Self-regulated learning (SRL) is the aggregate of daily skills that encompass our way of living. Educators supporting students in fostering SRL at an early stage, such as by building character or good habits, can enhance their academic achievement (McCombs, 1989; Schunk, 2001) and, more importantly, their well-being (Pintrich & Zusho, 2002). William James said:

The great thing, in all education, is to make automatic and habitual; as early as possible, as many useful actions as we can…Seize the very first possible opportunity to act on every resolution you make, and on every emotional prompting, you may experience in the direction of the habits you aspire to gain. It is not in the moment of their forming, but in the moment of their producing motor effects, that resolves, and aspirations communicate the new ‘set’ to the brain. (James, 1890, pp. 126–127)

To turn valuable actions into habits, we must learn, act, and internalize effective SRL. Many educational psychologists have been investigating SRL to bring insights to education, naming the research “process of SRL”; however, most have reported it as steps or strategies instead of processes (e.g., Zimmerman, 1990). The term “process” refers to how people react to their circumstances and behaviors influenced by many factors. People choose their actions by referring to their emotional connections and prior experiences in the community. Their feelings and responses within their communities are unique experiences. Hence, each process is different and never repeated in the same way. However, most researchers have considered SRL a process of steps and conformed it to a type of experiment using quantitative methods in the interests of reproductivity. They failed to acknowledge crucial factors of the process (i.e., coaction with the environment and time) and lacked methodologies that analyze and depict the developmental process. This study aimed to argue that SRL is an act of self-influence in the sociocultural context and that the process differs for each individual and investigated SRL from the qualitative perspective of the process with time and sociocultural factors.

SRL Overview

SRL is the act of self-regulation during learning. Self-regulated learners approach educational tasks proactively and take measures to overcome difficulties by controlling themselves until they master a task (Zimmerman, 1990). Previous studies focused on cognitive rationality and its strategies. Pintrich (1995) used an analogy of a thermostat for the mechanism of SRL. He metaphorically compared it to regulating room temperature by monitoring the current temperature and adjusting the air conditioner to set a pleasant temperature. Students can also regulate themselves by monitoring their behavior, cognition, and motivation and adopting these characteristics to improve their learning. The key is that students should be in charge of their learning, with a goal similar to a preset temperature (Pintrich, 1995). Schunk and Zimmerman (1994) organized self-regulatory procedures in the table “Dimension of Academic Self-Regulation” as (1) goal setting to create lists to accomplish during studying; (2) task strategies to create mnemonics to remember facts, imagery to imagine the consequences of failing to study, and self-instruction to practice steps in solving a subject problem; (3) time management to schedule daily studying and homework time; (4) self-monitoring to keep records of completed assignments, self-evaluation to check work before submission, and self-consequences to make television or phone contingent on homework completion; (5) environmental structuring to study in a secluded place; and (6) help-seeking to find a study partner (Hammit, 2014, p. 76). Although previous theories stated that acquiring self-regulation skills can influence students’ learning processes emerging from experience (Paris & Paris, 2001; Paris et al., 2001; Winne & Hadwin, 2008), they mainly investigated the skills and not the learning process in individual experiences. Pintrich and Zusho’s (2002) hypothesized that self-regulation as static is limited to cognitive development. Schunk and Zimmerman (1994) dimensions indicated several aspects of SRL; however, those dimensions are procedures and strategies that promote the SRL process rather than focus on the mechanics of the process. Past studies characteristically perceive SRL in a short-term and narrowed manner. The phenomenon of the SRL process has remained unclear because theories have lacked methodologies that adequately analyze and depict its developmental process. Hence, this study proposes the need for an understanding of the developmental process of SRL and poses the following questions: How do students develop the habit of SRL to be life-long learners? How do they internalize the procedures and strategies to improve their SRL process? There is a clear need to conceptualize SRL in the frame of a semiotic developmental perspective with an adaptation of sociocultural dynamics. To accomplish this goal, after reviewing the strategies for SRL that quantitatively resulted and were presented, this study demonstrates an alternative qualitative methodology that can analyze and visualize the developmental process of SRL: Trajectory Equifinality Approach (TEA).

