Dynamic Interplay between Modes of Regulation During Motivationally Challenging Episodes in Collaboration

Abstract

The cognitive and social demands of collaboration can raise significant motivation challenges. Task progression relies on team members strategically taking control of the problems and adapting accordingly. Theory indicates that productive collaboration involves groups using three modes of regulation: self-regulation, co-regulation, and socially shared regulation. Despite research demonstrating the occurrence of all three modes in collaboration, it is unclear how these modes interact and how co-regulation supports the emergence of self-and shared-regulation of motivation. The study aimed to examine the role co-regulation played in dynamically stimulating the emergence of self-and shared-regulation of motivation. A cross-case comparison was conducted between two groups who experienced high levels of motivation challenges but achieved contrasting perceptions of the overall team learning productivity. During analysis, groups' dynamic regulatory processes within the online environment were visually represented using a tool called the Chronologicallyordered Representation for Tool-Related Activity (CORDTRA). Findings demonstrate that coregulation of motivation may afford and thwart the emergence of self-and shared-regulation, and these processes interacted with the group's situational challenges and the regulatory skills group members possessed. Comparisons between the two groups indicated that groups' motivation regulation should (a) match the demands of the challenges at hand, (b) be positively supported by group members through co-regulation, and (b) involve a more varied strategic responses so that the group may continue to learn and co-construct knowledge effectively as a team.

The Sequential Composition of Collaborative Groups’ Emotion Regulation in Negative Socio-emotional Interactions

“…Among regulated learning research, Zheng et al's (2019) study reveals that high-performing groups timed their socially shared monitoring activities more accurately, engaged more in shared regulatory activities and used a wider variety of regulation strategies than low-performing groups. Therefore, to improve the current understanding of group-level (co-and socially shared) regulation provided by previous theoretical and empirical work (Hadwin et al, 2018;Bakhtiar & Hadwin, 2020), the current study suggests that strategic activities in emotion regulation should be looked at as a series of actions. As the research exploring regulated learning in collaborative activities has noted, not only do the qualities of strategic actions matter, but also the order in which they are activated and how they are flexibly altered according to situation-specific needs (Greene & Azevedo, 2007;Winne, 2014).…”

“…However, there is a vast amount of research covering individual-level emotion regulation strategies in general (e.g., Gross, 2014) and in a learning context (Wolters, 2003;Boekaerts & Pekrun, 2015). Recent theoretical advancements on emotion generation and regulation processes also consider the factors affecting the formation and regulation of emotions in a collaborative setting; they illustrate the complex nature of the group-level process of emotion regulation in learning situations (Lobczowski, 2020;Bakhtiar & Hadwin, 2020). The present research has empirically showcased these complex relations by investigating what triggers negative interactions and what kinds of emotion regulation strategies are activated at a group level to address these interactions, as well as by describing how regulation manifests in these interactions as a series of strategies.…”

Examining Student Regulation of Collaborative, Computational, Problem-Solving Processes in Open-Ended Learning Environments

“…For instance, more productive SSR has been shown to be correlated with more productive strategy use, and reflected in the higher model building scores. Recently, Bakhtiar & Hadwin (2020) have shown that the more frequently students engage in SSR, the more frequently they use strategic responses, resulting in more learning and co-construction of knowledge. Moreover, when students engage in more open-ended challenge tasks, such as in challenge task 2, they use more SSR and productive collaboration, using persuasive and explanatory words such as "because" and phrases of higher verbal complexity, such as active requests for sharing contributions (e.g., "think_if_you").…”

Motivation From a Self-Regulated Learning Perspective: Application to School Psychology

“…Motivation has also been examined as the primary target of regulation (e.g., Wolters & Benzon, 2013). That line of research reveals several strategies students use to regulate motivation, including those specific to controlling (a) behavior (effort and persistence), (b) cognition or beliefs (efficacy, task appraisals, attributions, and expectancies), (c) emotions (interest, enjoyment, and attitude), and (d) environmental or task features (Bakhtiar & Hadwin, 2020). There are some developmental differences in terms of strategy preference, with younger children being less proficient in manipulating cognition (Cooper & Corpus, 2009).…”