Co-Regulation: A Model for Classroom Research in a Vygotskian Perspective

• In Event: Part 2 – Recent Advancement in Sociocultural Influences on Motivation and Learning: Big Theories Revisited

Abstract

Purpose: This paper presents a co-regulation model (McCaslin, 2009) informed by a Vygotskian theoretical perspective. More specifically, three studies with elementary students illustrate the model’s usefulness for research on classroom processes. Each study makes a case for the importance of the “individual” within a sociocultural perspective.

Theoretical framework: Co-regulation is rooted in a Vygoskian sociocultural perspective. An essential point of both is that we are all part of a unit larger than ourselves. The co-regulation model is one attempt to operationalize this position and guide research on how cultural, social, and personal influences press upon and co-regulate—challenge, shape, and guide—personal identity. The cultural norms and challenges associated with poverty and its influence on students’ classroom adaptations and activities is examined in each study.

Modes of inquiry: Portrayal of experiencing students - what is means to be that student - is a primary goal of each study. Study One focuses on teacher-centered whole-class instruction and asks how students might differentially mediate and internalize the learning opportunities it affords. Methods include classroom observation, student self-monitoring reports, and end of year mandated test performance. Study Two examines how students reportedly mediate and cope with three instructional formats: private, whole class and small group. Emphasis shifts from perceived learning opportunities to the emotional experiences each affords. Methods include student emotions and coping and test performance in math in a pre- and post-design over the school year. Study Three examines how students’ reported emotions and coping behavior informs their real-time interactions in small learning groups. Methods include student reported emotional adaptation and anxiety, and real-time small group interaction, task assignments, and self-monitoring reports.

Data Sources: Data sources include systematic coding of (a) whole class instruction (Study 1) and (b) small-group interaction (Study 3). Student self-reports were obtained in each study. Study One used the “How I was in Class” measure that describes actual student behavior (McCaslin & Burross, 2011); Study Two the “School Situations” inventory (McCaslin, 2016) that examines self-conscious emotions (shame, pride, guilt) and coping strategies (normalize, externalize); and Study Three combined both instruments. Each study includes student achievement: state mandated tests in Study One and study-specific assignments and tests in Studies Two and Three.

Results: Study One demonstrated that Direct Instruction opportunities in teacher-centered whole-class instruction cast a wide safety- and learning-net. Nonetheless, students differed in expressed adaptations that differently mediated learning productivity. Study Two suggested that students find small group formats particularly challenging. Students differed in emotional adaptation profiles; only two (of five) were likely to serve them and their classmates well. Study Three demonstrated that individual differences in students’ personal concerns and emotional adaptations can and do regulate small group activity.

Scholarly significance: Results support the usefulness of (a) the co-regulation model to guide research within a Vygoskian perspective and (b) recognizing individual differences among students in a sociocultural perspective. Students have a personal history, differ in what they bring, in what and how they participate, and what that means for their time, place, and self-story.

Author

• Mary M. McCaslin, The University of Arizona