Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 125–142 | Cite as

Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: designing for CSCL regulation tools

  • Sanna Järvelä
  • Paul A. Kirschner
  • Ernesto Panadero
  • Jonna Malmberg
  • Chris Phielix
  • Jos Jaspers
  • Marika Koivuniemi
  • Hanna Järvenoja
Development Article


For effective computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL), socially shared regulation of learning (SSRL) is necessary. To this end, this article extends the idea first posited by Järvelä and Hadwin (Educ Psychol 48(1):25–39, 2013) that successful collaboration in CSCL contexts requires targeted support for promoting individual self-regulatory skills and strategies, peer support, facilitation of self-regulatory competence within the group, and SSRL. These (meta)cognitive, social, motivational, and emotional aspects related to being/becoming aware of how one learns alone and with others are for the most part neglected in traditional CSCL support. Based upon a review of theoretical and empirical studies on the potential of and challenges to collaboration, three design principles for supporting SSRL are introduced: (1) increasing learner awareness of their own and others’ learning processes, (2) supporting externalization of one’s own and others’ learning process and helping to share and interact, and (3) prompting acquisition and activation of regulatory processes. Finally, an illustrative example is presented for how these principles are applied in a technological tool for supporting SSRL.


Computer supported collaborative learning Collaborative learning Self-regulated learning Socially shared regulation of learning Technological tools 



Research funded by the Finnish Academy, Project no. 259214 (PROSPECTS, PI: Sanna Järvelä).


  1. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition: Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 367–379. doi: 10.1007/s11251-005-1272-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R., Johnson, A., Chauncey, A., & Burkett, C. (2010). Self-regulated Learning with MetaTutor: Advancing the science of learning with metacognitive tools. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New Science of Learning (pp. 225–247). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, M. J. (1994). A Model for Negotiation in Teaching-Learning Dialogues. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 5(2), 199–254.Google Scholar
  4. Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., & LaGanke, J. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(1), 156–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bannert, M., & Reimann, P. (2012). Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts. Instructional Science, 40(1), 193–211. doi: 10.1007/s11251-011-9167-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1203_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2013.838920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unraveling basic components and dimensions. (Advances in Learning and Instruction Series) (pp. 55–68). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  9. Blaye, A., & Light, P. (1990). Computer-based learning: The social dimensions. In H. C. Foot, M. J. Morgan, & R. H. Shute (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 135–150). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. (2011). Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1043–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bradner, E., Kellogg, W. A., & Erickson, T. (1999). The adoption and use of ‘BABBLE’: A field study of chat in the workplace. In S. Bødker, M. Kyng, & K. Schmidt (Eds.), ECSCW’99 (pp. 139–158). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. doi: 10.3102/00346543064001001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Devolder, A., Van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: Systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 557–573.Google Scholar
  15. Dieberger, A. (2000). Where did all the people go? A collaborative Web space with social navigation information. Poster presented at the 9th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW9), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Accessed from the World Wide Web on June 8, 2002 at
  16. Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 231–264. doi: 10.1007/s11409-008-9029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  19. 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. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.748005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fjermestad, J. (2004). An analysis of communication mode in group support systems research. Decision Support Systems, 37, 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fransen, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2011). Mediating team effectiveness in the context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1103–1113. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fransen, J., Weinberger, A., & Kirschner, P. (2013). Team effectiveness and team development in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48, 9–24. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.747947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaver, W. W. (1996). Situating action II: Affordances for interaction: The social is material for design. Ecological Psychology, 8(2), 111–129. doi: 10.1207/s15326969eco0802_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The Theory of Affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Greller, W., & Drachsler, H. (2012). Translating learning into numbers: A generic framework for learning analytics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 42–57.Google Scholar
  26. 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. 65–84). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Hadwin, A. F., Oshige, M., Gress, C. L. Z., & Winne, P. H. (2010). Innovative ways for using gStudy to orchestrate and research social aspects of self-regulated learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 794–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Bar-Natan, I. (2002). Writing development of Arab and Jewish students using cooperative learning (CL) and computer-mediated communication (CMC). Computers & Education, 39(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48–94. doi: 10.1080/07370000701798495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., Irmer, B., & Chang, A. (2002). The expression of conflict in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 33, 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., & Jaspers, J. (2007). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 49, 1037–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.74800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., & Malmberg, J. (2012). How elementary school students’ regulation of motivation is connected to self-regulation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(1), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., & Hadwin, A. (2013). Exploring socially-shared regulation in the context of collaboration. The Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12(3), 267–286. doi: 10.1891/1945-8959.12.3.267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., & Veermans, M. (2008a). Understanding dynamics of motivation in socially shared learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(1), 122–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Järvelä, S. & Renniger, K. R. (2014, in press). Designing for learning: Engagement, interest, and motivation. Sawyer, K. (Ed.). Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Google Scholar
  38. Järvelä, S., Veermans, M., & Leinonen, P. (2008b). Investigating students’ engagement in a computer-supported inquiry - a process-oriented analysis. Social Psychology in Education, 11, 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  41. Kempler Rogat, T. K., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & DiDonato, N. C. (2013). Motivation in collaborative groups. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 250–267). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1–10. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kirschner, P. A., Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2008). Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 403–420. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2013). Toward a framework for CSCL research. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 1–8. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.750227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kirschner, P. A., Kirschner, F., & Janssen, J. (2014). The collaboration principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 547–575). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Kirschner, P. A., Kreijns, K., Phielix, C., & Fransen, J. Awareness of cognitive and social behaviour in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (accepted).Google Scholar
  47. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., Kirschner, P. A., & Janssen, J. (2011). Differential effects of problem-solving demands on individual and collaborative learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21(4), 587–599. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47–66. doi: 10.1007/BF02504675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kirschner, P. A., & van Merrinboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2013.804395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kreijns, K. (2004). Sociable CSCL environments: Social affordances, sociability, and social presence. Unpublished PhD thesis. Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands. Available at
  52. Kreijns, K., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). Determining sociability, social space and social presence in (a)synchronous collaborating teams. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7(2), 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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, 335–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Vermeulen, M. (2013). Social aspects of CSCL environments: A research framework. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 229–242. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.750225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mäkitalo, K., Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., & Leinonen, P. (2002). Mechanisms of common ground in case-based web discussions in teacher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Malmberg, J., Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., & Panadero, E. (2014, manuscript). Promoting socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: Patterns of socially shared regulation of learning between high – and low performing student groups.Google Scholar
  59. Malmberg, J., Järvelä, S. & Kirschner, P. (2014, in press). Elementary school students’ strategic activity and quality of strategy use: Does task-type matter? Metacognition and Learning. Google Scholar
  60. Malmberg, J., Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2010). Tracing elementary school students’ study tactic use in gStudy by examing a strategic and self-regulated learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1034–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McCaslin, M. (2009). Co-regulation of student motivation and emergent identity. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Miller, M., Malmberg, J. Hadwin, A., & Järvelä, S. (2014, submitted). Tracing university students´ construction of shared task perceptions in on-line collaboration. Google Scholar
  63. Mulder, I., Swaak, J., & Kessels, J. (2002). Assessing group learning and shared understanding in technology mediated interaction. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 35–47.Google Scholar
  64. Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  65. Perry, N. E., & Winne, P. H. (2006). Learning from learning kits: gStudy traces of student’ self-regulated engagements using software. Psychology of Education Review, 18, 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Phielix, C. (2012). Enhancing collaboration through assessment & reflection. Unpublished PhD thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Available at
  67. Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010). Awareness of group performance in a CSCL-environment: Effects of peer feedback and reflection. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 151–161. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.011.
  68. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  70. Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex environment: What we have gained and what we have missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (2008). Motivation and selfregulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  73. Stahl, G. (2004). Groupware goes to school: Adapting BSCW to the classroom. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 19(3/4), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Straus, S. G. (1997). Technology, group process, and group outcomes: Testing the connections in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 227–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Straus, S. G., & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Strijbos, J. W., Kirschner, P. A., & Martens, R. L. (Eds.). (2004). What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  77. Thompson, L. F., & Coovert, M. D. (2003). Teamwork online: the effects of computer conferencing on perceived confusion, satisfaction and post discussion accuracy. Group Dynamics, 7(2), 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thompson, L., & Fine, G. A. (1999). Socially shared cognition, affect, and behavior: A review and integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 278–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Ten steps to complex learning (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  81. Volet, S. E., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009). Self- and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated engagement in learning. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Er.Google Scholar
  84. Winne, P. H., Hadwin, A. F., & Gress, C. L. Z. (2010). The learning kit project: Software tools for supporting and researching regulation of collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 787–793.Google Scholar
  85. Winne, P. H., Hadwin, A. F., & Perry, N. E. (2013). Metacognition and computer-supported collaborative learning. In C. Hmelo-Silver, A. O’Donnell, C. Chan, & C. Chinn (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 462–479). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  86. Winne, P. H., Zhou, R., & Egan, R. (2011). Designing assessments of self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & D. R. Robinson (Eds.), Assessment of higher order thinking skills (pp. 89–120). Charlotte, NC: IAP-Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  87. Winters, F. I., & Azevedo, R. (2005). High school students’ regulation of learning during computer-based science inquiry. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(2), 189–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in the work of nine- and ten-year-olds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(2), 117–145. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9019-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 49–64). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanna Järvelä
    • 1
  • Paul A. Kirschner
    • 2
  • Ernesto Panadero
    • 1
  • Jonna Malmberg
    • 1
  • Chris Phielix
    • 3
  • Jos Jaspers
    • 3
  • Marika Koivuniemi
    • 1
  • Hanna Järvenoja
    • 1
  1. 1.Learning and Educational Technology Research Unit (LET), Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher EducationUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  2. 2.Open University of The NetherlandsHeerlenNetherlands
  3. 3.University of UtrechtUtrechtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations