Skip to main content

Facilitating socio-cognitive and socio-emotional monitoring in collaborative learning with a regulation macro script – an exploratory study

Abstract

This study examines student teachers’ collaborative learning by focusing on socio-cognitive and socio-emotional monitoring processes during more and less active script discussions as well as the near transfer of monitoring activities in the subsequent task work. The participants of this study were teacher education students whose collaborative learning was supported with a designed regulation macro script during a six weeks environmental science course. The script divided the group work into three phases, namely: the orientation phase, intermediate phase, and reflection phase. The script was put in use by prompting questions that were delivered to the students on tablets. Question prompts instructed groups to plan their collaborative processes, and to stop and reflect on the efficiency of their strategies and outcomes of their learning process. The data were collected by videotaping the groups’ face-to-face work and analysed by focusing on verbalised monitoring interactions. More active and less active script discussions were differentiated in terms of the length and the quality of discussion. The results show that the macro script was used more thoroughly at the beginning of the group activities for orientation than for coordinating the progress or reflecting on the performance. Active script discussions involved more monitoring activities, especially providing socio-emotional support. Once socio-emotional support was stimulated in the more active script discussion, it tended to follow-up during the task work. It can be concluded, that the groups appropriated the script differently in different situations and with varied success. The implications of facilitating socio-cognitive and socio-emotional monitoring in collaborative learning are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1993). An exploration of long-term far-transfer effects following an extended intervention program in the high school science curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 11(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J., Pardijs, M., & Baker, M. (2013). Getting on and getting along. In M. Baker, M. Andriessen, & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Affective learning together: Social and emotional dimensions of collaborative learning (pp. 205–230). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., Andriessen, J., & Järvelä, S. (2013). Introduction: Visions of learning together. In M. Baker, M. Andriessen, & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Affective learning together: Social and emotional dimensions of collaborative learning (pp. 1–30). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R., Kim, C. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.838920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, D. (1983). Metacognitive experience and transfer of logical reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 35, 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M. (2011). What have we learned about the social context-student engagement link? Teachers College Record, 113(2), 375–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T., & Zimmerman, B. (2012). A cyclical self-regulatory account of student engagement: Theoretical foundations and applications. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 237–257). US: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_11.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2014). Socially shared metacognitive regulation during reciprocal peer tutoring: Identifying its relationship with students’ content processing and transactive discussions. Instructional Science, 43(3), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9335-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiDonato, N. C. (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(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9206-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner, W. Jochems, F. Catherine, & R. Magliozzi (Eds.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9033-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00191.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eby, L. T., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collectivistic orientation in teams: An individual and group-level analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(3), 275–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, H. C., & Ashbrook, P. W. (1988). Resource allocation model of the effect of depressed mood states on memory. In K. Fiedler & J. Forgas (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and social behavior (pp. 25–43). Toronto: Hogrefe International.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.748005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding III-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georghiades, P. (2000). Beyond conceptual change learning in science education: Focusing on transfer, durability and metacognition. Educational Research, 42(2), 119–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 193–223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016209010120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 65–86). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53, 449–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen, R., & Häkkinen, P. (2010). Teachers' instructional planning for computer-supported collaborative learning: Macro-scripts as a pedagogical method to facilitate collaborative learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 871–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillyard, C., Gillespie, D., & Littig, P. (2010). University students’ attitudes about learning in small groups after frequent participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787409355867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurme, T.-R., Palonen, T., & Järvelä, S. (2006). Metacognition in joint discussions: An analysis of the patterns of interaction and the metacognitive content of the networked discussions in mathematics. Metacognition and Learning, 1(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-9792-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Emotion regulation in education: Conceptual foundations, current applications, and future directions. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), Handbook of emotions in education (pp. 183–201). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2012). Task-related and social regulation during online collaborative learning. Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9061-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New Frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.748006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., & Näykki, P. (2013). Analyzing regulation of motivation as an individual and social process e a situated approach. In M. Vauras & S. Volet (Eds.), EARLI series: New perspectives on learning and instruction Interpersonal regulation of learning and Motivation: Methodological advances (pp. 170–187). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., Koivuniemi, M., & Järvenoja, H. (2014). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9358-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Hadwin, A., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Miller, M., & Laru, J. (2016a). 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9238-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J., & Sobocinski, M. (2016b). How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? Learning and Instruction, 43, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X402811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., & Malmberg, J. (2015). Understanding regulated learning in Situative and contextual frameworks. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1075400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205–226). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2009). Instructional designs for the development of transferable knowledge and skills: A cognitive load perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 332–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khosa, D. K., & Volet, S. E. (2014). Productive group engagement in cognitive activity and metacognitive regulation during collaborative learning: Can it explain differences in students’ conceptual understanding? Metacognition and Learning, 9(3), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9117-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2701_8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 13–37). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9014-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts - a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, K., Liu, Y.-H., & Johnson, L. P. (2014). Group regulation and social-emotional interactions observed in computer supported collaborative learning: Comparison between good vs. poor collaborators. Computers and Education, 78, 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. P., Lee, L., Poitras, E., Bassiri, M., Kazemitabar, M., Cruz-Panesso, I., Hmelo-Silver, C., Wiseman, J., Chan, L. K., & Lu, J. (2015). The role of regulation in medical student learning in small groups: Regulating oneself and others' learning and emotions. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 601–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46(4), 352–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A., O’Donnell, A. M., & Rogat, T. K. (2015). Exploration of the cognitive regulatory sub-processes employed by groups characterized by socially shared and other-regulation in a CSCL context. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Rogat, T. K., & Koskey, K. L. K. (2011). Affect and engagement during small group instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludvigsen, S. (2016). CSCL: Connecting the social, emotional and cognitive dimensions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(2), 115–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meinhardt, J., & Pekrun, R. (2003). Attentional resource allocation to emotional events: An ERP study. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 477–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, M., & Hadwin, A. (2015). Scripting and awareness tools for regulating collaborative learning: Changing the landscape of support in CSCL. Computer in Human Behavior, 52, 573–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins, D., Deiglmayr, A., & Spada, H. (2013). Motivation and emotion shaping knowledge co-construction. In M. J. Baker, J. Andriessen, & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Affective learning together: Social and emotional dimensions of collaborative learning (pp. 139–161). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Näykki, P., & Järvelä, S. (2008). How pictorial knowledge representations mediate collaborative knowledge construction in groups. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(3), 359–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2008.10782512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., & Järvenoja, H. (2014). Socio-emotional conflict in collaborative learning-a process-oriented case study in a higher education context. International Journal of Educational Research, 68, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Näykki, P., Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., & Kirschner, P. (2017). Monitoring makes a difference: Quality and temporal variation in teacher education students’ collaborative learning. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1066440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2017). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first- to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z.

