Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: This study investigates when and how students activate co- and socially shared emotion and motivation reg-
Motivation ulation in collaborative learning and whether the S-REG mobile application tool can support this regulation. In a
Emotions mathematics course, 44 higher education students worked with a collaborative assignment. The S-REG tool
Co-regulation traced groups' emotional and motivational states in different sessions, and the occurrence of co-regulation and
Socially shared regulation
shared regulation of motivation and emotions were coded from video-recorded collaborative work (44 h). The
Collaborative learning
groups activated more co-regulation than shared regulation of emotions and motivation, but the shared-reg-
ulation episodes were longer-lasting. The groups’ emotional and motivational states were associated with the
occurrence of co-regulation in the beginning of the learning sessions. The results suggest that the S-REG tool
balanced collaboration by prompting the groups to regulate emotions and motivation right in the beginning of
the motivationally and emotionally challenging learning sessions.
1. Introduction emotion regulation can increase such regulation within a group. Research
has revealed that students in collaborative groups do not recognise the
Understanding regulation in collaborative learning is critical for need or opportunity for regulation (Barron, 2003; Järvelä, Järvenoja,
productive engagement and participation in real-life learning environ- Malmberg, & Hadwin, 2013; Miller & Hadwin, 2015). Before the sup-
ments and social learning contexts (Volet & Summers, 2013). These port tools can reach their full potential, we need more research-based
regulation activities cover a wide process, where cognition, emotion, evidence of groups’ regulation of motivation and emotions across the
motivation and behaviour are adapted according to the aims, goals and phases of learning. Hence, in this study, we designed and implemented a
standards of both the individuals (Zimmerman, 2013) and the group mobile application called S-REG tool to support regulation of motiva-
(Hadwin, Järvelä, & Miller, 2017). While researchers recognise emo- tion and emotions within groups.
tions and motivation as a part of regulated learning of (collaborative)
groups (Kempler Rogat, Linnenbrink-Garcia, & DiDonato, 2013; Kwon, 1.1. Motivation and emotion regulation as part of groups’ regulated learning
Liu, & Johnson, 2014), most studies have examined groups’ metacog- process
nitive processes and cognitive regulation, such as temporal progress
(Malmberg, Järvelä, & Järvenoja, 2017; Molenaar & Chiu, 2014) and Conceptualising the regulation of learning as interactive, dynamic,
transformation across learning phases and tasks (Bannert, Reimann, & and situated in a context brings motivation and emotions to the centre
Sonnenberg, 2014; De Backer, Van Keer, & Valcke, 2015). Conversely, of the regulated learning process in a novel way (Järvenoja, Järvelä, &
studies focusing on emotion and motivation regulation in social Malmberg, 2015) because situational experiences and socio-emotional
learning situations have focused on describing how groups constitute aspects are instrumental in directing a group's learning process and
(socially shared) regulation (e.g. Duffy et al., 2015; Kempler; Khosa & cognitive regulation (Volet, Vauras, & Salonen, 2009). Empirical re-
Volet, 2014; Näykki, Järvelä, Kirschner, & Järvenoja, 2014; Kempler search has shown that conflicting views and socio-emotional challenges
Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011; Ucan & Webb, 2015; Whitebread & exist in a genuine collaboration (Barron, 2003; Järvenoja, Volet, &
Pino-Pasternak, 2013). Järvelä, 2013; Kreijns, Kirschner, & Vermeulen, 2013; Zschocke,
While research on supporting metacognitive and cognitive processes has Wosnitza, & Bürger, 2016). When these situations emerge, they chal-
produced promising results (Bannert & Reimann, 2012; Schnaubert & lenge the group's motivational and emotional processes as an entity
Bodemer, 2017), we do not know yet how the support for motivation and (Kempler Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011) and invite the groups to
∗
Corresponding author. Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education, P.O. Box 2000, FIN-90014, University of Oulu, Finland.
E-mail address: hanna.jarvenoja@oulu.fi (H. Järvenoja).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.11.004
Received 27 June 2017; Received in revised form 6 November 2017; Accepted 21 November 2017
0959-4752/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Please cite this article as: Järvenoja, H., Learning and Instruction (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.11.004
H. Järvenoja et al. Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
regulate the situation together (Järvelä & Järvenoja, 2011; Järvenoja & learning and regulation, researchers have not fully explored how sys-
Järvelä, 2009). For example, a case study with adult students partici- tematically the groups manifest them on a social plane.
pating in updating training demonstrated how challenging situations
emerge during collaboration and develop into socio-emotional conflicts 1.2. Types of regulation on a social plane
(Näykki et al., 2014). A group's failure at timely, accurate emotion
regulation can result in frustration, unfunctional interaction and un- Regulation can be realised in different individual and social planes
favourable learning results. However, when group members are willing through different types of regulation. Researchers have offered varying
and able to invest their energy in regulating the motivation and emo- definitions and terms to describe the social forms of regulatory activ-
tions in the group, they can become closely attuned to the opportunities ities within collaborative groups, but the most established definition
associated with the experience of shared understanding (Crook, 2000). and systematic research has derived with co- and socially shared reg-
Xu, Du, and Fan (2013) conducted a study on graduate students' emo- ulation (Hadwin et al., 2017). Traditionally, co-regulation has served a
tion management in online collaborative group work conditions in the developmental purpose for learning regulation skills through scaf-
US. The students responded to a questionnaire concerning their emo- folding by a more competent other, e.g. a teacher (McCaslin & Burross,
tion management and monitoring of motivation as well as collaboration 2011), but in collaborative learning, the co-regulation takes place be-
and self-regulated learning related scales. Xu et al. (2013) found that tween the equal group members (Järvenoja et al., 2015). Within col-
emotion management correlated not only with motivation and self- laborative groups, co-regulated learning occurs when learners’ reg-
regulated learning, but also with collaboration. A multilevel analysis ulatory activities are guided, supported, shaped or constrained by
further revealed that group-level emotion management was positively others in the group (Hadwin & Oshige, 2011; Volet, Summers, &
related for example to feedback, motivation monitoring and help- Thurman, 2009). Co-regulation plays a role in shifting groups toward
seeking behaviour indicating that emotion regulation is widely inter- more productive learning (Hadwin et al., 2017), and it can create af-
related with other aspects of self-regulated learning in a collaborative fordances and constraints for productive self-regulated learning and
group context. The same authors (Xu, Du, & Fan, 2014) found parallel shared regulation of learning in forthcoming learning situations.
results concerning emotion management in online group work with For example, in collaborative work, support can come from one
Chinese students. person, team members or from affordances from the technological tools.
It is evident that regulation of motivation and emotions function as Co-regulation may be supported by one individual or collectively across
a facet of a wider regulated learning process and is crucial for both the members of a group, such as when a prompt shifts the way each individual
collaborative group as an entity and for the individual learners parti- approaches the problem (Miller & Hadwin, 2015). Hadwin et al. (2017)
cipating in collaboration (Linnenbrink-Garcia, Kempler Rogat, & specified that, in the context of collaborative learning, co-regulation serves
Koskey, 2011; Wosnitza & Volet, 2005). Recent empirical studies have as a mechanism for shifting regulatory ownership to an individual or a
provided evidence on how motivation and emotion regulation is con- group. Therefore, co-regulation is a temporary and shifting support, en-
nected to the wider regulated learning process (Schwinger, Steimayer, abling future regulatory uptake by the “co-regulated”. It implies that
& Spinath, 2012; Wolters, Benzon, & Arroyo-Giner, 2011). Webster and regulatory expertise is distributed and shared across individuals and
Hadwin (2015), for example, focused on emotion regulation while evoked when necessary by and for whom it is appropriate.
studying undergraduate students' emotions across two episodes. Their When groups engage in shared regulation, they extend their reg-
results revealed a link between emotions and self-regulatory processes. ulatory activity from the “I” to the “We” level to regulate their collec-
Positive emotions were associated with positive self-evaluations of goal tive activity in agreement (Järvelä & Hadwin, 2013). Shared regulation
attainment, while negative emotions predicted negative evaluations. is a collectively agentic process where group members adopt joint goals
Participants also reported using a variety of emotion regulation stra- and standards. They work together to complement and negotiate shared
tegies during studying. Wolters and Benzon (2013) assessed college perceptions and goals for the task, they coordinate strategic enactment
students' motivation regulation strategies via a self-report survey fo- of the task and collectively monitor group progress and products, and
cusing on motivation strategies and motivational beliefs complemented they make changes when needed to optimise collaboration in and
with items concerning the students' use of cognitive and metacognitive across tasks. Socially shared regulation differs from co-regulation to the
strategies and procrastination. Their findings showed a connection be- extent to which joint regulation emerges through a series of transactive
tween students’ reported motivation regulation strategies with meta- exchanges amongst group members. Rather than being guided or di-
cognitive, cognitive and behavioural aspects of self-regulated learning. rected by any one person, joint strategies and awareness intentionally
However, Wolters and Benzon highlighted that motivation regulation is co-emerge, although they may initially be stimulated by co-regulatory
an additional aspect of self-regulated learning rather than composing a prompts (Hadwin et al., 2017).
unitary construct with cognitive processes. Both regulation types combined with individuals' self-regulation
To conclude, emotion and motivation affect the groups’ regulation play a part in collaborative learning. As reflected in the group learning
processes in complex ways instead of being only a motivational ground literature, the regulation on a social plane is multi-faceted not only in
or condition for regulated learning. Skilful self-regulated learners can terms of it targets (cognition, behaviour, motivation and emotions;
strategically plan, monitor and evaluate their cognitive process as well Zimmerman, 2013) but also by its type. Collaborative learning involves
as their motivation and emotions, both as individual learners and in co- multiple people sharing responsibility for a collective task and, ideally,
ordination with others. By engaging in motivation and emotion reg- simultaneously shifting between self-regulation, co-regulation and
ulation, groups can actively adjust their motivation and channel the shared regulation in time (Järvelä & Hadwin, 2013). Grau and
emotional atmosphere within the group to overcome the challenges Whitebread (2012) explicitly acknowledged the variation in regulation
(Järvelä, Järvenoja, Malmberg, Isohätälä, & Sobocinski, 2016). between individual and social planes by first developing coding
Through emotion and motivation regulation, these conditions are ac- schemes that looked at individual self-regulatory processes in the con-
tively shaped and adapted to create a ground for balanced collaboration text of group work and then searching for episodes of shared regulation.
and metacognitive processes (Efklides, 2011; Schunk & Zimmerman, They further looked at relationships between social intentionality and
2008; Winne & Hadwin, 2008). Despite the increased evidence of the the focus of individual regulation within the group. They acknowledged
benefits of emotion and motivation regulation for collaborative the context by analysing the young children's temporally evolving
2
H. Järvenoja et al. Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
collaboration processes in real classrooms. Similarly, Ucan and Webb motivational and emotional reasons do groups allocate for their emo-
(2015) examined the emergence of metacognitive, emotional and mo- tional and motivational states as they enter collaborative learning ses-
tivational co- and shared-regulation processes during science inquiry sions? 2) How does the group's regulation of emotions and motivation
learning among two groups of seventh graders. Their results indicated occur within and across collaborative learning sessions? 3) How is the
that, even though emotion and motivation regulation during colla- use of the S-REG tool associated to the occurrence of co- and shared
boration does not appear much, it supports groups to maintain a posi- regulation?
tive atmosphere and interaction within the group.
3. Method
1.3. Supporting groups’ emotion and motivation regulation with
technological tools 3.1. Participants and context
Awareness of emotions, socio-emotionally challenging situations This voluntary study involved 44 s-year teacher education students
and their motivational conditions are the stimulating premises to acti- (36 females and 8 males, mean age 24.9 years) who were participating
vate strategic regulation to respond to social, situational and personal in a compulsory seven-week math didactics course. The math course
conditions (Boekaerts, 2011; Diamond & Aspinwall, 2003; Järvenoja was composed of seven lectures and one extensive collaborative course
et al., 2015; Op't Eynde & Turner, 2006). In practice, learners evaluate assignment. The students collaborated in eleven groups of three to four
whether the situation evoking emotions specific for that context and members to create a midterm plan for a primary school mathematics
situation is relevant to their needs or well-being and whether the si- topic. The midterm plan was supposed to involve theory-grounded
tuation is consistent with their motivational goals (Jiang, Vauras, Volet, pedagogical principles, several lesson plans and a plan for assessment.
& Wang, 2016). Skilful self-regulated learners can react proactively to The assignment was conducted during several collaborative group
the existing situation instead of only “turning off the fire” when chal- sessions, and it was presumed that the groups planned and organised
lenge or conflict emerges (Boekaerts, 2011; Fried & Chapman, 2012). their group work independently.
Unfortunately, not every student can regulate their learning, much less The students composed their midterm plan during five 2-h sessions
their motivation and emotions. in the classroom-like laboratory space. The group work was recorded
Since earlier research has revealed that students do not always re- with a 360-degree video camera system capturing the students’ dis-
cognise the opportunities for regulation in collaboration (Barron, 2003; cussions, movements, expressions and gestures. The groups used the
DiDonato, 2013; Järvelä et al., 2013), researchers have developed laboratory space three to five times (M = 4, SD = 0.96), resulting in
technological tools to prompt and support regulation (Azevedo & video recordings from 41 collaborative group task sessions (three to five
Witherspoon, 2009; Järvelä, Kirschner et al., 2016; Miller & Hadwin, collaborative group task sessions from each group; 44 h video of data
2015). Some have succeeded in supporting individual self-regulated altogether).
learning and metacognitive monitoring (Bannert & Reimann, 2012;
Schnaubert & Bodemer, 2017), but less efforts have been made sup- 3.2. The S-REG mobile application
porting regulation in collaborative groups (Järvelä et al., 2015). Our
work has concentrated on planning and reflection tools for prompting The group work was supported with an HTML5 mobile application
individual and group planning and reflection processes (Malmberg, called the S-REG tool (BLINDED). The S-REG tool (Fig. 1) is a re-
Järvelä, Järvenoja, & Panadero, 2015; Miller & Hadwin, 2015), col- sponsive group awareness tool designed to run on smartphones, tablets
lective visualisations of individual plans and perceived challenges and desktops. It aims to support group members' awareness of the
(Miller & Hadwin, 2015) and emotional, cognitive, and motivational motivational, emotional, and cognitive states of the collaborative
states (Järvelä, Kirschner et al., 2016). The guiding principle in these learning and prompts groups to activate appropriate group-level reg-
tools has been to support regulation by prompting learners and groups ulation to respond to the group's situational needs. S-REG tool consisted
to increase awareness of their own, others', and their group's learning of three phases, namely individual-level evaluation and group-level
processes, externalise their own, others', and their group's learning discussion and prompting. The tool provide a visual representation of
processes in a social plane, and activate key regulation processes, such the groups' cognitive, motivational and emotional state utilizing a
as setting goals, making plans, adopting strategies, and monitoring and traffic light metaphor, where a green light indicates that everything is
evaluating (Järvelä et al., 2015). fine, a yellow light indicates some challenges or unclear situation and a
To conclude, studies have shown the importance of emotion and red light indicates severe challenges and need for regulatory actions in
motivation regulation in learning (e.g. Wolters & Benzon, 2013), but one of the states.
