-directed endeavour. Following secondary

school, he attended the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, where he initially

studied psychology as a ‘filler course’, but later became enamoured with the subject. Bandura

received his B.A. degree in psychology in 1949, excelling in the subject and winning the

Bolocan Award in the process. Following his undergraduate degree, he moved to the United

States for his graduate studies at the University of Iowa, where, he received his M.A. degree

in 1951 and his Ph.D. in clinical psychology in 1952. Following a postdoctoral internship at

the Wichita Guidance Center, he began his teaching career in the Department of Psychology

at Stanford University in 1953 (Bandura 2014; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003) where he

remains to this day in his current position as the David Starr Jordan Professor Emeritus of

Social Science in Psychology.

Albert Bandura is one of the most well-known and widely cited scholars in both psychology

and education (Gordon et al., 1984; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003). He was elected president

of American Psychological Society (APA) in 1974, and in 1998, was honoured with the E. L.

Thorndike Award from the APA for his research influence on educational psychology;

research that has contributed significantly to knowledge, theory, and practice in the field. In

2006, he was honoured by the APA with a Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Lifetime

Contribution to Psychological Science.

Dr. Bandura is widely published and highly recognized for his work in social learning theory,

social cognitive theory and self-efficacy. Although it is difficult to pinpoint a single

accomplishment that stands above all others, his 1961 Bobo Doll experiment certainly ranks

near the top of the list. At that time behaviourist theories of learning were prominent,

resulting in the belief that learning was a result of reinforcement. In the Bobo Doll

experiment, Bandura presented children with social models of violent behaviour or non-

violent behaviour towards an inflatable Bobo doll. The children who viewed the violent

behaviour were in turn violent towards the doll; the control group was rarely violent towards

the doll. This experiment demonstrated that observation and social modelling is a very

effective way of learning, and moved psychological thinking away from previously limited

conceptions in which learning required overt actions. Thus, as incredible as it may sound, it

seems that an inflatable plastic Bobo doll helped stimulate an entire theoretical movement

and, in the process, effectively launched the academic career of one of the most influential

psychologists of the 20th century.

Albert Bandura: Social Learning Theory Key Concepts

Reciprocal Determinism

The core theoretical assumptions of social learning are explained in Albert Bandura’s book

Social Learning Theory (SLT, 1977). A key concept of SLT is reciprocal determinism,

which dismisses the behaviourist standpoint of behaviour being controlled by the

environment and the humanist and existential viewpoints of people as free agents (Wulfert,

2005). Reciprocal determinism recognizes that external determinants of behaviour, such as

rewards or punishments and internal determinants, such as thoughts and beliefs, form an

interlinking system that influences behaviour and other elements of the system. Therefore,

reciprocal determinism indicates that the examination of the interaction between an

individual’s cognitive processes, behaviour and environment provides the most effective

approach to explaining human learning and behaviour (Wulfert, 2005). Within this system

individuals are not free agents or do not react passively to external pressures; they have some

degree of control, through self-regulatory processes, over their own actions. People can

affect their own behaviour, for example, through goal setting, generating cognitive strategies,

and evaluating goal attainment. According to the model, initially these self-regulatory

processes are learned through external rewards and punishments; however, despite their

external origin once internalized, they play a part in determining behaviour.

Learning through Modelling

Reciprocal determinism underpins the concept of observational learning or learning through

modelling, which is a key element of SLT understanding of human behaviour. Prior to the

development of SLT, the dominant theoretical assumptions in classical and operant learning

theories was that social learning was the consequence of trial and error (Wulfert, 2005).

Through these approaches it was theorized that an individual could only learn by performing
responses that were followed by reinforcement or punishment. In comparison, Bandura

highlighted that social behaviour is not attained as the result of trial and error but through

symbolic modelling. People, therefore, learn from both their own experiences and also

through watching others. Observing others form ideas of how to perform new behaviours,

and this information guides future actions. A response, however, is not required for an

individual to have learned and this is why symbolic modelling is considered to be learning

without trial. This approach to learning is regarded as highly efficient in transmitting

information when compared to trial and error learning as it bypasses the need of repetition

and reinforcement to gradually shape the behaviour of individuals. With observational

learning simultaneous learning of complex behaviours can be taught to many individuals

through a single model. Individuals acquire new behaviours through four component

processes of observational learning: Attention, Retention, Production, Motivation (Bandura,

1977).

Processes of observational learning

Attentional Processes

Individuals cannot learn through observation alone if they do not attend to, or recognize

accurately the key features of the modelled behaviour (Bandura, 1977). Attentional processes,

therefore, are essential component functions of learning by example. Through this process

individuals decide what elements of the modelled behaviour to observe and what is gained

from these experiences.

According to Bandura one of the main factors that determine observational experiences are

associational preferences. This commonly emerges within groups of social acquaintances

where an individual’s learning will be heavily influenced by repeated exposure to regular

modelled behaviours. For example, opportunities for students to observer models’ of

delinquent behaviour are more likely to occur in schools where there is a high occurrence of

exclusions and suspensions when compared to schools where there are none.

Another key factor within these social groups is that certain individuals will command greater

attention than other members. The effectiveness of the behaviours used by these individuals

will have a significant impact on whether their behaviour will be closely observed and

modelled or ignored. Interpersonal attraction is an important attentional element in this

instance as models with desired behavioural qualities will be identified and those without

discounted. An individuals’ capability to process information will also influence the degree

and level of benefit to be gained from observational learning. Past experiences and situational

needs will shape what is gained from observations and the interpretation of what is seen and

heard.

In contemporary society modelled behaviour has greatly expanded from being solely a social

group activity. As Bandura highlighted, one of the most effective methods of capturing the

attention of people of all ages for extended periods is symbolic modelling through the mass

media. Television and the Internet provide children and adults with an abundance of models

where a variety of behaviours can be observed and learnt. This type of modelling is

intrinsically rewarding and can capture the attention of all ages for a prolonged period of

time.

Retention Processes

Although individuals may observe a model’s behaviour they need to recall these actions to be

influenced by them. The second key component of observational learning is the long term
retention of activities that have been modelled on one occasion or another (Bandura, 1977). If

an individual is to reproduce a model’s behaviour at a later date without the presence of the

latter, these patterns need to be embodied in symbolic form through the imaginal and verbal

representational systems.

Within the imaginal system, images of modelled performances can be accessed following

repeated exposure to the modelling stimuli. Consequently, when physical activity has been

repeatedly observed, for example, a serve in tennis, the associated image can usually be

produced by that person. According to Bandura, visual imagery plays a crucial role in

observational learning especially during early developmental periods where individuals lack

appropriate verbal skills or when verbal coding is problematic.

Observational learning and retention is further supported by verbal coding a significant

amount of information in an easily stored structure. Once modelled activities are changed into

images with accompanying verbal symbols these act as memory codes to reproduce the

desired behaviour. In rugby union, for example, a complex team attacking pattern of

behaviours can be symbolized by using a specific code, for example ‘green’. It is the

individuals’ who code modelled activities, as opposed to simply observing, who retain this

learned behaviour more effectively. Alongside symbolic coding, mentally rehearsing or

performing modelled patterns of behaviour are also key aspects in the process of retaining

knowledge efficiently. Organizing and rehearsing modelled behaviour mentally and then

practicing these actions result in high levels of observational learning.

Reproduction Processes

The third element of modelling consists of transforming symbolic representations into motor

behaviours (Bandura, 1977). Bandura highlights that these motor reproductions can be split

into four parts: cognitive organisation of responses, their instalment, monitoring, and

refinement based on informative feedback given.

Starting at the cognitive level even if the modelled activities are acquired and retained

individuals can only reproduce these behaviours if they have the ability to execute the

required skills. Therefore, if these elements are missing the complex skill has to be developed

first through modelling and practice. Even when the person has the ability to produce the

skill, physical limitations may restrict the ability to reproduce the required behaviour. A

further barrier to motor reproduction is the inability of individuals to completely observe the

actions they take, for example when executing the butterfly stroke in swimming. In these

situations it is difficult to personally identify and correct complex behaviour and individuals

must rely on verbal feedback from observers to refine their skills. According to Bandura, in

most learning situations people usually produce an uneven likeness to the newly developed

skills through modelling, and it is only through observation and feedback from performance

that refinement and adaption of behaviours occur.