Brief History of SRL

Bandura’s Contribution to SRL

The vital SRL theorist, Barry Zimmerman, mentioned that the former United States Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare John W. Gardner first recognized the importance of education in 1963 (Zimmerman, 1990). For Gardner, the ultimate goal of the education system was to “shift to the individual the burden of pursuing his education” (1963, p. 21). Meanwhile, Albert Bandura and his colleagues introduced observational learning, which later became a core SRL concept: cognitive monitoring of behaviors (Bandura & Jeffrey, 1973; Bandura et al., 1966). In the 1970s, Bandura expanded the concept to the social learning theory, later changed to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001), which postulated that learning is conditioned in a social context with a dynamic and reciprocal interaction between the person, environment, and behavior; specifically, social persuasion and vicarious experience of social models (Bandura, 1977; Bandura & National Institute of Mental Health, 1986). Bandura introduced the learning process as a cognitive process (Bandura, 1991), while behaviorism only focused on the external behavior achieved through reinforcement and repetition. He bridged behaviorism and the cognitive approach to learning (Rumjaun & Narod, 2020).

Zimmerman’s Contribution to SRL

In contrast, in the 1980s, William Rohwer noted that although learning strategies (e.g., note-taking, time management, and test preparation) are not taught explicitly to students, teachers expect them to learn these by themselves. The relationship between learning activities and achievement varies across student characteristics, and it is transformed by students’ cognitive and autonomous activities (Rohwer, 1984). Educational psychologists observed little attention being given to examining skill learning compared to acquiring knowledge. Zimmerman, a disciple of Bandura, was one of them and contributed to helping students become masters of their self-learning (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011).

Zimmerman’s SRL Models

Zimmerman developed three SRL models; the first looked similar to Bandura’s triadic model (Bandura & National Institute of Mental Health, 1986; Wood & Bandura, 1989; Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Wood and Bandura’s (1989) SRL model (p. 362)

Full size image

Bandura illustrated in his triadic model that a person (with perception), behavior, and environment are reciprocal. Contrary to previous theories, such as the operant theory that argued that people’s behavior was always controlled by the external environment (Mace et al., 1989; Skinner, 1953), Bandura believed that individuals could also impact the environment and their behaviors. However, Zimmerman’s triadic model (Fig. 2) demonstrated that people and behavior had reciprocal relations; the environment militates the person, and behavior impacts the environment, but not vice versa. Zimmerman did not believe a person could regulate the environment unless the person was an authority who made regulations.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Triadic forms of self-regulation (Zimmerman, 2000, p. 15)

Full size image

Zimmerman focused on explicitly expressing the SRL strategies more than the origins that affected the SRL process. His second model was the cyclical phases of SRL (Zimmerman, 1990) which viewed self-regulation as a three-phase process: forethought, performance, and self-regulation. This is substantially similar to the Plan-Do-See (PDS) cycle proposed by American statistician Walter Shewhart in 1939. The PDS cycle refers to the three-step process of the plan (planning), do (execution), and see (evaluation and review) for quality control in business management (Shewhart, 1939). Zimmerman embedded the subprocesses of SRL into the second model (Fig. 3). These subprocesses were (1) the forethought phase, including task analysis and self-motivation beliefs; (2) the performance phase, including self-control and self-observation; and (3) the self-reflection phase, including self-judgment and self-reaction (Zimmerman, 2000, 2001; Zimmerman et al., 2011). Zimmerman mostly used quantitative methods and structured interviews conducted with a 4-point scale ranging from “seldom” to “most of the time” (Zimmerman & Pons, 1986) and created five quantitative SRL measurements (e.g., the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory) (Weinstein et al., 1988). As Zimmerman disseminated the SRL concept and the tools, it became a prominent topic in educational psychology, and teachers learned to support students’ SRL (Panadero, 2017).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Subfunctions and cyclical nature of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman & Moylan, 2009)

Full size image

Boekaerts’ SRL Models

In the 1990s, expanding on Zimmerman’s research, Monique Boekaerts developed two SRL models that demonstrated the role of goals. Her first model, the six-component model, similar to Zimmerman’s dimensions, only presented two theoretical aspects of SRL (i.e., cognitive and motivational self-regulation) with three categories each: goals, strategy use, and domain-specific knowledge (Boekaerts, 1996). Notably, Boekaerts’ next dual processing model (Fig. 4) further expanded SRL.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Different pathways of Boekaerts and Pekrun’s (2015) dual processing self-regulation model (p. 85)

Full size image

While Zimmerman’s cyclical model was only a one-way cycle, Boekaerts’ dual processing model was a dynamic two-way cycle that students went through depending on their task appraisal (Boekaerts, 2007; Boekaerts & Pekrun, 2015). When students face a task, consciously or subconsciously, they appraise (1) current perceptions of the task, (2) domain-specific knowledge and metacognitive strategies related to the task, and (3) domain-specific motivational beliefs on self-ability, interest, and effort within their working memory. If the appraisal supports their goals or needs, students experience positive cognitions and emotions that encourage commitment to the task. Subsequently, they use metacognitive strategies to activate learning intentions for the growth pathway. However, if this appraisal threatens their well-being, negative cognitions and emotions emerge and encourage them to activate coping intentions for the well-being pathway. The level of self-efficacy, outcome expectations, task interest, and task value affect the student’s choice of pathways (Boekaerts, 2007). Boekaerts’ dual processing model is essential to analyze the process of SRL.

Socially Shared Regulated Learning by Hadwin et al. (2017)

In the 2000s, Pintrich added a “context” column in his model, lined with cognition, motivation, and behavior (Pintrich, 2000). Similarly, Hadwin et al., (2011, 2017, 2018) expanded SRL theory by re-recognizing social and interactive characteristics since Bandura. They emphasized that SRL is a self-influenced act by people and the context, and hence, it should be considered a dynamic process that varies with each person, place, and time. The concept was developed and illustrated in the model of socially shared regulation of learning (SSRL; Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Three forms of regulated learning in successful collaboration (Järvelä et al., 2013)

Full size image

It combined three regulation levels in collaborative situations: regulation of self (self-regulation), regulation between self and another person’s self (co-regulation), and regulation within a group (shared regulation). Each regulation influences and collaborates with a person’s cognition, metacognition, motivation, emotion, and behavior (Hadwin et al., 2011; Järvelä et al., 2013).

Co-regulation occurs when affordances or constraints are appropriated by individuals (self-regulation) or groups (shared regulation) to fundamentally provoke strategic monitoring, evaluating, or adapting of motivational, behavioral, cognitive, and/or affective products within and across phases of regulation. Shared regulation can be successfully promoted by scripting planning and reflection to: increase awareness of learning processes, externalize learning processes in a social plane, and activate key regulatory processes. (Hadwin et al., 2018, p. 1)

Based on Bandura’s socio-cognitive view, SRL theories have progressed to their current form. However, during the 1980s–1990s, the prevailing idea was to find ways to support students’ control over their studies. Zimmerman expanded SRL to include strategy instructions that contributed as useful tools for students and teachers in the classrooms. Recently, SRL researchers tried to combine the strategy-focused SRL with a socio-cognitive framework to better understand teachers’ support of student-centered instruction (e.g., Quackenbush & Bol, 2020).

SRL from Cultural Psychology Perspectives

As mentioned above, SRL has yet to progress much from Bandura’s theory, and there is a need to reexamine it from a new perspective. The heart of his theory was reciprocal determinism, which advised that learning is the outcome of personal, environmental, and behavioral factors (Schraw et al., 2006). Bandura advocated that learning is affected by personal beliefs, mindsets, and behavior. These are impacted by circumstances such as quality of instruction, teacher feedback, access to information, and help from classmates and parents (Bandura et al., 1999). The concept of socially shared regulation by Hadwin et al., (2011, 2017, 2018) was a natural development from the foundation of social cognitive theory. Yet the need to understand SRL mechanisms remains as most studies on SRL have been quantitative and strategy-focused and have excluded a notion of lived time. Bandura’s reciprocal determinism, Zimmerman’s cyclical concept, and Hadwin et al.’s collaborative learning are commendable in that it does not view SRL as a single-line causality; however, they still view SRL as a structure and do not consider it as incorporating lived time. When investigating human psychological development such as SRL, closely scrutinizing the process in lived time (kairos), how participants experienced the events and reacted to the influential factors, instead of clock time (chronos), is essential (Sato & Valsiner, 2010). This could be achieved by contemplating SRL from a cultural psychology perspective and using the qualitative methodology, TEA, which afford us the ability to examine the processes involved in the intricate learning situations of students’ lived time in social relationships.

