at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Learning and Instruction 23 (2013) 52e59

Contents lists available

Learning and Instruction

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ learninstruc

A cross-cultural study of self-regulated learning in a computer-supportedcollaborative learning environment

Yongchao Shi*, Carl H. Frederiksen, Krista R. MuisDepartment of Educational and Counseling Psychology, McGill University, 3700 McTavish Street, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1Y2, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 10 October 2011Received in revised form25 May 2012Accepted 28 May 2012

Keywords:Self-regulated learningSocial orientationIndividual orientationCross-cultural

* Corresponding author. Present address: Departmof Northern British Columbia, 3333 University Way,Canada. Tel.: þ1 250 960 5002; fax: þ1 250 960 5744

E-mail address: yongchao.shi@mail.mcgill.ca (Y. Sh

0959-4752/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.007

a b s t r a c t

Self-regulated learning (SRL) actions of 30 Canadian and 30 Chinese university students were studied ina face-to-face problem-based learning environment. Participants were randomly assigned to work indyads consisting of Chinese, Canadian, or mixed ChineseeCanadian pairs to learn Analysis of Variancecollaboratively using a computer coach. Dialog segments were coded in terms of types of SRL actions, andwhether an action was individually (IND) or socially (SOC) oriented. Canadian pairs produced signifi-cantly higher proportions of IND-SRL actions relative to SOC-SRL actions (higher odds ratios) thanChinese pairs, but the odds ratios for mixed pairs were similar to those for Canadian pairs. This effect ofcultural composition of dyads for the Canadian and Chinese pairs was replicated in a comparison ofCanadian and Chinese participants within the mixed pairs dyads. These results have implications fora socio-cultural account of SRL.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Over the past few decades, self-regulated learning (SRL) hasbecome a prominent area of research within educationalpsychology (Zimmerman, 2006). According to Schunk (2001), self-regulated learning can be defined as “learning that results fromstudents’ self-generated thoughts and behaviors that are system-atically oriented toward the attainment of their learning goals” (p.125). Despite the proliferation of research in this area, the rela-tionship between SRL processes and their social context is an issuethat is still inadequately understood (Boekaerts, 2002), particularlywhen viewed from a cross-cultural perspective. Researchers havelong assumed that individuals generate self-regulatory actions toaccomplish personal learning goals that reflect their needs asindividual learners. It has been assumed that while these actionsmay be supported initially by social factors (e.g., Bandura, 1977),once established they function independently of their social originsand context. However, this is unlikely to be the case when indi-viduals learn through interactions with others in social contexts inwhich collaborationwith other members of a group is important totheir individual success and that of the group. Nor is it likely to bethe case in “collectivist” cultures in which individuals typically

ent of Psychology, UniversityPrince George, BC V2N 4Z9,.i).

All rights reserved.

function as members of a group (Triandis, 1995) and are likely toregulate their actions in relation to the goals and needs of the groupand its members (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

Regulating one’s learning to support shared learning goals ofa group, or individual goals of its members, involves adoptinga social orientation in one’s SRL actions, rather than an individualorientation. In either case, one is “self-regulating” one’s currentlearning actions, but inways that reflect the learning goals of others(a social orientation), or one’s personal learning goals (an indi-vidual orientation). In most social contexts of learning, to partici-pate effectively as a member of a group onewould need to establisha balance between adopting an individual or a social orientation toone’s SRL actions, and this balance is likely to be influenced by one’sprevious cultural experiences and expectations.

Such “socially-oriented” self-regulation is largely invisible incurrent conceptions of SRL which ignore or minimize the impor-tance of socio-cultural contexts (Arvaja, Salovaara, Häkkinen, &Järvelä, 2007; Grau & Whitebread, 2012) and consider only proac-tive agency by the individual (Martin & McLellan, 2008). An indi-vidual’s regulatory actions are assumed to occur only in relation toone’s self (i.e., to the attainment of one’s personal learning goals)and thus they are considered to be individually oriented. Researchon SRL in social contexts such as collaborative learning groups(Järvelä & Järvenojä, 2011) and collaborative activities in class-rooms (Grau & Whitebread, 2012) can reveal how SRL actions maybe socially as well as individually oriented. Cross-cultural researchin such contexts can help establish a socio-cultural theory of SRLpractices that would clarify howone’s cultural experiences function

Y. Shi et al. / Learning and Instruction 23 (2013) 52e59 53

to influence one’s adoption of self-regulatory processes adapted toparticular social contexts of learning.

This study explored the role social contexts and cultural expe-rience play in framing both individually and socially oriented SRLprocesses in social contexts of learning. A contextual and socio-cultural theoretical perspective on the nature of SRL actions wasadopted to guide the study. Chinese and Canadian students’ indi-vidually and socially oriented SRL actions were investigated ina collaborative learning environment in which students learned indyads, working with partners in Chinese, Canadian, or mixedChineseeCanadian pairs, and the impact of the cultural composi-tion of pairs on their production of individually and sociallyoriented SRL actions was studied. The results have implications fora socio-cultural account of SRL processes in social contexts oflearning.

1.1. Cross-cultural research on SRL

In cross-cultural research, the current conception of SRL asproactive agency by the individual has led researchers to concludethat Asian students have less skill as self-regulated learnerscompared toWestern students (for a review, see McInerney, 2008).However, other research has shown that Asian students are oftenstrong competitors in academic classrooms (for a review, seeBempechat & Drago-Severson, 1999). These apparently conflictingresults suggest that the SRL processes of these students are beinginadequately evaluated, presumably as a consequence of theconception of SRL as proactive agency by an individual thatunderlies the design of self-report instruments commonly used toassess SRL as a characteristic of an individual. Rather than relyingon self-report instruments, students’ SRL actions need to be studiedin authentic learning situations (Muis, 2008), and these shouldinclude learning contexts in which students from different cultureslearn collaboratively through interaction with each other. A theo-retical perspective is needed that views SRL as a contextual processand as a socially and culturally situated process to inform methodsfor the study of individually and socially oriented SRL actions ofindividuals from different cultures as they occur within collabora-tive learning situations and social contexts of learning (Järvelä &Järvenojä, 2011; Martin & McLellan, 2008).

1.2. A contextual frame perspective for SRL

From a contextual frame perspective, in social contexts oflearning participants interpret situations in relation to contextualframes. Frames are knowledge representations that provide indi-viduals with resources for interpreting, acting and interactingappropriately within situational contexts (e.g., Goffman, 1974). Incollaborative learning groups, learning actions occur in the contextof the current learning situation and discourse within the group.These actions and accompanying conversational exchanges areframed by the participants’ social and content knowledge (Tannen& Wallat, 1987). A participant applies social frames to guide inter-actions with others members of the group including knowledge ofsocial norms governing how collaborative learning groups are ex-pected to function within a particular cultural context, and appliescontent frames to organize and perform learning and problem-solving tasks, reason, and explain underlying concepts andmeaning (Frederiksen, 1999).

In regulating one’s learning, a participant in such a group appliescontextual frames locally to interpret the current learning situation,talk, and activity. An individual may choose to interpret a currentlearning situation as an individual context, framing the context inways that emphasize personal learning goals. We refer to this kindof self-regulation of one’s learning as individually oriented (IND-

SRL). Alternatively, an individual may choose to interpret a learningcontext as a social context, framing the context in ways thatemphasize socially shared learning goals and expected socialpractices students employ as they work collaboratively in a group.This would lead him/her to take others’ perspectives into accountwhen performing an action. For example, a member of a learninggroup may consider advice, opinions, or requests of others, helpothers to accomplish their personal goals, or contribute to accom-plishing goals shared by members of the group. Such collaborativeactions take into account the needs or goals expressed by othergroup members. We refer to this kind of self-regulated learning associally oriented (SOC-SRL).

However, in a social situation an individual might choose toignore, refute, or challenge others’ actions, or decide tomaintain hisor her own individual goals when others’ opinions or actions areviewed as interfering with his/her own. Such framing of the socialsituation as an individual context would lead an individual toproduce IND-SRL actions. As such, social contexts can encompassa mixture of SOC-SRL and IND-SRL actions, both of which may arisedepending on the current focus of one’s actions and framing of thesituation.

The SOC-SRL concept has not been considered as important inresearch on SRL. For example, Bandura (1977) viewed SOC-SRLactions as merely isolated responses of individuals to variousenvironmental stimuli, arguing that they are not qualified to beregarded as instances of self-regulation which requires that anindividual agent act proactively to reach personal learning goals.However, in collaborative learning situations, an individual hasa responsibility to contribute to the collective benefit of the group,refraining from proceeding alone, conforming to others’ opinions,and helping others (Johnson & Johnson, 1996a), all of which indi-cate the importance of SOC-SRL. Moreover, taking into account theperspectives of others may help increase one’s own efficiency inlearning or performing a task. Therefore, collaborative socialcontexts should foster SOC-SRL actions, IND-SRL actions, ora combination of both.

