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

Abstract

This qualitative study explored the interactions of six triads of Year One students in the United Kingdom (n = 18; mean age = 5 years, 7 months; 9 female) investigating interpersonal regulation of learning, social dynamics, and group dialogue, evident in instances of productive collaboration during problem‐solving activities. Group activity was captured through video (total footage = 8 hours) and subjected to two sequential phases of qualitative analysis, undertaken by three researchers: (1) comprehensive qualitative descriptions of group activity, and (2) multidimensional analysis of group interaction with a focus on interpersonal regulation of learning, social dynamics, and group dialogue. Consistent with prior research, the findings show that productive collaboration, though prevalent only in some groups, was characterized by (a) distributed forms of co‐regulation where all members took turns in taking regulatory roles; (b) positive social dynamics marked by equitable patterns of participation, playful interludes, uptake of contributions, and use of persuasive language in the event of disagreements; and (c) use of exploratory forms of talk (e.g., asking questions and volunteering reasons) directed toward the achievement of task goals. Different positional preferences were identified among the most regulated students, who consistently assumed leading roles in their groups.

Collaborative approaches and adaptability in disaster risk situations

“…Productive collaboration refers to joint group engagements geared toward achievement of a certain goal (Pino-Pasternak et al, 2018). Usually, one would expect that a disruptive crisis creates an atmosphere where productive collaboration is encountered.…”

“…Although important, existing research in disaster risk management looks at collaborative capacity of the participants and collaborative governance (Rahmayanti, 2021;Espeso-Molinero, 2017). Much of the research on productive collaboration is in the medical (Luckenbaugh et al, 2017;Billig et al, 2020;Griffiths, 2018) and educational sectors (Powell et al, 2018;Pino-Pasternak et al, 2018). Productive collaboration refers to joint group engagement directed toward the achievement of desired goals (Ladd et al, 2014).…”

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

“…While there was instructive discourse, initial attempts were made to explain reasoning, although the explanations are domain-focused and do not indicate use of system tools (e.g., data tools). In this case, the S1 could be identified as the Driver (Dowell et al, 2019) or Owner (Pino-Pasternak et al, 2018) when students were investing a high degree of effort in collaborative discussion and displayed selfregulatory and social-regulatory skills. However, by the end of the session, there was a switch to more SSR, as they noticed they were making several errors.…”

The pivotal role of monitoring for collaborative problem solving seen in interaction, performance, and interpersonal physiology

“…Further, emerging evidence from studies in face-to-face collaborative learning settings suggests that productive collaboration involves distributed actions of regulation, social behaviors with positive valence, and forms of interaction, which support equal participation in a group (Pino-Pasternak et al 2018). For example, Isohätälä et al (2020) explored how actively students participate in cognitive and socio-emotional interactions during collaborative learning and what characterizes the moments when participation changes during transitions between the types of interaction.…”