Differences: Cognitive Framework/Sociocultural Framework
The authors summarize in Table 2 a comparison of the cognitive framework and sociocultural framework as each relates to seven different elements. To repeat these in narrative form seems somewhat redundant; therefore, I will focus my response on the ways these differences necessitate different responses to questions of learning and higher order thinking.
As Rueda and Dembo point out, the cognitive framework and sociocultural framework share common elements; however, it is their differences that provide implications for conceptualizing interventions. If a student is not performing well in English class, the cognitive framework perspective would explain that his negative self-perceptions impact his cognitive engagement and his belief system could then provide excuses for potential failure (intrapersonal). The intervention response in the cognitive framework perspective would be to begin intervention with the individual and attempt to change his self-perceptions and beliefs believing that then a change in behavior would occur. The sociocultural framework ascribes to the belief that motivation and other mental activity is mediated (interpersonal) and therefore can be remediated. Intervention in the sociocultural framework would begin with the activity setting and look at the specific elements of the activity setting to see how they could be systematically modified.
Stated another way, the cognitive framework asserts that self-regulation comes first, in contrast, sociocultural framework asserts that eternal regulation comes first from adults or more capable peers. This difference in perspective necessitates initiating the intervention in a different place.
The question then becomes, if external regulation comes first according to the sociocultural framework, how does a student move toward self-regulation? The answer in the context of the sociocultural framework requires a redefinition of teaching and learning tasks. Teaching in the sociocultural framework is seen as responsive assistance. The teacher is assisting performance at a level just above what the learner can independently accomplish (zone of proximal development). This would require a paradigm shift from the traditional teacher as sage on the stage, to more of a guide on the side. The nature of learning tasks is also different in the context of the sociocultural framework. Learning tasks would need to include collaborative complex problem solving on authentic activities. This is a departure from the traditional content presentation of lecture and worksheets.
In summary, for all the commonalities in the contrasted frameworks, it is their differences that speak to how responses to academic failures are shaped, most specifically where the intervention is to be initiated. In the sociocultural framework a chain of assistance is created where intervention begins with the teacher, so the teacher can intervene with the student, and then it follows that the interaction with the student will further the growth and development of the teacher.
Importance of Differences
In addressing matters of importance, it is difficult not to view issues through the lens of my experience as a school counselor. It took me many years of attempting to intervene first and only with students before I realized that they were returning to the same unchanged activity setting. So, to the degree that the different frameworks call for different approaches to intervention, I believe the differences are important. Additionally, they become more importance as the school population becomes more diverse for reasons that will be addressed in the next section.
Contributions of the Sociocultural Framework
The most obvious contribution is the change and broadens the focus of learning and motivation to include social interaction and context. Additionally, the authors suggest that when motivation is seen as a culturally mediated norm, it is then possible to distinguish between motivation and motivated behavior. In this context "off task" behavior could be seen as motivated as distinguished from "acting motivated" towards the teacher-initiated task. Finally, the sociocultural framework takes into account cultural definitions and experiences the child brings with him to school. When these cultural understandings are discounted, it is possible for student and teacher to work at cross-purposes.
Practical Differences
An observation of a special education or resource class might provide a glimpse of what it would be like to operate guided by the sociocultural framework. It is in these classes that the teacher can be found negotiating the meaning of the lesson’s value and the self-perceptions the students bring to the tasks. From the perspective of the school counselor, to address student motivation, I would begin with the teacher and encourage the teacher to reflect on their methodology. I would also provide the teacher with the information they need to begin to understand the cultural norms and life circumstances that the student brings to the classroom. With these tools, the teacher could better plan and negotiate the learning experience.