Reinforcement and Motivational Processes

The final key element of learning through observation is that a person needs to be motivated

to apply the modelled behaviour (Bandura, 1977). This is a crucial aspect of SLT as people,

despite having the capability to execute the modelled behaviour, do not always perform or act

on everything they learn. Modelled behaviour is more likely to be used if it results in

favourable outcomes as opposed to unfavourable or punishing effects for individuals. This is

also applies to observed consequences, where the behaviours associated with effective

outcomes for others are favoured over those that have negative outcomes. People also

evaluate reactions to their own behaviours in order to decide which learned behaviours to

apply in specific situations.

Even prominent models will not automatically create similar behaviour in others; and the

amount of demonstrations can vary between one and a hundred in order for the desired

behaviour to be reproduced. Bandura highlighted that the desired matching responses will be

reproduced in the majority of people if the model consistently repeats this behaviour,

instructs the reproduction of them in others, prompt the behaviour physically when it does not

occur, and then administers powerful rewards.

Application to Sports Coaching

Attentional Phase

The first phase of observational learning is paying attention to a model (Bandura, 1977).

Athletes can't learn by observation if they don't attend to, or recognise the essential features

of a technique or skill. Gaining the attention of the learners in order to model behaviour is,

therefore, crucial in sport coaching situations. In order to achieve this, coaches use an array of

strategies which might include raising the level of their voice, waiting for silence, the use of

humour, or other more intrinsically rewarding methods such as the use of video, to gain and

hold the learners’ attention.

The coaches’ positioning in relation to the learners, and any other attention demanding

activities going on around them, is also important in order to engage the learners and ensure

that their attention is maintained. Furthermore, the level of discipline and control that the

coach demands, as well as the interpersonal relationships and level of rapport he/she has with

the athletes, will impact on the ability to gain and maintain attention. Simply using an
athlete’s name, for example, is an effective strategy to gain their attention, particularly in the

early stages of getting to know a group.

Observational learning is not limited to the athletes observing the coach. Indeed, a significant

amount of social learning is facilitated by athletes observing each other in coaching

situations. Linking this to 'associational preferences', it is important for the coach to consider

how he/she groups athletes in order to maximise their learning opportunities. Varying the

grouping arrangements within and between coaching sessions will, therefore, expose the

learners to a wider range of observational experiences and broaden the potential for

observational and social learning. Inevitably, some group members are more influential and

command greater respect and attention than others. Orchestrating the coaching environment

(Jones, Bailey and Thompson, 2013) to utilize individuals who possess influential and

winsome qualities can, therefore, assist the coach in achieving greater levels of attention.

Retention Phase

An athlete cannot be much influenced by observing a model if he/she has no memory of it

(Bandura, 1977). Therefore, once the coach has the attention of the athletes, the next phase of

observational learning is to model or demonstrate the behaviour, so that it is retained in their

memory. Demonstration is estimated to be the most commonly used mode of instruction in

skill acquisition (Magill, 2007), and is seen as an effective means of transferring information

from coach to learner. This can be achieved by the coach in different ways, for example,

modelling the skill him/herself accompanied by instructions, or using another learner in the

group to act as the model whilst commentating on the key aspects to be retained. Both of

these methods use visual and verbal representational systems to enhance retention and both

have their merits and challenges. If the coach models the behaviour him/herself they cannot
observe themselves in action and may, therefore, be presenting a less than technically

accurate model. Ensuring that the model is a skilled and accurate representation of what the

athletes should be retaining is a crucial element of this phase of learning (Magill,

2007).Identifying an able performer to present an accurate model of performance, whilst

commentating on it may, therefore, prove to be a more reliable modelling process than coach

demonstrations. However, it has also been found that beginners can derive learning benefits

from observing other beginners (Magill, 2007). Regardless of who performs the

demonstration, from a skill acquisition perspective, Magill (2007) states that it is beneficial to

demonstrate before the observer starts to practice and that the model should continue

demonstrating during practice as frequently as possible.

Research has shown that participants perform better in a motor learning context in response

to demonstrations by a high compared to a low status model (McCullagh, 1986). However,

from an inclusive coaching perspective it would seem logical to share themodelling amongst

the different learners in order to promote equal opportunity and avoid perceptions of

favouritism, whilst still ensuring that the model is an accurate representation of what is to be

retained and reproduced.

Increasingly, the use of technology and visual learning methods such as video, are becoming

common place in sport coaching. Such methods can be intrinsically motivating and an

effective way of facilitating athlete’s retention of information. The advantage of this type of

modeling is the accuracy of the modelled performance and the opportunity to pause and

replay the video to identify and discuss different aspects with the learners. Other visual

methods for modeling skills, or desired behaviours could include posters or wall charts,

which are available for a wide variety of sporting techniques and activities.
Imaginal representation, or visualization, is often utilized in the sporting context in order to

retrieve images of previously modelled and observed behaviours. Once the modelled

behaviours have been transformed into images, verbal symbols can be used to help retain and

represent this information, for example, a ‘call’ for a set move in a game of rugby, or a verbal

cue for a specific aspect of technique in a golf swing. People who mentally rehearse or

actually perform modelled patterns of behaviour are less likely to forget them than are those

who neither, think about or practice what they have seen (Bandura, 1977). Therefore, in

addition to mental rehearsal, athletes require time to practice the technique or skill during this

retention phase of the learning process. Thus, the visual, auditory and kinaesthetic forms of

representation are all utilized to enhance retention and learning. According to Gardner

(1993), individuals have different preferences for these three types of representation and,

therefore, retain information better following different types of modelling. From a coaching

perspective, it would, therefore, seem pragmatic to utilize visual, verbal and practical

opportunities to maximize retention of a model and appeal to different learning preferences.

Reproduction Phase

The third component of modelling is concerned with motor reproduction and involves

converting symbolic representations into appropriate actions (Bandura, 1977). According to

Bandura, to achieve behavioural reproduction the learner must put together a given set of

responses according to a modelled pattern. Acquiring the component skills of a modelled

pattern of behaviour will determine the amount of observational learning that can be

exhibited behaviourally. Bandura (1977) contends that if the learner possesses the constituent

elements of a skill they can easily be integrated to produce new patterns of behaviour. If on

the other hand, the different response components are lacking, the behavioural reproduction
will be lacking. The message for coaches here is that more complex skills should be broken

down into constituent parts and practiced until they are acquired, before developing these into

more complex skills.

This component skill based approach would seem to be consistent with a more traditional

repetitive drill type approach to teaching complex motor skills, favouring the isolation of

different aspects of technique to be practiced and retained before transferring them into more

complex learning situations. For example, the more complex skill of keeping possession of

the ball in an invasion game could be broken down into its constituent parts of passing,

receiving, finding space and communicating. These component parts could then be practiced

individually until they are acquired to a high enough level of a modelled pattern, before

placing them into a more open ended game situation. Such an approach would seem to be at

odds with a Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) (Bunker and Thorpe,1982) approach,

which argues that when more complex motor skills are broken down and practiced in

isolation from the game, they often break down in a game situation. However, such a divide

may not necessarily be so. Indeed, TGfU does not refute the necessity of developing

individual skills, including this as one stage of the model, albeit at a later stage of learning

than the traditional skill/drill type approach after the learners have developed an

understanding of the key principles and tactics of the game. Although it is beyond the scope

of this chapter to debate the relative merits of TGfU and the more traditional skill based

approaches, Bandura’s social learning theory does have the potential to add to the discussions

in this contentious area of coaching.

Although the sub-skills of a modelled behaviour may be acquired and retained, physical

limitations may mean that the individual is unable to coordinate various actions in the

modelled pattern and sequence. For example, a young child can learn observationally to take

a corner kick in football and be adept at executing the component parts of the skill, but he/she

may not have the power to take a good corner on a full size football pitch with a full sized

ball. It is, therefore, imperative to adapt the skills of sport to the age and levels of physical

development of the participants in order to optimise their learning opportunities.

A further impediment at the behavioural level of reproducing motor skills is that performers

cannot see the responses there are making at the actual time of performance. They are,

therefore, dependent upon the feedback of others (particularly the coach) to correct and adjust

their motor patterns. The ability to accurately observe and guide learners to refine their

behaviours is, therefore, a crucial skill for coaches to develop. The learner usually has to self-

correct on the basis of informative feedback, so unless this feedback is being given and to a

high level of accuracy and corrective information, learning is unlikely to occur. As already

referred to in the attention and retention phases, modern technology allows for the use of

video feedback during coaching sessions and from an observational learning perspective, can

be utilised to enhance learning opportunities.

Reinforcement and Motivation Phase

In accordance with social learning theory, athletes do not enact everything they learn in

coaching settings and are more likely to imitate behaviours because they believe that doing so

will increase their chances to be positively reinforced by the coach. Furthermore, a coach

who repeatedly demonstrates desired responses, instructs others to reproduce them,

physically prompts the behaviour when it fails to occur, and then administers rewards for

successful execution will eventually elicit matching responses in most athletes. This process

may require multiple demonstrations of the desired behaviours but if the coach persists,

eventually, the behaviour will be evoked (Bandura, 1977). Although the major focus is on

specific motor skills, attitudes can also be acquired through observation. The coach should,

therefore, exemplify good standards of behaviour, attitudes and moral behaviour, if these are

expectations he/she has of the learners. For example, if punctuality and politeness are

expectations of the coach, he/she should demonstrate those traits. In cooperative situations,

e.g. teams, the success of the group may be dependent on the peer models in that group, it is

therefore be just as important to identify athletes with a high work ethic and motivation to

learn as it is to recognize athletes with high ability levels, as these behaviours will be imitated

by the group.

An athlete can acquire, retain, and possess the capabilities for skilful execution of modelled

behaviour, but may rarely be activated into performing that behaviour if it is unfavourably

received or negatively sanctioned by the coach. In contrast, when positive incentive is

provided by the coach, observational learning which may have previously remained

unexpressed is promptly translated into action (Bandura, 1965). Thus, unsurprisingly,

athletes are more likely to adopt modelled behaviour if it results in positive rewards, feedback

or praise by the coach, than if it has unrewarding or punishing effects. This is consistent with

a behaviourist approach to coaching but where social learning goes further is in its claim that

observed consequences of behaviour influence model conduct in much the same way as

actual behaviour. This is known as vicarious learning, the change in behaviour of observers

resulting from the emotional responses of another person, as conveyed through facial, vocal

and postural manifestations (Bandura, 1977). Thus, for example, if poor discipline or levels
of commitment and engagement go unpunished by the coach, other athletes are more likely to

imitate these poor behaviours and diminish the quality of the coaching sessions. In contrast, if

the coach wants certain behaviours to be replicated, he/she needs to reinforce these

behaviours with praise and rewards in order to evoke a positive emotional response from the

performer, so that others will be more likely to replicate these behaviours. The consequences

of behaviours are, therefore, important for social learning.

The notion that behaviour is controlled by its consequences can be interpreted to mean that

actions are at the mercy of situational influences, whereas, behaviour is extensively self-

regulated. Thus, athletes can observe their own behaviour, judge it against their own

standards and reinforce or punish themselves. They therefore need to have expectations of

their own performance and self regulation strategies, both of which can be developed by the

coach. Athletes, learn to evaluate their behaviour partly on the basis of how the coach reacts

to it. Coaches promote certain norms of what constitutes a worthy performance and are

generally pleased when athletes achieve these standards and disappointed when they do not.

As a consequence, athletes come to respond to their own behaviours in self approving or self

critical ways depending on how they compare with the coaches’ standards.

