Abstract
The current study examines variation in other-regulation, conceptualized as efforts by one student to regulate their group’s work. This study extends research which has conceptualized other-regulation as temporarily guiding others’ conceptual understanding and skill development by broadening the spectrum of other-regulation to include directive forms and considering their differential impact on regulation quality. Qualitative analyses were conducted based on videotaped observations of three groups of 7th graders working on three collaborative activities during an inquiry-based science unit. Findings suggest that directive other-regulation related to employed moderate-low and low quality regulation within the group. Facilitative forms yielded higher quality regulation given co-equal regulation and task contributions, the focus of the other-regulator on integrating ideas using behavioral and group process regulation, as well as sustaining a shared focus on developing the task product through the use of high-quality content and disciplinary regulation. In contrast, directive other-regulation related to an imbalance in participation and regulatory contributions, as well as the other-regulators’ focus on controlling the task and ensuring their own contribution remained central to the task product. When group members do not have opportunities to make regulatory contributions, regulation and task quality suffer since the group cannot benefit from the full potential of their shared activity, with implications for learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In the examples provided, qualitative codes are indicated in parentheses and italics to clarify what aspect of the group interaction we intend to highlight. Subjective interpretations, such as tone of voice, are indicated in the example using brackets and italics. Clarifications regarding observed student behaviors (e.g., who students are speaking to, body posture, etc.) or clarifications regarding aspects of the task are included in brackets without italics to provide clarity regarding student interactions and behaviors. Italics are not used for these latter notes, as they reflect observed behavior rather than interpretation.
While there was variation in the curriculum conditions among the three groups, between-group variation in regulation quality and learning outcomes do not seem to be explained by these differences. In particular, both Group 1 (facilitative other-regulation; higher scores on transfer test) and Group 2 (directive other-regulation; lower scores on transfer test) were members of the same curriculum condition.
References
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 403–436.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359.
Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1039–1065.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Chinn, C. A., & Buckland, L. A. (2011). Differences in epistemic practices among scientists, young earth creationists, intelligent design creationists, and the scientist creationists of Darwin’s era. In R. Taylor & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy (pp. 38–76). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Chinn, C. A., Duschl, R. A., & Duncan, R. G., Buckland, L. A., Pluta, W. P. (2008). A microgenetic classroom study of learning to reason scientifically through modeling and argumentation. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on International Conference for the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cornelius, L. L., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students’ relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 467–498.
Darnon, C., Muller, D., Schrager, S. M., Pannuzzo, N., & Butera, F. (2006). Mastery and performance goals predict epistemic and relational conflict regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 766–776.
DiDonato, N. (2013). Effective self- and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: An analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks. Instructional Science, 41, 25–47.
Duncan, R. G., Freidenreich, H. B., Chinn, C. A., & Bausch, A. (2011). Promoting middle-school students’ understanding of molecular genetics. Research in Science Education, 41, 147–167.
Eilam, B., & Aharon, I. (2003). Students’ planning in the process of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 304–334.
Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113, 240–264.
Hogan, K. (1999). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students’ collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1085–1109.
Hogan, K. (2001). Collective Metacognition: The interplay of individual, social, and cultural meanings in small groups’ reflective thinking. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in Psychology Research, Vol 7. (pp.199–239). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379–432.
Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P. (2011). Socially shared metacognition of dyads of pupils in collaborative mathematical problem-solving processes. Learning and instruction, 21, 379–393.
Järvelä, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2011). Socially constructed self-regulated learning and motivation regulation in collaborative learning groups. Teachers College Record, 113, 350–374.
Järvelä, S., Volet, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2010). Research on motivation in collaborative learning: Moving beyond the cognitive–situative divide and combining individual and social processes. Educational Psychologist, 45, 15–27.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Achievement goals and students well-being. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 330–358.
Kempler, T. M. & Linnenbrink, E. A. (2004, April). Re-examining the influence of competition structures in group contexts: Implications for social and cognitive interactions in small groups. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
Kumpulainen, K., & Mutanen, M. (1999). The situated dynamics of peer group interaction: An introduction to an analytic framework. Learning and Instruction, 9, 449–473.
Levy, I., Kaplan, A., & Patrick, H. (2004). Early adolescents’ achievement goals, social status, and attitudes towards cooperation with peers. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 127–159.
McCaslin, M., Vega, R. I., Anderson, E. E., Calderon, C. N., & Labistre, A. M. (2011). Tabletalk: Navigating and negotiating in small-group learning. In D. M. McInerney, R. A. Walker, & G. A. D. Liem (Eds.), Sociocultural theories of learning an motivation: Looking back, looking forward (pp. 191–222). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
NRC. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. In R. Duschl, H. Schweingruber, & H. Shouse (Eds.), Washington. DC: National Academy Press.
O’Donnell, A. M. (2006). The role of peers and group learning. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 781–802). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Panadero, E. & Järvelä, S. (2014). Reviewing findings on socially shared regulation of learning (submitted).
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Pintrich, P. R., Conley, A. M., & Kempler, T. M. (2003). Current issues in achievement goal theory and research. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 319–337.
Rogat, T. K., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2011). Socially shared regulation in collaborative groups: An analysis of the interplay between quality of social regulation and group processes. Cognition and Instruction, 29, 375–415.
Rogat, T. K., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). Understanding the quality variation of socially shared regulation: A focus on methodology. In M. Vauras & S. Volet (Eds.), Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation: Methodological advances (pp. 102–125). London: Routledge.
Rogat, T. K., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & DiDonato, N. (2013). Motivation in collaborative groups. In C. Hmelo-Silver, C. Chinn, C. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 250–267). London: Routledge.
Rogat, T. K., Witham, S. A., & Chinn, C. A. (in press). Teachers’ autonomy relevant practices within an inquiry-based science curricular context: Extending the range of academically significant autonomy supportive practices. Teachers College Record.
Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Efklides, A. (2005). Social interaction—What can it tell us about metacognition and coregulation in learning? European Psychologist, 10, 199–208.
Summers, M., & Volet, S. (2010). Group work does not necessarily equal collaborative learning: evidence from observations and self-reports. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25, 473–492.
Vauras, M., Iiskala, T., Kajamies, A., Kinnunen, R., & Lehtinen, E. (2003). Shared-regulation and motivation of collaborating peers: A case analysis. Psychologia, 46, 19–37.
Volet, S. (2001). Understanding learning and motivation in context: A multi-dimensional and multi-level cognitive–situative perspective. In S. Volet & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp. 57–82). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pergamon.
Volet, S., & Mansfield, C. (2006). Group work at university: Significance of personal goals in the regulation strategies of students with positive and negative appraisals. Higher Education Research & Development, 25, 341–356.
Volet, S., 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, 128–143.
Volet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009b). Self- and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44, 215–226.
Volet, S., & Summers, M. (2013). Interpersonal regulation in collaborative learning activities: Reflections on emerging research methodologies. In S. Volet & M. Vauras (Eds.), Interpersonal Regulation of Learning and Motivation: Methodological Advances (pp. 204–220). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group.
Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rogat, T.K., Adams-Wiggins, K.R. Other-regulation in collaborative groups: implications for regulation quality. Instr Sci 42, 879–904 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9322-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9322-9