Vygotsky’s View of SRL

Cultural psychology onsiders not only lived time but alsothat the sociocultural context influences human cognitive development. It agrees on an ongoing mutual constitution of self and culture (Markus & Kitayama, 2010; Zhou, 2020). Lev Vygotsky, a Russian cultural psychologist, powerfully explained how sociocultural environments and individuals interact and constitute each other. He demonstrated that children’s cognitive learning was promoted by cooperative or collaborative dialogue with people around them, specifically the more knowledgeable others (MKO; Vygotsky, 1978). With MKO’s assistance, children can reach a higher psychological development level than they would have attained without it. Vygotsky called this gap the zone of proximal development (ZPD), wherein MKO’s instruction was beneficial when the task was beyond the children’s capabilities (Bruner, 1984). It is not a top-down notion; instead, students and MKO mutually regulate the ZPD (McCaslin & Hickey, 2001), including mind-sharing (Bruner, 1984). This concept explains an aspect of socially shared regulation. Vygotsky (1978) commended social interaction’s role in cognitive development as the community impacts the language development process. Before age 2, children only have external language input from the sociocultural environment and use it to converse with others. They have no inner language yet for mental reasoning. Around age 3, the external language develops private speech (monologue), which serves as an intellectual function. Subsequently, it becomes inner speech and aids children’s logical reasoning. It also helps them internalize language and self-regulate their behavior (Vygotsky et al., 1978). In “Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian view,” McCaslin and Hickey (2001) elucidated:

The child acquires the facility to direct and control his own behavior as well as communicate with others through language. Through collaboration with others, the child integrates his everyday concepts and understandings with the scientific concepts of his culture—to the enrichment of the culture. (p. 231)

Thus, the sociocultural environment is deeply embedded in the child’s SRL.

SRL from Vygotsky’s and Bandura’s Perspectives

Vygotsky developed his sociocultural theory based on language and culture’s mediating role in self-regulation (McCaslin & Hickey, 2001; Rohrkemper, 1989). Vygotsky believed that signs (particularly language) were a factor that made the difference between human and animal learning. Unlike what Pavlov (1927) postulated regarding animals, Vygotsky asserted that humans were not determined exclusively by stimuli when controlling the environment.Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and Bandura’s social cognitive theory shared the same idea of the critical function of communal languages and cultures toward self-regulation. For example, Vygotsky’s external-to-internal speech and Bandura’s verbal persuasion focused on the vital function of language and the sociocultural setting. However, one is from an internal perspective, and the other is from an external one. Even if the outlooks seem similar as people self-regulate through language and culture, the processes of how individuals take in cultures vary. “Culture belongs to a person through the function of signs in organizing human lives” (Sato et al., 2016, p. 26). Hence, the cultures belonging to a person make every individual’s SRL distinct from the others. It might appear the same in macro-processes, such as the general model of experiences, but in micro-processes, it is unique in each individual’s experience. Bruner (1984) interpreted that Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory reflected collectivism, which was the core of Soviet socialism that believed labor should work in a collective society. On the other hand, Bandura’s social cognitive theory aimed to empower people in North American individualism to achieve personal freedom from the environment (Bandura, 1997). He supposed that signs for self-regulation in Russia were directed towards society, and the respective signs in North America were activated towards individuals. In that case, the signs that emerged from each culture are different, so their SRL processes must be divergent. Notably, it is not a difference between countries as it is a difference in the cultures of differing individual experiences, as society is made up of individuals (Valsiner, 2014).

Vygotsky’s Signs as a Mediator of SRL

Vygotsky (1981) advocated that self-regulation is only actualized when it is mediated through signs. “Signs and words serve children first and foremost as a means of social contact with other people” (p. 28), and “the system of signs restructures the whole psychological process and enables the child to master her movement. It reconstructs the choice process on a new basis” (p.35). He continued, “The use of signs leads humans to a specific structure of behavior that breaks away from biological development and creates new forms of a culturally-based psychological process” (p.40). He proposed that self-regulation of behavior is enforced by the internalization of signs, “What takes place is what we have called internalization; the external sign that school children require has been transformed into an internal sign produced by the adult as a means of remembering” (p. 45) and “it is a means of internal activity aimed at mastering oneself; the sign is internally oriented” (p. 55).

Because symbols differ depending on the individual’s past experiences and current situation and environment, what they internalize also varies. In such a case, the SRL process must also be different. Since the process is a culture (e.g., Greenfield, 1997; Wagoner et al., 2021) and is reconstructed in the individual by the individual, there are similarities in the process, but they are never the same.

Bruner’s Meaning-Making in Culture and SRL

Jerome Bruner remarked that Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of development with the role of language and culture in the functioning of the mind changed his view: “[Vygotsky’s theory] undermined my confidence in the more self-contained, formalistic theories of the towering Jean Piaget, theories that had very little room for the enabling role of culture in mental development” (Bruner, 1996, p. XIII).

Bruner was impressed by Vygotsky’s developmental view with the role of language and culture in the functioning of the mind. This indicates the rationale for this study, suggesting the need for a sociocultural role in SRL research.In his book “Culture in Education,” Bruner proposed that education’s objective is to help children construct meanings, not simply to gain knowledge and skills. Meaning-making requires participation in the culture, and students will reach their full potential only by reading the signs that emerge in the culture and making meaning of them (Bruner, 1996).

This individualistic perspective on human cultural evolution leads inevitably to the view that human “meaning making” and its negotiation are at the core of the cultural turn. As a species, we adapt to our environment in terms of what things, acts, events, signs are taken to mean. (Bruner, 1996, p. 164) 

Students use the signs they perceive in cultural contexts to construct meanings. Bruner believed that education cultivates beliefs, skills, and feelings through transmitting its culture and how it interprets the natural and social worlds. This study construes Bruner’s contention that signs are embedded in culture, and education helps students construct meaning and plays a crucial role in promoting their SRL. Bruner suggested that narrative was the problem-solving expression for dynamic and complicated situations (Bruner, 1990). Bruner (2008) further stated, “The life of mind seems everywhere to be caught in a never-ending dialectic between the ordinary and the unexpected…Narrative seems to be our natural form for rendering the two into a culturally and cognitively manageable form” (p. 37).

Bruner explained in the “Act of Meaning” that children recognize that how they narrate stories about their actions brings meaning to the actions and results in different consequences. He further stated, “Logos and praxis are culturally inseparable. The cultural setting of one’s own actions forces one to be a narrator” (Bruner, 1990, p. 81). Being a narrator to control the situation can be considered self-regulation. He believed that without cultural settings, children cannot be narrators because they cannot make meaning. He said that narrative is “an ‘interpretant,’ a symbolic schema for mediating between sign and ‘world’—an interpretant that exists at some higher level than the word or the sentence, in the realm of discourse itself” (Bruner, 1990, p. 46). When the student metacognitively narrates a story of Self, they consider its interpretant, the sign’s effect of the sign, which is the meaning they are making. He further added that “we recognize that meaning depends not only upon a sign and a referent but also upon an interpretant—a representation of the world in terms of which the sign-referent relationship is mediated” (p. 69). Thus, we can assert that how students make meaning out of signs activates the process of self-regulation. Narrative stories inside students boost SRL.

Valsiner’s Semiotic Affective Dynamic Process

Valsiner, who translated and disseminated Vygotsky’s work to the world, claimed that the cultural psychology of dynamic semiosis “considers the human Self to be dialogical in nature and hierarchically regulated through the transient hierarchies of signs” (Valsiner, 2014, p. 22). According to Valsiner, culture is co-constructed by people from across generations through learning. It is the act of people decomposing messages communicated to them by signs and recomposing them into a new intra-psychic pattern, that is, internalization. People co-regulate their experiences and share the current development and future possibilities in their respective cultures. Valsiner believes culture is attributed to the processes of the sign within the “internal I and ME loop” (Mead, 1930). I in the Self is the internal perspective, and ME is the perspective from outside the inner world, and they self-regulate each other. Furthermore, Valsiner stated, “Culture here is sign construction and uses processes simultaneously occurring in the intra-psychological and inter-psychological fields. The person builds meaningful relations with the world first within one’s subjective internal infinity while treating the perceived environment as meaningful in itself” (Valsiner, 2014, p. 40).

SRL is discovered in this loop of “analysis and synthesis” and is repeated within “I and ME” and “individual and society.” Signs are found between the person and society, and people self-regulate by interpreting those that emerge in the culture. Individuals internalize socially introjected messages and create new forms to externalize them toward society. Individuals communicate with society through signs and are socially constructively cultivated by others. It is a process of SRL that occurs in the classroom and life as a whole.

The liminal model of internalization and externalization (Fig. 6) depicts that “the first re-structuring of the incoming message occurs as that message is moved through the sequence Layer I → Layer II → Layer III. In each layer, the initial message becomes transformed into a maintained, generalized, and integrated one. A similar transformation process takes place in the externalization trajectory” (Valsiner, 2014, p. 71). This represents and illuminates the SRL process. The student might read articles on the internet, watch videos on YouTube, hear teachers, parents, classmates talking or someone embodying—these interactions ultimately reinforce the message. Hence, the sign was embedded in society. The message mediates the culture. In Layer II, the student received a good grade by studying hard. The teachers and parents were happy and praised the student. The student experienced good feedback and felt terrific about themselves, which motivated them to try harder. As the student tries more, they attract positive consequences. The student starts to make abstractive generalizations through these consequences that the message they perceived from society was valid; studying leads to a successful life. The student might fail when they do not study enough, and the message is further strengthened. This can promote the sign. Finally, in Layer III, the sign encouraged the student to integrate the social message about studying into their beliefs, give subjective meaning to learning, and bring the message into their values about hard work. Each time the student deepens the layer of internalization, their self-regulation for learning improves. Furthermore, their beliefs and values about working hard and making an effort expand to other areas, such as taking their job seriously, confronting difficulties, or taking up challenges (Layer II). Eventually, as the student grows up, they grow a successful career, finances, and a family, which conveys an advanced message to others that studying hard and working hard lead to a wealthy life (Layer I). This is externalization that sustains and reinforces self-regulated learning. The student, now an adult, becomes a sign for someone and radiates the message. Valsiner says,

… a ‘value’—becomes transcribed into concrete meaningful actions through its transformative contextualization as it is moved through Layer III → Layer II → Layer I → OUTSIDE. Therefore, there is no ‘sameness’ implied between the two ‘outside’ materials— the message that was becoming internalized and the one that emerges as a result of externalization. (Valsiner, 2014, p. 72)

Fig. 6
figure 6

Liminal model of internalization and externalization as double transformation (Valsiner, 2014, p. 71)

Full size image

Thus, each process is a personal experience and differs by individual, and even with the same individual in the same society, they cannot be repeated. Time only moves forward, and even if the event looks the same as before and the approach might seem repetitive, each time is distinct due to the past being marked with physical, psychological, or relational differences as manifest across varying contexts. Scrutinizing the internalization and externalization processes with a sign gives us insight into the SRL process. This study focuses on that process and explores the qualitative methodology in cultural psychology, effectively analyzing the process of human development.

The TEA for Understanding the SRL Process

The TEA is an integrated cultural psychology methodology based on the semiotic approach by Jaan Valsiner and Tatsuya Sato (Sato et al., 2016). Trajectory Equifinality Modeling (TEM) and Three Layers Model of Genesis (TLMG) are two flagship process models in TEA that depict the human life course within irreversible time. A straight arrow is always on the edge of the model and indicates irreversible time. TEM and TLMG are qualitative visual methods that researchers can use as a platform to analyze the codes derived from semi-structured interviews. The TEA respects participants’ individuality and uses the term Historically Structured Inviting (HSI), rather than sampling, to describe calling participants for the interview.

TEM

TEM demonstrates life events with the notion of equifinality. According to Sato et al. (2016), equifinality indicates that “the same state may be reached from different initial conditions and in different ways in the course of time” (Sato et al., 2016, p. VIII). An equifinality point (EFP) is a research focus point, and participants with the same EFP are invited for the interview. In the example given in the figure below we see that the student who learned to study hard to succeed and apparently fostered autonomous self-regulation is expressed in TEM (Fig. 7). The researcher ideally conducts interviews with each participant multiple times to make their own perception (intra-view) into a reciprocal perception (inter-view) and then into a unity of perceptions (trans-view) between the interviewer and interviewee. Interview data are transcribed and coded, and the important events and emotions referred to in the qualitative inquiries are laid out and drawn chronologically to visualize the participant’s trajectory. The space between events does not have to reflect the actual time but in Kairos, the subject construction of time. To analyze the data closely, researchers look for the bifurcation point (BFP), the transformation, or the turning point in the participant’s trajectory. The social pressure that moved the life course toward EFP is exhibited as social direction (SD) as an arrow pushing down the trajectory; the social influence that helped the participant reach the EFP is indicated as social guidance (SG) as an arrow pushing up the trajectory. Being aware of the possibilities that did not happen but could have occurred in the life course is referred to as the polarized equifinality point (P-EFP). The central concept of TEM is that there could be many trajectories to the same EFP, and hence, figuring out why the participant took the particular trajectory can provide insight to the researcher. Using TEM progresses the analysis and visually expounds the process of participants’ actions and thoughts to the readers. Referring to Valsiner’s liminal model of internalization and externalization (Fig. 6), TEM mainly demonstrates Layer I, where social messages enter individuals’ thoughts and how individuals take action.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Trajectory Equifinality Modeling of a student’s autonomous self-regulated learning