In order to encourage self regulation, the coach could, for example, ask the athletes to set

goals for the amount and quality of training they complete during the week, record their

training performances and to self evaluate the quality of these sessions. Consistent with a

mastery motivational climate (Ames, 1992), their performances could be compared to

previous best performances to evaluate personal progress and improvement. Furthermore,

athletes could be filmed during training sessions or performances and then asked to self

evaluate and self correct in relation to a set of performance criteria, and/or a visual model of
performance. This puts the athlete in control of their own learning and of setting and meeting

personal standards.

In conclusion, it is important to note that athletes do not passively absorb standards of

behaviour from coaches and other athletes. Rather, the theory acknowledges the

interrelationship between the individual, the environment, and behaviour, known as

reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1977). Thus expectations, self-perceptions, goals, and

physical abilities all combine to direct behaviour in sport coaching contexts.

Practitioner Commentary

The penultimate section contains a critical commentary by Kerry Harris who is a

football Performance Director and head coach.

Before reading this chapter, I was already vaguely familiar with Bandura’s work through my

own academic study and teaching. However, I had only ever given superficial consideration

to the implications for, and how it might be applied to, practice. Indeed, providing this

commentary has been a beneficial experience in the sense that I was compelled to really think

about and reflect on my practice in light of some of the more intricate aspects of SLT and

modelling.

I initially stumbled on the notion of reciprocal determinism. It seemed a logical and certainly

appropriate view of learning and behaviour. I agree with the shift away from the one

dimensional ‘carrot and stick’ approach of behaviourism and the humanist view point of

personal agency, or the exercise of free will, being the crux of determining behaviour.

Learning is complex, certainly non-linear and whilst we often assume it’s about individuals, I

don’t think we can escape the reality that it largely involves others. Personally, I’ve learnt

more about coaching through observing and interacting with other coaches, than I ever did

through studying it on my own.

For me, modelling is an important aspect of my delivery as I'm sure it is for most other

coaches. The very fact that this modelling can be a "highly efficient" way of getting

information across is a big ‘selling point’ and thus, makes it an attractive addition to most

coaches’ armoury. Indeed, I'm often ‘on the clock’ and our fixture schedule has a very quick

turnaround and I do not always have enough time to spend on trial and error learning.
Moving onto the attentional phase, it can be extremely frustrating when you start a practice

after some instruction and demonstration and it becomes apparent that players were not fully

concentrating. As previously highlighted, I find myself constantly changing position and

moving the group away from visual distractions and often, trying to bring to a halt ‘the

mothers meeting’ taking place between players. In echoing the suggestions made above,

sometimes humour is used or I find a stern word or two works just as effectively. Beyond

using an athlete’s name, I think that questioning is also a good strategy for maintaining

attention and keeping players focused and ‘on their toes’. This section has also made me

think about the other strategies I use to gain attention. I regularly use other audio cues, for

example a loud to softer countdown of 3-2-1, or a sharp, highly-pitched whistle. Indeed, a

whistle will bring the majority of people to a halt and gain their attention, given that for most,

it is an embedded response from early childhood. I find in relation to specific skills such as

pressing, trigger words are also useful; something simple and easily remembered, but also

descriptive such as ‘touch-tight’ to encourage the correct distance between the defender and

the attacker. Linking it to the next aspect of modelling: the retention phase, players will

remember these trigger words, verbal cues or ‘calls’ more so than long descriptions.

Beyond that, in relation to visual and verbal representations, I will sometimes demonstrate

the skill myself or use another player. Doing the latter enables me to explain whilst the

demonstration is taking place, but also, ensure that those observing are giving the model their

full attention. I do confess that I am sometimes guilty of using the same players to model

practice. I would not say that this is favouritism, but rather, these players are technically more

capable than others, so naturally will provide the most accurate model. Nevertheless, players

are still exposed to a number of observational experiences in what might be compared to the

next phase of modelling discussed below.