  • O'Donnell, A. N., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interactions in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Donnell, A. M., & King, A. (Eds.). (1999). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osman, M. (2008). Positive transfer and negative transfer/antilearning of problem-solving skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 137(1), 97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polo, C., Lund, K., Plantin, C., & Niccolai, G. (2016). Group emotions: The social and cognitive functions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9232-8.

  • Rogat, T. K., & Adams-Wiggins, K. R. (2014). Other-regulation in collaborative groups: Implications for regulation quality. Instructional Science, 42(6), 879–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogat, T. K., & Adams-Wiggins, K. R. (2015). Interrelation between regulatory and socioemotional processes within collaborative groups characterized by facilitative and directive other-regulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 52(3165), 589–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(4), 375–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogat, T. K., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). Understanding quality variation in socially shared regulation: A focus on methodology. In S. Volet & M. Vauras (Eds.), Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation (pp. 102–124). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36(4), 321–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryu, S., & Lombardi, D. (2015). Coding classroom interactions for collective and individual engagement. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 70–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saab, N. (2012). Team regulation, regulation of social activities or co-regulation: Different labels for effective regulation of learning in CSCL. Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Shawn Burke, C. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, P. A., & Davis, H. A. (2000). Emotions and self-regulation during test taking. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, S., Kempler Rogat, T., Adams-Wiggins, K. R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2015). Collaborative group engagement in a CSCL environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10, 273–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9218-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann, K., Kollar, I., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, R. (2016). Appropriation from a script theory of guidance perspective: A response to Pierre Tchounikine. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 371–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers and Education, 46(1), 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(4), 473–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tchounikine, P. (2016). Contribution to a theory of CSCL scripts: Taking into account the appropriation of scripts by learners. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 349–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning (pp. 361–384). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, S. D., Martin, L., Richards, L., & Branson, D. (2003). Assessing critical thinking and problem solving using a web-based curriculum for students. Internet and Higher Education, 6(2), 185–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ucan, S., & Webb, M. (2015). Social regulation of learning during collaborative inquiry learning in science: How does it emerge and what are its functions? International Journal of Science Education, 37(15), 2503–2532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2016). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9361-7.

  • 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(4), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360600947301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q. (2009). Design and evaluation of a collaborative learning environment. Computers and Education, 53(4), 1138–1146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P., & Melkonian, D. K. (2009). ‘explain to your partner’: Teachers’ instructional practices and students’ dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 49–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 189–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Academy of Finland (Grant number 273970).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Piia Näykki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Näykki, P., Isohätälä, J., Järvelä, S. et al. Facilitating socio-cognitive and socio-emotional monitoring in collaborative learning with a regulation macro script – an exploratory study. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 12, 251–279 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9259-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9259-5

Keywords

  • Macro-script
  • Socio-cognitive monitoring
  • Socio-emotional monitoring
  • Regulation
  • Script appropriation
  • Video analysis