Full size image

TLMG

The TLMG focuses on the promoter signs that impact participants’ psychological processes and development. Valsiner (2007) suggested that the TLMG portrays how individuals create their intra-psychological stories through the internalization process (Fig. 8). Sato et al. (2016) explain that the TLMG is the “hypothetical mechanism of transformation of the individual psyche through sign” (p. X). The researcher draws values, signs, and actions transacting in dialogical self through microgenesis (a process of aktualgenese), mesogenesis (contextual frame), and ontogenesis on the first, second, and third layers, respectively. TLMG demonstrates how personal perceptions and behaviors on the first layer push up promoter signs that emerge on the second layer, such as BFP, and transform the individual’s beliefs and values on the third layer. TLMG considers Valsiner’s egg-shaped liminal model of internalization and externalization (Fig. 6) from the side, and while TEM focuses on Layer I, TLMG focuses on all three layers and their interactions. It is an effective model for magnifying the BFP found on TEM, where a trajectory is propelled in one direction away from many other path possibilities. This study demonstrates the feature difference between TEM and TLMG by illustrating the same process for autonomous self-regulation in both models. By drawing the BFP on TLMG, the emergence of signs and the internalization and externalization process can be explored (Fig. 9). The process updates beliefs and values on the third layer, which transforms the behaviors and perceptions on the first layer, in the form of self-regulated learning. TLMG is a powerful tool that visualizes the mediation of meaning-making in the SRL process. The author believes that qualitative methodology, TEA, delineating human processes, and development in interactions with culture will support further SRL research.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Three layers model of interdependent levels of human development (Valsiner, 2007)

Full size image
Fig. 9
figure 9

A student’s autonomous self-regulated learning on three layers model of genesis

Full size image

Conclusion

From a metacognitive view, students’ specific psychological responses and approaches in a learning setting are interconnected with all environmental factors (Hartman, 2001). Self is interpretable only within others’ perceptions (Malloy et al., 1997). Their relationships and experiences in co-regulation with their surroundings, including parents, teachers, and classmates, facilitate SRL (McCaslin & Good, 1996). Many researchers have studied the mechanisms of SRL and strategies for students to enhance it but did not fully include its process. Hence, this study investigated the process from the perspective of cultural psychology. Reviewing Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory with his concept of signs, Bruner’s meaning-making, and Valsiner’s internalization and externalization model provided insights into the SRL process. Children are initially shaped by their environment, as they cannot self-regulate. However, they master the language (external and inner speech) embedded in the culture. Using language as a tool, they learn to communicate with the environment externally. Furthermore, using language as a sign, they learn to self-regulate their behaviors and thoughts internally (Vygotsky et al., 1978). From Vygotsky’s view, SRL aims to increase children’s ability to control and direct their behavior for mastery by developing psychological processes and functions using signs and tools. Using signs is the part of the internalization process that supports SRL, which Valsiner’s model depicted closely. From Bruner’s viewpoint, SRL results in students constructing their own meanings instead of responding to others’ regulations. He believed that if children were active participants in culture, they would construct meaning using signs in their sociocultural settings through narratives. According to Bruner (1990, p. 86), “Narrative becomes an instrument for telling not only what happened but also why it justified the action recounted.”

To examine the process of SRL, understanding the process of internalization through signs in culture is necessary. Inner speech, meaning-making, and narrative are natural internal procedures in a culture that support internalization and SRL. Furthermore, this study found that SRL is an entire process that includes internalization and extends to externalization, which is the actualization of actions using internalization. Valsiner’s internalization and externalization model inspired TLMG in the qualitative methodology, TEA, which helped depict the SRL process.

For future research, SRL theories and models should be more interactive and dynamic, considering the sociocultural aspect of learning where collaborative knowledge construction emerges. Studies should analyze sociocultural factors from multiple angles, as influence factors on students’ SRL and as being influenced by them. McCaslin and Hickey asserted that “SRL is instrumental to socially meaningful activity; SRL not only empowers the individual, it enriches the culture” (2001, p. 242). SRL is a unique process for each individual, shifting the perspective from strategy to process as culture enriches SRL and leads to a deeper understanding of student learning.