Moving to the reproduction phase, here, I would argue that the important thing is that

players’ do not become bored, which often occurs when anything we do is rehearsed or

repeated over and over again. The repetitive drill approach is something I include in all of

my sessions. Despite its criticisms, I feel it is crucial especially for developmental players

who I work with, who often come in to the club technically very ‘raw’. I will usually

incorporate these sorts of ‘fine-tuning’ activities either after, or as part of, the warm up.

Rarely are techniques ever mastered in a single session (no matter how good the model is) so

they are often revisited in subsequent sessions. I strongly agree with the point that if players

cannot perform isolated techniques then larger, more complex, skills will undoubtedly break-

down. However, I think it’s important that the players understand where these skill

components apply in a game; as they need to see the functional relevance. Additionally, in

order to prevent boredom and maintain motivation, players need to be challenged. I believe

that the best learning occurs when we are taken out of our comfort zones. Minor alterations

such as using a non-dominant foot or a smaller target can be used to get those that have

mastered the technique quicker than others practising deeper (not necessarily harder) because

they have to think about it more.

I also agree that the application of modern technology can support the reproduction phase and

self-evaluation, whilst also helping to motivate players. Symbolic modelling I believe

through the mass media can be an effective method for capturing attention. Away from

practice, Television and the Internet can be a useful tool in supporting, reinforcing and

enhancing players understanding. I’m in a fortunate position to be able to use modern

technology through the equipment and support staff we have at the University. An excellent

example of this is when we decided apply a new aggressive defensive strategy in preparation

for a major tournament. Using Atlético Madrid (who set the ‘gold standard’ of defending in
the UEFA Champions League Final against Real Madrid) as a model exemplar of this

defensive strategy saved hours of technical delivery, explanation and persuasion. Players

were encouraged to use this match as a reference point. We asked them to watch and pay

particular attention to what Atlético did out of possession. However, this can also have a

detrimental effect, particularly with younger players, who will mimic unfavoured behaviours

they have observed on the television. All too often do we see players rolling around like

they’ve been shot by a sniper following a tackle!

To conclude, as with most of my theoretical sense-making efforts, at first glance, I have often

found that the discourse used can somewhat ‘blur’ and complicate the very fundamentals of

the theory. However, I found this chapter very accessible and it was a relatively easy task to

link this theory to my own practice.

Critical Questions

1. Explain how you would gain the attention of a group of seven year olds to

demonstrate a passing skill during a netball session.

2. Use SLT to explain how a tennis coach can use modern technology to help correct a

player’s problem with double faulting during matches.

3. How can a coach use SLT to help develop players’ tactical understanding?

4. Discuss the key principles of SLT in relation to your own coaching practice.
References

Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational processes. In

G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 161-176). Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of

imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589-585.

Bandura (2014). Albert Bandura’s web page, Stanford University. Retrieved November 11,

2014 from: http://stanford.edu/dept/psychology/bandura/

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory

Bunker, D., and R. Thorpe (1982). A model for teaching games in secondary schools.

Bulletin of Physical Education 18 (1), 5-8.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books

Gordon, N. J., Nucci, L. P., West, C. K., Hoerr W. A., Uguroglu, M. E., Vukosavich, P., et al.

(1984). Productivity and citations of educational research: Using educational psychology

as the data base. Educational Researcher, 13(7), 14-20.

Jones, Bailey & Thompson (2013). Ambiguity, noticing and Orchestration: Further thoughts

on managing the complex coaching context. In, P. Potrac, W. Gilbert & J. Denison (Eds.),

Routledge Handbook of Sport Coaching, p 271-283. London: Routledge.

Magill, R.A. (2007). Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications (8th Edition).

Boston, MA, McGraw-Hill.

McCullagh, P. (1986). Model status as a determinant of observational learning and

performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 319-331.

Wulfert, E. (2005). Social learning theory: Albert Bandura. In N. A., Piotrowski (Ed.),

Psychology Basics. (pp. 787-793). Pasadena, Calif: Salem Press.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2003). Albert Bandura: The scholar and his

contributions to educational psychology. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.),

Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 431-457). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.