Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How teams learn to regulate collaborative processes with technological support

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational technology research and development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examined the utility of a technologically enhanced collective regulation system for improving students’ collaborative sense-making processes, i.e., discussion quality, over time. Participants were 27 online undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory information science course. Students were divided into teams tasked with carrying out five online synchronous discussions and collective reflection activities in the system focusing on improving their processes over a ten-week period. Discussion quality was evaluated by a trained graduate student, using the same assessment rubric used by teams. Both qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques were used to examine teams’ collaborative discussion quality and socio-metacognitive processes over time. Findings suggest teams significantly improved discussion quality and used the features in the system to do so. The results also suggested that while individuals were generally inaccurate in assessing their team’s discussion quality, group assessment accuracy and identification of team’s weaknesses improved over time in select areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borge, M. (2007). Regulating social interactions: Developing a functional theory of collaboration (Order No. 3306071). (ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; Social Science Premium Collection). (304901275). https://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/regulating-social-interactions-developing/docview/304901275/se-2?accountid=13158

  • Borge, M. (2017). Rethinking how we support online learning in the age of isolation and information abundance: An introduction to the CREATE system. International Journal on Innovations in Online Education. http://onlineinnovationsjournal.com/streams/adaptive-and-personalized-learning-online/4e56bc28287c002d.html.

  • Borge, M., & Carroll, J. M. (2014). Verbal equity, cognitive specialization, and performance. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on supporting group work. (pp. 215–225). ACM

  • Borge, M., Ganoe, C. H., Shih, S. I., & Carroll, J. M. (2012). Patterns of team processes and breakdowns in information analysis tasks. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. (pp. 10). ACM

  • Borge, M., Ong, Y. S., & Rosé, C. P. (2015). Activity design models to support the development of high-quality collaborative processes in online settings. In O. Lindwall, P. Häkkinen, T. Koschman, P. Tchounikine, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Exploring the material conditions of learning: The computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) conference 2015. (Vol. 1). The International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borge, M., Ong, Y. S., & Rosé, C. P. (2018). Learning to monitor and regulate collective thinking processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(1), 61–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9270-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borge, M., & Rosé, C. P. (2016). Automated feedback on group processes: An experience report. In Barnes, T., Chi, M., Feng, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International conference on educational data mining, EDM 2016, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA (pp. 573–574). International Educational Data Mining Society. https://www.educationaldatamining.org/EDM2016/proceedings.html

  • Borge, M., & Shimoda, T. (2019). Designing a computer-supported-collective regulation system: A theoretically informed approach. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, & Learning, 11(2–3), 193–217. https://www.oldcitypublishing.com/journals/ticl-home/ticl-issue-contents/ticl-volume-11-number-2-3-2019/ticl-11-2-3-p-163-192/

  • Borge, M., & White, B. (2016). Toward the development of socio-metacognitive expertise: An approach to developing collaborative competence. Cognition and Instruction, 34(4), 323–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1215722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., Wang, M., Kirschner, P. A., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). The role of collaboration, computer use, learning environments, and supporting strategies in CSCL: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(6), 799–843. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318791584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Convertino, G., Mentis, H. M., Rosson, M. B., Slavkovic, A., & Carroll, J. M. (2009). Supporting content and process common ground in computer-supported teamwork. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2339–2348). ACM.

  • Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Stout, R. J. (2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 42(1), 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science, 13(2), 128–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiore, S. M., Graesser, A., Greiff, S., Griffin, P., Gong, B., Kyllonen, P., & Soulé, H. (2017). Collaborative problem solving: Considerations for the National Assessment of Educational Progress. National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Group awareness tools: It’s what you do with it that matters. Computers in human behavior, 27(3), 1046–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., & Malmberg, J. (2019). Capturing the dynamic and cyclical nature of regulation: Methodological Progress in understanding socially shared regulation in learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(4), 425–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Hadwin, A., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Miller, M., & Laru, J. (2016). Socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: Understanding and prompting individual-and group-level shared regulatory activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., & Järvenoja, H. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 125–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T. (2018). Ethnomethodology: Studying the practical achievement of intersubjectivity. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (1st ed., pp. 465–474). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S., & Ilgen, D. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, K. (2020). Student-generated awareness information in a group awareness tool: What does it reveal? Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 1301–1327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated learning through self-assessment and peer assessment: Guidelines for classroom implementation. Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation (pp. 311–326). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., Tapia, J. A., & Huertas, J. A. (2012). Rubrics and self-assessment scripts effects on self-regulation, learning and self-efficacy in secondary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 806–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., Kirschner, P. A., Erkens, G., & Jaspers, J. (2011). Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1087–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PISA 2015 Results (Volume V) | READ online. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2015-results-volume-v_9789264285521-en#page1

  • Radkowitsch, A., Vogel, F., & Fischer, F. (2020). Good for learning, bad for motivation? A meta-analysis on the effects of computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(1), 5–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinholz, D. L., & Shah, N. (2018). Equity analytics: A methodological approach for quantifying participation patterns in mathematics classroom discourse. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(2), 140–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1996). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 209–248). Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2002). Scenario-based design. In J. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications (pp. 1032–1050). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rummel, N., Spada, H., & Hauser, S. (2009). Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing a model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 69–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 7–55). Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Group creativity: Music, theater, collaboration. Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sinkovics, N. (2018). Pattern matching in qualitative analysis. In C. Cassel, A. Cunliffe, & G. Grandy (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative business and management research methods (pp. 468–485). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2013). Theories of cognition in collaborative learning. In C. Hmelo-Silver, C. Chinn, C. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 74–90). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education learning powered by technology: national education technology plan 2010. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf

  • Veinott, E. S., Olson, J., Olson, G. M., & Fu, X. (1999). Video helps remote work: Speakers who need to negotiate common ground benefit from seeing each other. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp 302–309).

  • Webster, E. A., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). Regulating emotions during computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/edd101/webster-csse-2013-poster

  • Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). From guided to self-regulated performance of domain-general skills: The role of peer monitoring during the fading of instructional scripts. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 746–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wecker, C., Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Prechtl, H. (2010). Fostering online search competence and domain-specific knowledge in inquiry classrooms: Effects of continuous and fading collaboration scripts. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the Disciplines proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences- Volume 1 (pp 810–817). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • West, G. P. (2007). Collective cognition: When entrepreneurial teams, not individuals make decisions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31(1), 77–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2009). Supporting self-regulated learning with cognitive tools. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 259–277). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, A. F., & Schwarz, B. B. (2017). Visions of CSCL: Eight provocations for the future of the field. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(4), 423–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2016). The future of jobs employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. Global Challenge Insight Report. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf

  • Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. Design and methods. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the National Science Foundation (IIS-1319445) awarded to Marcela Borge.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Pennsylvania State University, 301C Keller Building, University Park, PA, 16802-6823, USA

    Marcela Borge, Tugce Aldemir & Yu Xia

  2. University of Connecticut, Neag School of Education, Charles B. Gentry Building, Storrs, CT, 06269-3064, USA

    Tugce Aldemir

Authors
  1. Marcela Borge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tugce Aldemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yu Xia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcela Borge.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest that would impact the research in any way.

Ethical approval

Approval was obtained from the institutional review board of the Pennsylvania State University for study 26144. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 547 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borge, M., Aldemir, T. & Xia, Y. How teams learn to regulate collaborative processes with technological support. Education Tech Research Dev 70, 661–690 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10103-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10103-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation