Cited by 213Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

Exploring Socially Shared Regulation in the Context of Collaboration

Järvelä, Sanna, Järvenoja, Hanna, Malmberg, Jonna, Hadwin, Allyson F.·2013·Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology

Abstract

Socially shared regulation of learning refers to processes by which group members regulate their collective activity. Successful individuals regulate their motivational, cognitive, and metacognitive engagement. Our hypothesis is that successful groups also share in regulating group processes. Following our earlier conceptual and empirical work on the social aspect of motivating and regulating learning (Hadwin & Järvelä, 2011; Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2009; Järvelä, Volet, & Järvenoja, 2010), our research questions are as follows: (a) What challenges do individuals and groups report experiencing during collaborative group work? (b) How do students collectively regulate these challenges at the time, and in future collaborations? (c) How do collaborative learning outcomes compare between groups with varying degrees of emerging shared regulation? We present an empirical study in which 18 graduate students worked in collaborative teams of 3–4 over an 8-week period. The nStudy (Winne, Hadwin, & Beaudoin, 2010) software was used for collaborative planning and work, as well as face-to-face and online collaboration between team members. Data included individual and collaborative statements about collaborative challenges, collaborative statements about contextual and future regulation strategies, collaborative learning performance, and log file traces of students’ contributions to collaborative chat discussions and planning activities. Findings indicated that the students expressed multiple challenges resulting in 3 kinds of regulation over time profiles: strong, progressive, and weak shared regulation. We also conclude that successful collaboration not only requires self-regulation but also allows each team member to support fellow team members to successfully regulate their learning and the team to come together to collectively regulate learning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1891/1945-8959.12.3.267

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., & Hadwin, A. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Oulu (FI)
  • University of Victoria (CA)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology
Published
2013
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
267-286
ISSN
  • 1810-7621 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-8959
OpenAlex
W2332323236
Cited by
213
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
15.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
socially shared regulation, cooperative learning, metacognition, motivational regulation, cognitive regulation, collaborative planning, online collaboration, graduate students, learning outcomes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review