the literature lacks an accurate understanding of how emotion and The S-REG tool use proceeds in three phases. In the first phase,
motivation regulation is activated during collaborative learning group members use the S-REG tool individually, while in the second
(Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2011). Specifically, no research has in- and third phase the S-REG tool directs the group members’ to discuss
vestigated how emotion and motivation regulation is situated in the and use the tool together (albeit everyone is using their own device). In
temporal progress of the regulated learning process, when groups en- the beginning, the group members are asked to individually consider
gage in motivation and emotion regulation during their collaboration, their cognitive (“I know how to proceed working”), motivational (“I am
or how emotion and motivation regulation is affected when it is sup- motivated to work”), and emotional (“My current feeling”) state in the
ported with external prompts or tools. current situation with a finger or a mouse operated, round-shape sliding
scale (Figs. 2 and 1B). The fuller the sliding scale, the more capable the
2. Aim user feels toward the collaborative learning with that particular focus
area. In the log file, the evaluation is registered with a value on the
This study aims to explore when and how students activate co- and scale ranging from zero to a hundred.
socially shared emotion and motivation regulation in collaborative Once the individual responses are collected, they are merged to
learning tasks and whether it can be supported with the S-REG mobile create a group visualization, i.e. the traffic lights, to represent the entire
application tool. The research questions are: 1) What type of group's motivation, emotion and cognitive states. The S-REG tool
3
H. Järvenoja et al. Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
generates a separate visualization for each of the three focus areas so group member's evaluation remains within the first third of the sliding
that the group can reflect on their collaboration on each of them (Figs. 2 scale (a log file value of 33 or less). The red light is accompanied by the
and 1C). Together with a received light, an explanation about the explanation, “situation calls for action”.
colour is received. As it is presumed that all group members' con- In the final phase, the S-REG tool prompts the group to discuss and
tributions is needed for collaboration, the traffic light reflects the lowest elaborate the reasons causing the traffic light. This is done by using a
value given by a group member in the given situation. A green light visual icon with a prompt to “discuss” (Fig. 2). If the traffic light in-
indicates that everything is fine, and it is received when all the group dicator is green, the S-REG tool asks the group members to elaborate in
members' evaluations fall within the final third of the sliding scale more detail the reason for the green colour. If the traffic light indicator
(each evaluation exceeded 66 in the log file). The green light is ac- is either red or yellow, the S-REG tool prompts the group members to
companied by the explanation, “everything is fine”. The yellow light specify a reason for the colour in question from a list of pre-stocked
indicates some challenges, and it is received when one or more group options, namely challenges concerning interest, ability and goals for the
members' evaluations fall within the second third of the sliding scale (a motivational state and feelings of annoyance, boredom, frustration or
log file value between 34 and 65). The yellow light is accompanied by worry for the emotional state. Finally, the S-REG tool prompts the
the explanation, “situation is unclear”. Lastly, the red light indicates group to search for appropriate regulation strategies for the situation
serious problems within the group, and it is received when at least one (Fig. 1C and D; Table 1).
4
H. Järvenoja et al. Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Table 1
Regulation strategy prompts for each reason of motivational and emotional state.
Motivational state:
Our challenge relates to …
Interest Discuss the different situations in which this knowledge is useful and meaningful for you. How could you modify the task to increase your
interest in the task?
Ability Discuss the strengths of your group. How could you benefit from these abilities? How can you modify the task so that you can use your group
members' strengths?
Goals Discuss the reasons that make this task important to you. Why it is important to you to commit to the group work right now? What things are
competing with your attention and distracting you from working? Why?
Emotional state:
Our challenge relates to …
Frustration Discuss why your work is not going as you wish. Is there anything you could do (differently)? Is everybody committed to your joint goals? Do
you acknowledge everyone and take into consideration different thoughts and opinions?
Boredom Discuss the reasons causing you to be bored. Does everybody participate? Do you think that all group members' contributions are
acknowledged? How could you take more responsibility together as a group?
Worry Do you think that you cannot manage the task? Why is that? Would you benefit from reviewing your plans once again? What strengths do each
of you have? How could you benefit from them?
Annoyance In group situations, you need to confront different perspectives, as not all group members are committed to similar ways of working. Can you
benefit from different views? Can you alter your own ways of working to participate better in the group work?
In the beginning of the math course, the use and purpose of the S- McCardle & Hadwin, 2015). The unit of analysis was a meaningful
REG tool was explained and taught to the students. They were then episode.
instructed to use the S-REG tool in the beginning of each collaborative In the first stage of the coding, the videotaped group work was
session. That is, each student was supposed to use the S-REG tool every segmented according to the groups' socio-emotional interaction
time they participated in a collaborative group session (3–5 sessions per (Kempler Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011; Näykki et al., 2014). In-
group). Prior to S-REG tool use, the students were asked to consider in teractions were coded as socio-emotional if they included a discussion
general the requirements and goals of the current collaborative working about emotions or motivation (e.g. sharing feelings towards the task,
phase with their group members to create a shared understanding of the self-praising or discussing the task value and progress) or a notable
session requirements. All the actions and choices the students made expression of positive or negative emotion (e.g., laughter, cheering,
with the S-REG tool were recorded in a log file. In total, there were expressing frustration, telling jokes, or emotional reactions to the out-
103 S-REG tool log files for the analysis. come) followed by a reaction from a group member. A socio-emotional
interaction segment could include motivation or emotion regulation
3.3. Analysis when it was possible to recognise an initial indication of a challenge,
such as a lack of ability or a negative emotion, or a clearly observable
The data analysis was divided into three phases utilizing first the challenge, such as off-task behaviour, which was followed with a re-
groups’ emotional and motivational state gained from the S-REG tool use action that aimed to address the challenge. Regulation was also coded if
(i.e. traffic light values) combined with the data about the reason for the group members engaged in an interaction that aimed to increase
the emotional and motivational state. Second, the actualised co- and group cohesion, such as making comparisons with the other groups in
socially shared regulation of motivation and emotions was coded from the favour of the own group. Motivation regulation was coded from a socio-
video data. In the third phase, the two data sources were combined. emotional interaction segment when the group members' discussion
included utterances that had the purpose of increasing motivation in
3.3.1. The first analysis phase the group. The motivation regulation could focus on, for example, dis-
The groups' emotional and motivational states were summed up from cussing beliefs about the abilities and strategies to complete a task, expres-
the individual group members’ responses to the S-REG tool and com- sing a good team spirit, praising the group or encouraging another group
bined with the information about the reasons for these states. member. Emotion regulation was coded when a socio-emotional inter-
Descriptive statistics and a chi-square test were performed to in- action segment included utterances in which group members addressed
vestigate how the explicated reasons for motivational and emotional positive or negative feelings towards the collaboration or the task and made
state corresponded with the level of the challenge indicated in the form suggestions on what to do about them. In practice, motivation and emo-
of the traffic light. tion regulation were often embedded with each other. For example, a
negative feeling (emotion) could be associated with ability (motiva-
3.3.2. The second analysis phase tion), and regulation could focus on decreasing a negative feeling and
This phase of the analysis focused on the occurrence of co- and increasing motivation (see Example 1 below). Altogether, 422 socio-
shared regulation of motivation and emotions in the videotaped colla- emotional interaction segments were located. The length of the segment
borative learning sessions. Prior to watching the video with NVivo varied from 3 to 25 min. Inter-rater reliability was checked by calcu-
video analysis software, a coding protocol was created based on the lating the Cohen's kappa value (k = 0.98).
literature concerning regulated learning in a social learning context In the second stage of the coding, episodes that included co- and
(e.g. Järvelä, Malmberg, & Koivuniemi, 2016; Kempler Rogat & shared regulation were located from the socio-emotional interaction
Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011; Khosa & Volet, 2014; Lajoie et al., 2015; segments. One socio-emotional interaction segment could include none
5
H. Järvenoja et al. Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Table 2 This example derived from a group of four members (three females,
Frequencies of the student-reported motivational and emotional reasons for the challenge one male) and took place during the group's first collaborative session.
level gained in the form of the traffic light in the S-REG tool. In the excerpt, group members Minea and Teemu are talking with a
student from another group. Meanwhile, Maria reveals to Pia that she is
Motivation Reason Motivation Traffic Light Total χ2
feeling distressed and is worried that she won't be able to do all the
Yellow Red coursework. Pia tries to encourage Maria by telling her that making a
clear schedule will help.
Interest 15 24 39
Ability 30 9 39
Goals 8 4 12
Maria: I’m feeling terribly distressed about all the coursework. I
Total 53 37 90 12.261* won’t be able to do it all. I certainly cannot. [indicating a challenge
with an emotional and motivational nature]
Emotion Reason Emotion Traffic Light Total χ2 Pia: Yes, you can. [co-regulating motivation; supporting ability]
Maria: No, I won’t. Everything is just piling up … uh!
Yellow Red
Pia: Yeah, but now it won’t. When we do a clear schedule and then
Annoyed 4 18 22 we divide it into smaller parts, it will become easier. [co-regulating
Bored 11 2 13 motivation; introducing a cognitive strategy]
Frustrated 19 19 38
Maria: But this is a pretty fast schedule.
Worried 6 2 8
Total 40 41 81 17.130** Pia: Well, but we want to do this quickly out of the way. If we do so,
then you will have a pleasantly relaxing end of the spring. [co-
Note. *p = 0.002, **p = 0.001 regulating motivation and emotions; pointing to the value of task
performance]
to several codings of the two categories. In other words, the regulation
episodes were typically shorter than interaction segments, and not all In contrast, an episode was coded as shared regulation, if more than
interactions included regulation. The parts of the socio-emotional in- one member built upon each other's efforts to increase, maintain or
teraction segments that included visible signs of regulating the emo- restore motivation within the group or did the same to control the
tions or motivation were coded to one of the two categories, namely co- emotional atmosphere, such as frustration expressed by group mem-
or shared regulation (k = 0.60). Because a considerable proportion of bers. A coded shared regulation episode included a series of transactive
self-regulation is invisible, individual regulation was excluded from the exchanges amongst more than one group member. Furthermore, the
analysis to avoid biased and invalid results. focus of the regulation utterances was on a “we” level, i.e. group
The episode was considered as co-regulation when one or several members aimed to affect the shared processes. Altogether, there were
group members tried to increase motivation within the group or offered 68 indications of shared regulation of emotions and motivations within
support, advice or encouragement when group members expressed a the groups. A transcribed example of the shared-regulation episode is
lack of motivation or negative feelings affecting the group work. Co- presented below.
regulation was coded when a group member made a regulatory in-
Example 2. A shared-regulation episode
itiative and another group member seized the regulation prompt, but
This example derived from a group of four female members in the
did not contribute to the interaction by transacting new regulatory
beginning of the group's fourth collaborative session. In the excerpt,
contributions. However, the group members could continue by con-
they are discussing how they cannot prepare for the session because one
tributing to the learning activity. Altogether, there were 142 indications
of the members is missing. They do not know what to do, and their
of co-regulating emotions and motivations within the groups (see a
frustration and lack of motivation are evident. Finally, Anna initiates a
transcribed example below).
regulation discussion by suggesting how to proceed. Jenna and Emma
Example 1. A co-regulation episode grasp this opening and continue it further.
6
H. Järvenoja et al. Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Jenna: But I’m feeling like … what can we do today? Because Sara is
missing, and she hasn’t got a clue about this project yet, and we won’t
Jenna: And then, we can’t make any decisions now since one member of
Emma: Yeah, it’s just that … we haven’t decided before … and now we
can’t decide the tasks that should be prepared at home before every
meeting.
[indicating a
Jenna: Yeah.
challenge with a
Anna: Mm.
motivational and
Emma: Because, after that, we should anyway discuss it with Sara.
an emotional
Jenna: Yeah.
nature]
Emma: And that is, basically, we don’t have any shared things to do in
here either.
Jenna: Yeah.
Anna: Mm.
Jenna: Yeah.
Emma: So, these [sessions] are somewhat useless for us now because
Jenna: Mm.
Anna: Mm. But I think we could start to think if we can come up with
Emma: Yeah.
Anna: Yeah.
Emma: Nevertheless, the pupils are already on a sixth grade so it could redirecting focus]
Anna: Mm.
Jenna: Yeah.
Anna: Yes!
7
H. Järvenoja et al. Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
To sum up, this phase of the analysis depicted how the co- and 4.2. How did groups’ regulation of emotions and motivation occur within
shared regulation was located in the collaborative learning session as a and across collaborative learning sessions?
part of the socio-emotional interaction. The analysis proceeded by first
calculating descriptive statistics in terms of frequencies and duration of Altogether, 422 socio-emotional interaction segments were found
regulation codes and then performing a chi-square test (for frequencies) covering 22% of the groups' videotaped collaborative work (9 h 41min).
and a t-test (for durations) to investigate relations between the two Of these socio-emotional interaction segments, 14% included ob-
regulation types. Second, the analysis continued to investigate the oc- servable socially oriented motivation and emotion regulation (i.e. ei-
currences of regulation in collaborative learning sessions in more detail. ther co- or shared regulation). That is, socio-emotional interaction
For this purpose, all 41 collaborative sessions were commensurate in episodes did not automatically involve co- or shared motivation or
terms of session duration. Third, the commensurable sessions were di- emotion regulation. Instead, regulation of motivation and emotions on
vided into three equal time sequences (i.e. beginning, middle and end), a group level covered only 3% of groups’ collaborative working (1 h
and a repeated measure analysis of variance between three different 19min). There were some variations of the occurrence between the
time segments was performed. sessions (co-regulation: χ2 (9) = 22.2, p = 0.008; shared regulation: χ2
(6) = 26.8, p < 0.000), but in 39 of 41 sessions either one or both
regulation types were activated. In sum, although emotion and moti-
3.3.3. The third analysis phase vation regulation was relatively rare, the groups engaged in co- and
In this phase, the groups’ emotional and motivational states were shared regulation throughout the collaborative group assignment.
combined with their regulation activity coded from the video data. Within the collaborative sessions, both co- and shared regulation
First, the motivational and emotional states were integrated since there was used from the beginning until the end. Fig. 4 illustrates when coded
was a strong correlation between the motivational and emotional states co- and shared regulation activities occurred during the collaborative
(rs = 0.687, p < 0.000). Next, a correlation analysis was run between learning task session. A repeated measure analysis of variance was
the states and the co- and shared regulation on a session level as well as performed between three different time segments (beginning, middle
for each three-time sequence (beginning, middle and end). and end), confirming that a certain phase of the learning session (be-
ginning, middle or end of the session) was not particularly related to the
4. Results occurrence of the co-regulation (F(2) = 0.219, p = 0.804) or shared
regulation (F(2) = 0.013, p = 0.988).
4.1. What type of motivational and emotional reasons did groups allocate Across all the collaborative learning sessions, co-regulation of mo-
for their emotional and motivational states as they entered the collaborative tivation and emotions was activated more often (f = 142; M = 3.46
learning sessions? times per session) than shared regulation (f = 68; M = 1.66 times per
session; χ2 (1) = 26.1, p < 0.001). However, when shared regulation
In regards to the motivational state, the groups received a yellow was activated, it typically lasted longer (M = 28 s) than co-regulation
light most frequently (f = 53), followed by a red light (f = 37) and a (M = 21 s; t(208) = −2.867, p = 0.005). Spearman's correlation test
green light (f = 13). For the emotional state, the distribution in the did not show any correlation between the two types of regulation
frequency of the yellow and red lights was more even (f = 40 and 41, (rs = 0.205, p = 0.198) in general, but a more detailed analysis re-
respectively). Again, the green light was received less often (f = 22; see vealed a negative correlation between the co- and shared regulation in
Fig. 3). the final of the three time sequences (beginning, middle and end)
When the groups received the yellow traffic light indicating some (rs = −0.443 p = 0.010).
challenges in motivational state, they most typically associated it with
the (lack of) ability to work with the task (57%; see Table 2). Some 4.3. How is the use of the S-REG tool associated to the occurrence of co- and
challenges in emotional state were associated with frustration (48%) shared regulation?
followed by boredom (28%). When the groups got a red traffic light
indicating severe challenges in motivation, the most typical motiva- The next investigation concerned how S-REG tool use contributed to
tional reason was (a lack of) interest and, for severe emotional chal- the groups' motivation and emotion regulation. A Spearman's correla-
lenges, frustration (46%) and annoyance (44%). A chi-square test of tion analysis revealed a correlation between the occurrence of co-reg-
independence was performed to examine the relation between the ulation and the groups' reported emotional and motivational states at
challenge level (traffic light value) and motivational and emotional the first time sequence (beginning) of the collaborative learning ses-
reason associated with the challenge. The relation between these vari- sions (rs = 0.402, p = 0.046). No correlations were found between co-
ables was significant (motivation: χ2 = 12.261, df = 2, p = 0.002; regulation and the latter two time sequences (middle and end) nor any
emotion: χ2 = 17.130, df = 3, p = 0.001). time sequence and shared regulation.
8
H. Järvenoja et al. Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
9
H. Järvenoja et al. Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
to clarify whether and to what extent the shared emotion and motiva- school classroom. Australian Educational Researcher, 39(3), 295–311. https://doi.org/
tion regulation strategies are similar to the self-regulated regulation 10.1007/s13384-011-0049-1.
Grau, V., & Whitebread, D. (2012). Self and social regulation of learning during colla-
strategies. borative activities in the classroom: The interplay of individual and group cognition.
To conclude, this study shows evidence that regulation of motiva- Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.
2012.03.003.
tion and emotions is an inherent part of regulation of learning during Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2017). Self-regulation, co-regulation and shared
collaboration. It contributes to research concerning how collaborative regulation in collaborative learning environments. In D. H. Schunk, & J. A. Greene
groups maintain an engaged learning process through joint regulation. (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance(2nd ed.). New
York, NY.
The challenge for future research is to provide more evidence on the Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared reg-
temporal variation (Molenaar & Chiu, 2014) of emotion and motivation ulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers
College Record, 113(2), 240–264.
regulation processes as well as situate these regulative activities with
Isohätälä, J., Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2017). Socially shared regulation of learning
collaborative learning. This understanding is essential particularly and participation in social interaction in collaborative learning. International Journal
when adjustable and timely technologies are created to support groups of Educational Research, 81, 11–24.
Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL.
in building together emotionally balanced, motivated learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.
748006.
Funding Järvelä, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2011). Socially constructed self-regulated learning and
motivation regulation in collaborative learning groups. Teachers College Record,
113(2), 350–374.
This work was supported by the Finnish Academy [grant number Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., & Hadwin, A. (2013). Exploring socially-shared
regulation in the context of collaboration. The Journal of Cognitive Education and
297686]. Psychology, 12(3), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.12.3.267.
Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J., & Sobocinski, M. (2016a). How do
References 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.
learninstruc.2016.01.005.
Azevedo, R. (2015). Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Hadwin, A., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Miller, M., et al.
Conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educational (2016b). Socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: Understanding and
Psychologist, 50(1), 84–94. http://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1004069. prompting individual- and group-level shared regulatory activities. International
Azevedo, R., Harley, J., Trevors, G., Duffy, M., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Bouchet, F., et al. Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 263–280. https://doi.
(2013). Using trace data to examine the complex roles of cognitive, metacognitive, org/10.1007/s11412-016-9238-2.
and emotional self-regulatory processes during learning with multi-agent systems. In Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., et al.
R. Azevedo, & V. Aleven (Eds.). International handbook of metacognition and learning (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups:
technologies (pp. 427–449). New York, NY: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and
4419-5546-3_28. Development, 63(1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9358-1.
Azevedo, R., & Witherspoon, A. M. (2009). Self-regulated use of hypermedia. In D. J. Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., & Koivuniemi, M. (2016c). Recognizing socially shared reg-
Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.). Handbook of metacognition in education ulation by using the temporal sequences of online chat and logs in CSCL. Learning and
(pp. 319–339). New York, NY: Routledge. Instruction, 42, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.006.
Baker, M., Andriessen, J., & Järvelä, S. (Eds.). (2013). Affective learning together. Social and Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., Sobocinski, M., Haataja, E., & Kirschner, P. (2017). What
emotional dimensions of collaborative learning. New York, NY: Routledge. multimodal data tell about self-regulated learning process? (Submitted).
Bannert, M., & Reimann, P. (2012). Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning situations -
through prompts. Instructional Science, 40(1), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/ do students regulate emotions evoked from social challenges? British Journal of
s11251-011-9167-4. Educational Psychology, 79(3), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1348/
Bannert, M., Reimann, P., & Sonnenberg, C. (2014). Process mining techniques for ana- 000709909X402811.
lysing patterns and strategies in students' self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., & Malmberg, J. (2015). Understanding regulated learning in
Learning, 9(2), 161–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9107-6. situative and contextual frameworks. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 204–219.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1075400.
307–359. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203. Järvenoja, H., Volet, S., & Järvelä, S. (2013). Regulation of emotions in socially chal-
Ben-Eliyahu, A., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). Extending self-regulated learning to lenging learning situations: An instrument to measure the adaptive and social nature
include self-regulated emotion strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 37(3), 558–573. of the regulation process. Educational Psychology, 33(1), 31–58. https://doi.org/10.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9332-3. 1080/01443410.2012.742334.
Boekaerts, M. (2007). Understanding students' affective processes in the classroom. In P. Jiang, J., Vauras, M., Volet, S., & Wang, Y. (2016). Teachers' emotions and emotion
Schutz, R. Pekrun, & G. Phye (Eds.). Emotion in education (pp. 37–56). San Diego, CA: regulation strategies: Self- and students' perceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education,
Academic Press. 54, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.008.
Boekaerts, M. (2011). Emotions, emotion regulation, and self-regulation of learning. In B. Kempler Rogat, T., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2011). Socially shared regulation in colla-
J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and borative groups: An analysis of the interplay between quality of social regulation and
performance (pp. 408–425). New York, NY: Routledge. group processes. Cognition and Instruction, 29(4), 375–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Boekaerts, M., & Pekrun, R. (2015). Emotions and emotion regulation in academic set- 07370008.2011.607930.
tings. In L. Corno, & E. M. Anderman (Eds.). Handbook of educational psychology (pp. Kempler Rogat, T., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & DiDonato, N. (2013). Motivation in colla-
76–90). New York: Routledge. borative groups. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O'Donnell
Crook, C. (2000). Motivation and the ecology of collaborative learning. In R. Joiner, K. (Eds.). International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 250–267). New York, NY:
Littleton, D. Faulkner, & D. Miell (Eds.). Rethinking collaborative learning (pp. 161– Routledge.
178). London: Free Association Books. Khosa, D. K., & Volet, S. E. (2014). Productive group engagement in cognitive activity and
De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2015). Exploring evolutions in reciprocal peer metacognitive regulation during collaborative learning: Can it explain differences in
tutoring groups' socially shared metacognitive regulation and identifying its meta- students' conceptual understanding? Metacognition and Learning, 9(3), 287–307.
cognitive correlates. Learning and Instruction, 38, 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9117-z.
learninstruc.2015.04.001. Kimmel, K., & Volet, S. (2010). Significance of context in university students' (meta)
Diamond, L. M., & Aspinwall, L. G. (2003). Emotion regulation across the life span: An cognitions related to group work: A multi-layered, multi-dimensional and cultural
integrative perspective emphasizing self-regulation, positive affect, and dyadic pro- approach. Learning and Instruction, 20(6), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cesses. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 125–156. https://doi.org/10.1023/ learninstruc.2009.05.004.
A:1024521920068. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Vermeulen, M. (2013). Social aspects of CSCL environ-
DiDonato, N. C. (2013). Effective self- and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: ments: A research framework. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 229–242. https://doi.
An analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary org/10.1080/00461520.2012.750225.
tasks. Instructional Science, 41(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012- Kwon, K., Liu, Y.-H., & Johnson, L. P. (2014). Group regulation and social-emotional
9206-9. interactions observed in computer supported collaborative learning: Comparison
Duffy, M. C., Azevedo, R., Sun, N.-Z., Griscom, S. E., Stead, V., Crelinsten, L., ... between good vs. poor collaborators. Computers & Education, 78, 185–200. http://doi.
Lachapelle, K. (2015). Team regulation in a simulated medical emergency: An in- org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.004.
depth analysis of cognitive, metacognitive, and affective processes. Instructional Lajoie, S. P., Lee, L., Poitras, E., Bassiri, M., Kazemitabar, M., Cruz-Panesso, I., et al.
Science, 43(3), 401–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9333-6. (2015). The role of regulation in medical student learning in small groups: Regulating
D'Mello, S., Dieterle, E., & Duckworth, A. (2017). Advanced, analytic, automated (AAA) oneself and others' learning and emotions. Computers in Human Behavior, 52,
measurement of engagement during learning. Educational Psychologist, 52(2), 601–616. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.073.
104–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1281747. Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Kempler Rogat, T., & Koskey, K. L. (2011). Affect and engagement
Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self- during small group instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 13–24.
regulated learning: The MASRL Model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25. https:// http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.09.001.
doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538645. Malmberg, J., Järvelä, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2017). Capturing temporal and sequential
Fried, L., & Chapman, E. (2012). An investigation into the capacity of student motivation patterns of self-, co-, and socially shared regulation in the context of collaborative
and emotion regulation strategies to predict engagement and resilience in the middle learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 160–174. https://doi.org/10.
10
H. Järvenoja et al. Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
11