Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effective self- and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: An analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined the use of collaborative interdisciplinary authentic tasks as a context in which learners develop and use self-regulated learning (SRL) processes. Participants included sixty-four students from a U.S. middle school whose residents are largely from low-income families. Students worked in groups to design and carry out an authentic, interdisciplinary project over a 9-week period. A Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) analysis suggested that students’ individual SRL increased over the course of the project and that co-regulated learning (CRL) moderated this relationship. Furthermore, one group was selected as an exemplar case to provide an explanation of how co-regulation occurred and influenced SRL in this collaborative group. Theoretical and practical implications of the research are discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This study focused on self-regulation of cognition and did not examine the motivational or behavioral regulation processes that are included in extended conceptualizations of SRL (e.g., Pintrich 2000; Zimmerman 2000).

  2. Although theoretically distinct, it may be difficult to operationalize MM from self-monitoring control strategies since activities associated with both concepts are quite similar (Pintrich 2000).

References

  • Abram, P., Scarloss, B., Holthuis, N., Cohen, E., Lotan, R., & Schultz, S. E. (2002). The use of evaluation criteria to improve academic discussion in cooperative groups. Asian Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 3–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benard (1990, December). The case for peers. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional.Educational Laboratory.

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M., & Cascallar, E. (2006). How far have we moved toward the integration of theory and practice in self-regulation? Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 199–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., Raudenbush, S. W., & Congdon, R. T. (1996). HLM. Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modelling with the HLM/2L and HLM/3L programs. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., Jarvis, S., Beckingham, B., Novak, H., & Elaschuk, C. (2001, April). Teachers as facilitators of students’ strategic performance: Promoting academic success by secondary students with learning difficulties. Presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association. Seattle, WA.

  • Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). Interaction and learning in mathematics classroom situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(1), 99–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (2004). What we have learned about student engagement in the past twenty years. In D. M. McInerney & S. V. Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (Vol. 4). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU Council (2002). Council Resolution 27 June 2002 on Lifelong Learning. Official Journal of the European Communities, July 9 2002.

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, R. D. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective efficacy: The development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 93, 467–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, E. (2007). Strategic thinking at the top. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(4), 75–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Reid, R. (1992). Developing self-regulated learners. Focus on Exceptional Children, 24(6), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D. D., & Rakow, E. A. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadwin, A. F., Wozney, L., & Pontin, O. (2005). Scaffolding the appropriation of self-regulatory activity: A social constructivist analysis of changes in student-teacher discourse about a graduate student portfolio. Special Issue of Instructional Science, 33, 413–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G., & Eppler, R. (1990). Team learning in German classrooms: Processes and outcomes. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 23–37). New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurme, T.-R., & Järvelä, S. (2005). Students’ activity in computer supported collaborative problem solving in mathematics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 10, 49–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaacson, R. M., & Fujita, F. (2006). Metacognitive knowledge monitoring and self-regulated learning: Academic success and reflections on learning. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6, 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S. & Järvenoja, H. (August, 2007). Socially constructed self-regulated learning in collaborative learning groups. Paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest, Hungary.

  • Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., & Veermans, M. (2008). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in socially shared learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 122–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 23–37). New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., Johnson, R., Stanne, M., & Garibaldi, A. (1990). Impact of group processing on achievement in cooperative groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 130(4), 507–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempler, T. M., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2007). Exploring self-regulation in group contexts. In C. A. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (pp. 357–360). New Brunswick, NJ: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Kreft, I., & De Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luwel, K., Torbeyns, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2003). The relation between metastrategic knowledge, strategy use and task performance: Findings and reflections from a numerosity judgement task. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(4), 425–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Pons, M. (1999, April). Cultural differences in parental and teacher inductive behavior of academic self-regulation. Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.

  • McArdle, J. J., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1994). Using multivariate data to structure developmental change. In S. H. Cohen & H. W. Reese (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Methodological innovations (pp. 223–267). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCaslin, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 227–252). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 1–25). Cambridge, MA: MIT, Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and student performance in the postsecondary classroom. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (1999). Designing collaborative contexts: Lessons from three research programs. In A. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 151–177). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Patrick, H., & Middleton, M. (2002). Turning the kaleidoscope: What we see when self-regulated learning is viewed with a qualitative lens. Educational Psychologist, 37, 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, Q. P. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, N. E. (1998). Young children’s self-regulating and the contexts that promote it. Educational Psychologist, 90, 715–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, N., Phillips, L., & Hutchinson, L. (2006). Mentoring students to support self-regulated learning. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 237–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, N., VandeKamp, K., Mercer, L., & Nordby, C. (2002). Investigating teacher-student interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego: Academic.

  • Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25, 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Effects of self-correction strategy training on middle school students’ self-efficacy, self-evaluation, and mathematics division learning. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 18–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., & du Toit, M. (2004). HLM 6.02; Scientific Software International, Retrieved January 7, 2009 from http://www.ssicentral.com.

  • Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1989). Memory development between 2 and 20. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Potenza, M. T., & Nebelsick-Gullet, L. (1993). Constraints on the calibration of performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 455–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H. (1996, October). Self-evaluation and self-regulated learning. Paper presented at the Graduate School and University Center, City University of New York, New York, NY.

  • Schwartz, B. L., & Metcalfe, J. (1994). Methodological problems and pitfalls in the study of human metacognition. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 93–114). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperling, R., Howard, B., Staley, R., & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research & Evaluation, 10(2), 117–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spybrook, J., Raudenbush, S. W., Liu, X., Congdon, R., & Martínez, A. (2008). Optimal design for longitudinal and multilevel research: Documentation for the “Optimal Design” software. New York: William T. Grant Foundation. Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/group-based/files/od-manual-20080312-v176.pdf.

  • Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 306–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swengel, E. M. (1991). Cutting education’s Gordian knot. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 704–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. (1997). Starting right: Strategies for engaging young literacy learners. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 183–204). Newark, DL: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). The Condition of Education 2008. Retrieved January 1, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=091#.

  • Vauras, M., Iiskala, T., Kajamies, A., Kinnunen, R., & Lehtinen, E. (2003). Shared-regulation and motivation of collaborating peers: A case analysis. An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 46, 19–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers-Pleijers, A. J., Dolmans, D. H., de Leng, B. A., Wolfhagen, I. H., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. (2006). Analysis of verbal interactions in tutorial groups: A process study. Medical Education, 40(2), 129–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volet, S. E., Summers, M., & Thurman, J. (2009a). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 128–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volet, S. E., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009b). Self- and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Webb, N. W., Nemer, K. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 63–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2003). Self-regulating studying by objectives for learning: Students’ reports compared to a model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 532–566). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science, 26, 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C., Pintrich, P., & Karabenick, S. (2005). Assessing academic self-regulated learning. In K. Moore & L. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 251–270). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yowell, C. M., & Smylie, M. A. (1999). Self-regulation in democratic communities. The Elementary School Journal, 99(5), 469–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 173–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic.

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 241–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners. Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I acknowledge and thank the thoughtful comments of Angela O'Donnell, Cindy Hmelo-Silver, Toni Kempler Rogat, Helenrose Fives, Nancy Perry, and Emily Krause.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Foundations, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, 07043, USA

    Nicole C. DiDonato

Authors
  1. Nicole C. DiDonato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole C. DiDonato.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 Description of group projects
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

DiDonato, N.C. Effective self- and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: An analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks. Instr Sci 41, 25–47 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9206-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9206-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation