Regulation and socio-emotional interactions in a positive and a negative group climate

Abstract

The ability to collaborate has been identified as an essential learning outcome for the 21 st century. However, if group members lack the skills, abilities, and attitudes to work in a team, these groups may work inefficiently or fail to achieve what they set out to do. To achieve success, group members need to engage in productive regulatory processes to manage cognitions, behaviors, motivation, and emotions as needed to attain desired outcomes. One area of regulation that has been underemphasized in collaborative contexts is the regulation of emotions. Therefore, the purpose of this multi-paper dissertation was to examine the emotional experiences of undergraduate students working collaboratively on two online time-limited problem-solving tasks. Using a regulation of learning framework, the research unfolded over four studies drawing from a variety of data sources and building upon one another to explore the socio-emotional aspect of online collaboration. Study 1 (Webster & Hadwin, 2018) provides an overview of students' emotions and plans for emotion regulation, self-reported during two collaborative tasks, offering an in-the-moment picture of how students feel and how they respond to those feelings. Study 2 (Bakhtiar, Webster, & Hadwin, 2018) consisted of a comparative case study to examine differences in regulation and socio-emotional interactions between two groups with contrasting socio-emotional climates. Findings revealed differences between these groups in terms of planning and preparation; therefore, the final two studies examined emotions and emotion regulation strategies reported during groupwork under different levels of planning and preparation at the individual or group level. Study 3 (Webster & Hadwin, 2019) documented the types of strategies students recalled using individually and as a group to regulate a salient emotion during collaboration and compared strategies between groups who were given different types of collaborative planning support. Finally, Study 4 (Webster, Davis, & Hadwin, 2019) iv compared emotions, emotion regulation strategies, and evaluations of strategy effectiveness for a purposeful sample of students who were well-prepared versus underprepared for the first of two collaborative working sessions. Four overarching factors emerged from this research as important for productive emotion regulation in online collaboration: (a) planning and preparation, (b) regulating both negative and positive emotions, (c) regulating at both individual and group levels, and (d) providing support for selecting and enacting helpful strategies. With further research, tools and interventions can be improved and utilized to support students to productively regulate in collaborative groups. v Table of Contents Supervisory Committee .

Convergences of Joint, Positive Interactions and Regulation in Collaborative Learning

“…The results of the current study suggest that socio-emotional support was more often incorporated into the very moments with regulation in social interaction than without. The result is in line with recent studies that have explored how aspects of regulation in social interaction, such as monitoring challenges, may intertwine socio-emotional interaction, such as encouragement (Lajoie et al, 2015;Bakhtiar et al, 2018). However, though previous studies have noted humor as a part of positive socio-emotional interaction during moments with regulation in social interaction (e.g., Isohätälä et al, 2017;Volet, Summers, et al, 2009), the current study did not indicate an increased frequency of humor in episodes with regulation in social interaction.…”

“…Järvelä, Järvenoja, Malmberg, Isohätälä, and Sobocinski (2016) found that socio-emotional interaction (i.e., interaction about positive or negative emotions or motivation; increasing or decreasing group cohesion, inducing laughter) was often involved in the planning phase of group work when learners activated beliefs and processes in preparation for the learning. Recently, Bakhtiar et al (2018) illustrated the interplay between regulatory processes and socio-emotional interactions, suggesting that a positive climate group frequently incorporated positive socio-emotional interactions, such as encouraging participation and motivation, in regulating their learning. These findings imply that joint and positive interaction and regulation in social interaction may converge in social interaction.…”

“…Not all regulation is productive for learning (e.g., self-handicapping; Wolters, 2003), but the literature shows that regulation in social interaction is needed in collaborative learning. For example, regulation in social interaction can have a positive role in supporting group performance (Näykki, Järvenoja, et al, 2017;Volet, Vauras, & Salonen, 2009), directing cognitive efforts (Iiskala, Volet, Lehtinen, & Vauras, 2015;Molenaar & Chiu, 2014;Volet, Summers, & Thurman, 2009), and fostering a better socio-emotional climate (Bakhtiar et al, 2018;Näykki, Järvelä, Kirschner, & Järvenoja, 2014).…”

The Role of Regulatory, Social, and Dialogic Dynamics on Young Children's Productive Collaboration in Group Problem Solving

“…Combined, this evidence showcases the significance of social dynamics in productive collaboration. In this study, social dynamics are understood as the sustained pattern of shared emotions and social behaviors that lead to a group's climate of a given valence‐positive versus negative, and that influences patterns of participation (Bakhtiar, Webster, & Hadwin, ).…”

Capturing motivation and emotion regulation during a learning process

“…To study motivation and emotion regulation as a multi-layered phenomenon and as a part of the learning process, however, presumes going beyond recognising and capturing the subjective interpretations and explanations or focusing solely on the process data. As we have argued above, the process in which the effects of motivational and emotional conditions actualise into products of learning and motivation regulation are composed of both individual beliefs and processes taking place in the situation (Bakhtiar, Webster, & Hadwin, 2018). Subjective data (e.g., repeated and contextualised self-reports) can reveal students' intentions to learn and the type of beliefs they have about themselves as learners (McCardle & Hadwin, 2015).…”