Ideally, one would expect that IND-SRL and SOC-SRL actionswould complement each other in contributing to the effectivenessof one’s learning and knowledge construction in social situations oflearning. One would also expect them to be adapted to specificcircumstances that might arise in a learning situation. For example,in some situations IND-SRL actions may be effective when contextsallow for self-discovery (Zimmerman, 2006), whereas in othersituations SOC-SRL actions may be effective when contexts involveinteracting with an expert (Evensen, Salisbury-Glennon, & Glenn,2001). Moreover, one’s personal learning goals might conflict withthose of the group in a particular collaborative situation. In thiscase, IND-SRL may not be effective (Evensen et al., 2001). In addi-tion, an expertmight givemisleading information or theremight bea lack of expertise within a particular collaborative learning group.In such situations, SOC-SRL may not be efficient (Johnson &Johnson, 1996b).

1.3. Cultural contexts and SRL

An individual’s preference for IND-SRL or SOC-SRL actionswithin a specific learning situation may be influenced by his or herprevious experience within specific cultural contexts. Triandis(1995) argued that cultural contexts are related to “attributes” ofshared cognitive structures and cultural knowledge of groups ofpeople. He theorized that based on patterns of these attributes, twodistinct “cultural syndromes” could be identified: collectivism e

a pattern characteristic of individuals who are closely linked andgive priority to the collective goals of their group, and individualisme a pattern characteristic of individuals who are loosely linked and

Y. Shi et al. / Learning and Instruction 23 (2013) 52e5954

give priority to their personal goals over the goals of others ina group. He argues that in some societies, such as in China,collectivism is prevalent, whereas in other societies, such as inCanada, the US, and Europe, individualism is prevalent.

Cultural contexts influence an individual’s perception of whatkinds of actions are likely to be effective in a given situation (e.g.,Markus & Kitayama, 1991). From a contextual frame perspective,cultural contexts influence individuals’ framing of a learning situ-ation, which in turn influences their perception of what kinds oflearning actions may be effective. Individualist cultures stress theimportance of the individual self, leading individuals to focus ontheir own internal states, frame the environment in terms of theirown intentions and goals, and consequently produce more IND-SRLactions. Collectivist cultures stress the importance of the social self,leading individuals to frame the environment in terms of sharedgoals of the group, adapt their personal intentions and goals tothose of the group, conform or adapt to expectations of others, andconsequently produce more SOC-SRL actions.

In multicultural societies, over time individuals may incorporatecultural values, beliefs, and practices of other cultural groups toform their own bicultural or multicultural identities, which mayplay an important role in influencing how they frame learningcontexts, leading them to produce IND-SRL or SOC-SRL actions(McInerney, 2008). When an individual moves from one culture toa different culture, a process of acculturation occurs in which anindividual adapts to the majority culture (Berry, 1997). Withincreasing experience, a student from a minority culture will adoptvalues and beliefs of individuals from the majority culture andbehave similarly. However, an individual’s values and beliefsassociated with the home culture remain and may continue toinfluence the individual’s behavior (LaFromboise, Coleman, &Gerton, 1993). When students from a minority culture haveopportunities to work with other students from the same minorityculture, this familiar cultural context may reinstate the importanceand value of their home culture in governing their behavior in thatcontext (Alegria, 2009).

2. Overview of the study

Chinese university students studying in English in Canada weresampled as representative of “collectivists”, and Anglo-Canadianuniversity students were sampled as representative of “individual-ists”. Participants were randomly assigned towork collaboratively indyads having one of three compositions: Chinese pairs (dyads con-sisting of two Chinese students), Canadian pairs (dyads consisting oftwoCanadianstudents), andChineseeCanadian (mixed)pairs (dyadsconsisting of a Canadian student and a Chinese student). Working inpairs, participants learned Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) usinga computer tutor as a guide and resource for their learning andproblem solving activity (Mercier & Frederiksen, 2007). Videorecordings of dialog between students in each dyadwere transcribedand segmented into dialog units. Units corresponding to SRL actionswere identified and coded in terms of (a) types of SRL actions, and (b)whether the action was individually (IND) or socially (SOC) oriented.Our principal research question concerned patterns of orientation ofSRL actions within dyads consisting of Canadian pairs, Chinese pairs,and ChineseeCanadian mixed pairs. We examined differencesamong the three pairs conditionswith respect to their proportions ofIND-SRL actions relative to SOC-SRL actions (odds ratios).

In line with contextual frame theory, our principal predictionwas that Canadian pairs would produce significantly higherproportions of IND SRL actions relative to SOC SRL actions (higherodds ratios) than Chinese pairs, since we expected that: (a) in theCanadian pairs both partners in a dyad come from an “individual-istic” cultural background and would consequently exhibit

a preference for individual learning goals relative to socially sharedlearning goals, and (b) in the Chinese pairs, both partners in a dyadcome from a “collectivist” cultural background and would conse-quently exhibit a stronger and more balanced preference forsocially shared learning goals relative to individual learning goals.(Hypothesis 1)

Second, we expected that dyads in the mixed ChineseeCanadianpairs would produce a proportion of IND-SRL actions relative toSOC-SRL actions (odds ratio) similar to that of the Canadian pairssince we expected that social framing in the mixed pairs learningcontext would be predominately in terms of dominant Canadiancultural expectations to which the Chinese member of a dyadwould conform. (Hypothesis 2). As a consequence of this similarity,we expected the odds ratio for the mixed ChineseeCanadian pairsGroup to be larger than that for the ChineseeChinese pairs group.

We also examined these differenceswith respect to specific typesof SRL actions, to see if predicted effects involving the overallproportion of IND-SRL relative to SOC-SRL actions were associatedwith specific types of SRL actions. Since the previous hypothesesrelate to cultural framing of SRL contexts as a general phenomenon,weexpected that thepredictedeffects of compositionofdyadswouldbe quite general. Nevertheless, wewanted to explore whether theseeffects would be associated with particular types of SRL actions.

Finally, wewere curious to knowwhat patterns of orientation ofSRL actions would occur for individual Chinese and Canadianparticipants within the mixed ChineseeCanadian dyads. Consistentwith cultural frame theory, we expected that although the partic-ipants in a dyad would jointly frame the learning situation in termsof the expectations of the dominant culture (emphasizing anindividual orientation to SRL), individual Chinese participantswithin the mixed CanadianeChinese dyads also would frame theirinteractions with their Canadian partner in ways that are signifi-cantly influenced by their own culturally based expectations(emphasizing a social orientation to SRL). Thus, we predicted thatCanadian participants in a mixed dyad would produce higherproportions of IND-SRL actions relative to SOC-SRL actions thanChinese participants in the same dyad. This pattern would besimilar to differences found comparing Canadian and Chinese dyads(Hypothesis 3).

3. Method

3.1. Participants

Sixty male participants (mean age 24 years) were recruited fromseveral disciplines including Engineering (N ¼ 17; 9 Canadians, 8Chinese), Natural Science (N ¼ 15; 8 Canadians, 7 Chinese),Management (N¼ 18; 8 Canadians, 10 Chinese), and Arts and SocialScience (N¼ 10; 5 Canadians, 5 Chinese) through posters posted onthe campus of a major Canadian university. Only males wereselected to avoid the potential confounding effect of gender. Allparticipants had elementary statistics knowledge and were inter-ested in learning ANOVA. Canadian participants were recruitedwho (a) were born in Canada or the U.S., (b) their father or motherwas born in Canada or the U.S., and (c) they spoke English as theirprincipal language at home. Chinese participants were recruitedwho (a) were born in Mainland China, (b) they had lived in Canadaor the U.S. for less than five years, and (c) they spoke Chinese astheir principal language at home. All Chinese participants hadpassed the TOEFEL test to be enrolled in an English languageCanadian university. In addition, their successful academic perfor-mance in a Canadian university was an indicator of their ability tofunction effectively in English at the university level. Their averagestay in Canada was 4 years. Participants were paid $20 for theirparticipation.

Y. Shi et al. / Learning and Instruction 23 (2013) 52e59 55

3.2. Materials

3.2.1. Computer tutoring environment and learning tasksThe McGill Statistics Tutor is a web-based hypermedia system

for learning ANOVA (Frederiksen & Donin, 2005). The tutor func-tions as a user-controlled coaching and help systemwhich providesa self-contained environment for learning ANOVA. It organizesknowledge of ANOVA into twelve learning topics and tasks, amongwhich Tasks 5 to 9 (ANOVA Score Models, Estimating Parameters ofANOVA Score Models, Constructing an ANOVA Table, Calculatingand Using ANOVA Statistics, and Testing Hypotheses in ANOVArespectively) were required to solve a prescribed problem.

3.2.2. Apparatus and materialsAll screen activities were recorded and synchronized with video

of outside activities (recorded by a camera and an omnidirectionalmicrophone) as a picture-in-picture MP4 file using Camtasia soft-ware (TechSmith Corporation).

3.3. Procedure

Participants in the study learned collaboratively, working inpairs (dyads). Dyads consisted of a Canadian and a Chineseparticipant who were randomly assigned to work together asa pair whose composition corresponded to one of three PairsConditions: (a) Canadian Pairs, (b) Chinese Pairs, or (c) MixedChineseeCanadian Pairs. A group of ten dyads was formed for eachcondition (i.e., type of pair). These Groups correspond to the threeexperimental conditions of this study.

When each dyad arrived at the lab, they were positioned in frontof the computer tutor. The experimental session lasted for 2 h. First,participants were given a 30-min training session in which the firstauthor introduced the students to the McGill Statistics Tutorinterface. Participants then practiced using the tutor interface for5 min. Theywere then provided with the following instructions: (a)the objective of the session was to learn statistics collaboratively;(b) they should begin by reading the problem description tounderstand the problem-solving task and plan their learningobjectives; (c) they should use the tutor for assistance in learningANOVA and using ANOVA to solve a data analysis problem bycompleting five required tasks (tutor tasks 5e9); (d) they shouldcomplete a joint report on the analysis based on provided ANOVAresults (using Microsoft Word). They were informed that thesession would be videotaped.

The problem description presented an example of a one-wayANOVA problem. Sample data were provided together with theANOVA output. The report was required to include: (a) the scoremodel applied to analyze the data (in the form of an algebraicequation); (b) estimates of parameters in the score model; (c)a description and interpretation of the ANOVA table provided in theoutput; (d) a statement of the null and alternative hypotheses,relevant F statistics, degrees of freedom, and probability values;and (e) a statement of the decision to accept or reject the nullhypothesis based on the statistical tests and its justification.

This procedure was consistent for each dyad. The researchersassistance consisted of: (a) preparing the computer environment,(b) presenting task requirements, and (c) familiarizing participantswith the tutor.

3.4. Data coding

The video record of dialog between participants in each dyadwas transcribed and segmented into dialog units consisting ofconversational actions (C-Acts). These units were coded to identifyall SRL actions. All SRL actions were coded in terms of: (a) type of

SRL action, and (b) orientation of the SRL action as individuallyoriented (IND) or socially oriented (SOC). To develop coding schemefor types of SRL actions, we used Zimmerman’s (2006) framework,and Azevedo and Cromley’s (2004) coding scheme was consultedsince it was developed for use in learning with hypermedia. Defi-nitions and examples of each type of SRL action are presented in theAppendix.

The orientation of each SRL action was coded as either indi-vidually oriented or socially oriented (see the Appendix for exam-ples). A dialog unit was coded as individually oriented (IND) if a unitwas expressed in terms of (a) ignoring, refuting, or challengingothers; or (b) maintaining or realizing one’s own individual goals. Itwas coded as socially-oriented (SOC) if it was expressed in terms of:(a) meeting the needs of others or the group, (b) shared under-standing of relevant knowledge, (c) shared interest, (d) a concernabout the performance of the group, (e) a concern about thebenefits for others, and (f) a concern about the opinions of others.These SRL codes were applied to all dialog units identified as SRLactions in the corpus of transcripts for the 30 dyads. In codingdialog units, video segments linked to the transcribed dialog unitswere examined so that the context of the dialog could be taken intoaccount in coding the dialog unit.

3.5. Inter-coder agreement

To evaluate inter-coder agreement, the second author discussedin detail with the first author the definition of each scoring category(type of SRL action, and orientation of SRL action) and provideda list of codes and examples of each code. Then both codeda randomly selected transcript independently. Inter-coder agree-ment was 85% for orientation of action (243 out of 328 dialog units),kappa ¼ .70. The agreement percentage for all types of SRL actionswas 92%. Inconsistencies were resolved through discussionbetween the authors to ensure full agreement. Then the first authorcoded the remaining transcripts.

3.6. Data analyses

The dependent (response) variable analyzed in this study wasa discourse unit (C-Act) corresponding to an SRL action that wascoded as either IND (individually oriented) or SOC (sociallyoriented). This is a binary response variable since each responsecan be assigned a value of 1 or 0 (1 if a response unit was coded asIND, and 0 if it was coded as SOC). Effects of independent variableson this response variable were analyzed using the SAS GENMODprocedure (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) to implement a logisticregression analysis (Allison, 1999). In applying logistic regressionanalysis to these data, the log odds of frequencies of INDresponses relative to SOC responses, i.e., the log of the ratio ofthese response frequencies (or logit), is predicted from a linearmodel in which the independent variables are the predictors.Results of a logistic regression analysis are similar to those foundin an ANOVA, and are interpreted in the same way, but with a c2

statistic as the test statistic (rather than an F statistic). In logisticregression analysis, the odds ratio (OR) for an effect is therecognized measure of effect size for tests of hypotheses (Allison,1999). If OR ¼ 1 there is no effect; the larger the OR, the larger theeffect. The odds ratio for each tested effect was computed and willbe given in reporting the results.

In the analysis of the dyad data (corresponding to Hypotheses1 and 2), the Canadian pairs, Chinese pairs, and mixedCanadianeChinese pairs conditions correspond to the three levelsof the independent variable, Group. Two pre-planned contrastswere tested: (a) the contrast between the Canadian pairs group andthe Chinese pairs group (corresponding toHypothesis 1), and (b) the

Y. Shi et al. / Learning and Instruction 23 (2013) 52e5956

contrast between the Canadian pairs group and the mixedCanadianeChinese pairs group (corresponding to Hypothesis 2). Asecond independent variable was included in the model as anadditional source of variation within groups, the effect of dyadsnested within groups, where dyad effects reflect differences amongthe ten dyads nested within each of the groups.

In the analysis of the response data from individual partici-pants within dyads in the mixed CanadianeChinese Pairs condi-tion (Hypothesis 3), the independent variable was the CulturalIdentity of the Participant having two levels: Canadian or Chinese.

The coded C-Acts (responses) produced by individuals withina dyad are repeated measures that are likely to be correlatedwithin local sequences of discourse. Consequently the dependentvariables need to be treated as repeated measures within thesesequences. To conduct a repeated measures analysis of the data,the participants’ sequences of responses were grouped into clus-ters to estimate the correlations among responses within a cluster.A cluster was defined as a stretch of dialog that focused ona single topic and was delimited by conversational boundarymarkers (e.g., pauses, intonation, speaker shifts). The localdependence (correlation) structure of responses within clusterswas estimated using the REPEATED option of the SAS GENMODprocedure to conduct a repeated measures analysis of the data.Due to the sequential nature of conversational discourse, a C-Actof a participant is likely to be influenced by its immediatelypreceding C-Act. Therefore, we estimated the stationary (i.e.,constant) regression weight between adjacent responses withinclusters (using the AR(1) option in the GENMOD program). Allanalyses reported were repeated measures analyses in which thecorrelations within clusters were estimated according to thiscovariance structure (Allison, 1999).

4. Results

4.1. Effects of composition of pairs on orientation of SRL actions bydyads in the three conditions

Total frequencies of IND-SRL and SOC-SRL actions (pooling overtypes of SRL actions) are presented for each group (the Canadianpairs, Chinese pairs, and mixed CanadianeChinese pairs

Table 1Frequencies of orientation (IND, SOC) of types of SRL actions by group.

Type of SRL action Group

Canadianpairs

Chinese pairs Mixed pairs

IND SOC IND SOC IND SOC

Adaptation 32 58 13 34 28 42Clarification 553 239 347 227 526 252Elaboration 305 187 188 184 424 259Environment structuring 45 18 35 59 35 14Help seeking 142 70 127 67 125 41Locating 31 26 15 10 22 14Monitoring 354 148 206 126 316 119Motivation 37 18 23 57 41 39Note-taking 12 1 23 7 14 10Prediction 62 39 25 5 30 13Review 37 6 20 2 35 9Satisfaction 125 529 85 397 112 467Searching information 202 154 196 140 147 138Self-evaluation 122 159 121 165 142 165Goal setting 44 20 27 16 37 18Planning 135 98 87 74 134 74Summarization 22 0 13 2 23 0Total 2260 1770 1551 1572 2191 1674

conditions) in the last row of Table 1. Results of an overall test ofgroup effects indicated that the main effect of group was signifi-cant, (c2 (2, N ¼ 11,018) ¼ 18.45, p < .001). The effect of dyadsnested within groups was also significant, c2 (27,N ¼ 11,018) ¼ 99.56, p < .001. Thus, there was significant variationamong dyads within groups. This effect was then included to adjustthe group effects in this study.

The contrast between the Canadian pairs group and the Chinesepairs group was tested to evaluate the evidence related to Hypoth-esis 1 in which it was predicted that the Canadian pairs wouldproduce significantly higher proportions of IND-SRL actions rela-tive to SOC-SRL actions (higher odds ratios) than the Chinese pairs.The results of a test of this contrast showed that the differencebetween the Canadian pairs group and the Chinese pairs group wassignificant, c2 (1,N¼ 7153)¼ 17.00, p< .001, OR¼ 1.33, 95% CI [1.16,1.53], indicating that the odds that dyads in the Canadian pairsgroup would produce individual (IND) SRL actions relative to social(SOC) SRL actions was 1.33 times higher than the odds in theChinese pairs group. This result is consistent with the prediction ofHypothesis 1.

Further contrasts tested the evidence related to Hypothesis 2 inwhichwe predicted that dyads in themixed ChineseeCanadian pairsgroup would produce a proportion of IND-SRL actions relative toSOC-SRL actions (odds ratios) similar to that of the Canadian pairsgroup and different from that of the Chinese pairs group. Resultsindicated no significant difference between the frequency ofproduction of IND-SRL actions relative to SOC-SRL actions by dyadsin the mixed CanadianeChinese pairs group compared to theCanadian pairs group, c2 (1, N ¼ 7895) ¼ 0.00, p ¼ .967, OR ¼ .997,95% CI [.88, 1.12]. However, there was a significant differencebetween the mixed pairs group and the Chinese pairs group, c2

(1, N ¼ 6988) ¼ 16.12, p < .001, OR ¼ 1.33, 95% CI [1.16, 1.53]. Theseresults are consistent with the prediction of Hypothesis 2.

4.2. Differences in orientation of specific types of SRL actions bydyads in the Canadian and Chinese pairs

Frequencies of IND and SOC orientation for different Types of SRLaction are presented for each group in Table 1. It can be seen thattwo cells for the summarization type of actionwere zeros; therefore,this variable was not analyzed. Exploratory analyses of theremaining variables showed that there were significant differencesbetween the Canadian pairs and the Chinese pairs on five variables:clarification, c2 (1,N¼ 1366)¼ 7.72, p¼ .006, OR¼ 1.53, 95% CI [1.13,2.08]; elaboration, c2 (1, N¼ 864) ¼ 7.55, p¼ .006, OR¼ 1.86, 95% CI[1.19, 2.88]; environment structuring, c2 (1, N¼ 157)¼ 7.85, p¼ .005,OR ¼ 3.33, 95% CI [1.44, 7.73]; monitoring, c2 (1, N ¼ 834) ¼ 5.38,p ¼ .020, OR ¼ 1.54, 95% CI [1.07, 2.20]; and motivation (i.e. interest,efficacy, and a sense of duty), c2 (1, N ¼ 135) ¼ 13.83, p < .001,OR ¼ 4.57, 95% CI [2.05, 10.19]. All of these variables exhibiteda significantly greater preference for individual (IND) over social(SOC) actions by the Canadian pairs.

4.3. Differences in orientation of SRL actions by Canadian andChinese participants within dyads in the mixed CanadianeChinesepairs

The difference in orientation of SRL actions produced by Cana-dian and Chinese participants within dyads in the mixedCanadianeChinese pairs were tested to evaluate the evidence cor-responding to Hypothesis 3 in which it was predicted that, like theCanadian pairs, the Canadian participants in a dyad in the mixedCanadianeChinese pairs would produce significantly higherproportions of IND-SRL actions relative to SOC-SRL actions (higherodds ratios) than the Chinese participants. Total frequencies of

Y. Shi et al. / Learning and Instruction 23 (2013) 52e59 57

individually oriented (IND) and socially oriented (SOC) SRL actions(pooling over types of SRL actions) for the Canadian and theChinese participants in dyads in the mixed CanadianeChinese pairsare presented in the last row of Table 2. Results of this test showedthat the main effect of cultural identity of participant in overallorientation of actions was significant, c2 (1,N¼ 3865)¼ 3.6, p¼ .05,OR¼ 1.20, 95% CI [.99, 1.46]. The odds ratio indicates that it was 1.20times more likely that the Canadian participants produced indi-vidually oriented actions than the Chinese participants. This resultis consistent with the prediction of Hypothesis 3.

5. Discussion

5.1. Interpretation of results

Cultural differences in individual and social orientation of SRLprocesses during collaborative learning in pairs were investigatedby studying preferences for IND-SRL over SOC-SRL actions exhibi-ted by Canadian, Chinese, and mixed CanadianeChinese dyads. Wepredicted that a higher proportion of IND-SRL actions relative toSOC-SRL actions would be produced by dyads in the Canadian pairsthan in the Chinese pairs (Hypothesis 1). The results supported thishypothesis. We found that in a culturally homogeneous context ofworking with a partner, the Chinese participants were less likely toexpress individually-oriented actions, such as individual opinionsor disagreements, which are inconsistent with shared Chinesecultural norms in which social harmony is viewed as important(Kwan, Bond, & Singelis, 1997; Yang, 1995). These results are alsoconsistent with research on cultural differences in motivation(Iyengar & Lepper, 1999), cognition (Norenzayan, Choi, & Peng,2007), and metacognition (Hacker & Bol, 2004).

Second, we predicted that the CanadianeChinese mixed dyadswould produce a proportion of IND-SRL actions relative to SOC-SRLactions similar to that of the Canadian pairs, reflecting theiradoption of dominant individually-oriented Canadian culturalexpectations (Hypothesis 2). Consistent with Hypothesis 2, theproportion of individually oriented (IND) actions relative to sociallyoriented (SOC) actions for the CanadianeChinese mixed pairs wassimilar to that for the Canadian pairs, and larger than that for theChineseeChinese pairs.

Table 2Frequencies of orientation (IND, SOC) of types of SRL actions by cultural identity ofspeaker within dyads in the mixed pairs group.

Type of SRL action Cultural identity of speaker

Canadian Chinese

IND SOC IND SOC

Adaptation 13 26 15 16Clarification 286 128 240 124Elaboration 221 105 203 154Environment structuring 18 5 17 9Help seeking 58 21 67 20Locating 8 5 14 9Monitoring 175 50 141 69Motivation 31 10 10 29Note-taking 5 4 9 6Prediction 11 5 19 8Review 23 5 12 4Satisfaction 60 244 52 223Searching information 58 54 89 84Self-evaluation 68 90 74 75Goal setting 20 7 17 11Planning 80 37 54 37Summarization 18 0 5 0Total 1153 796 1038 878

We also explored whether the predicted effects would bestronger for some specific types of SRL actions in comparison toothers. The results for specific types of SRL actions revealed thatthe Canadian pairs demonstrated higher proportions ofindividually-oriented SRL actions relative to socially-oriented SRLactions than did the Chinese pairs for several types of SRL actions:motivation, monitoring, elaboration, clarification, and environmentstructuring. Thus, cultural differences were found for theseparticular types of SRL actions. A possible explanation of thisfinding is that these types of actions may be more sensitive tocultural norms during collaboration than other types of SRLactions. For example, one’s own choice of how to structure envi-ronment is hornored in Canadian Culture (individual orientation)whereas in Chinese culture an action of environment structuring isbetter to be taken after one consults other stakeholders (socialorientation).

In a third research question, we focused on the orientation ofSRL actions by individual Chinese and Canadian participants withinthe mixed Chinese and Canadian dyads. We predicted that Chineseparticipants, in comparison to Canadian participants in these dyads,would place a greater emphasis on socially oriented SRL actions intheir conversational interactions with their partner within thedyad, and thus that the pattern of differences between the Cana-dian and Chinese participants would be similar to that of theCanadian and Chinese dyads (Hypothesis 3). Results from thecomparison between Canadian and Chinese participants in themixed pairs dyads support this hypothesis. Although the results formixed pairs dyads were similar to those for the Canadian pairs,indicating that acculturation had occurred, the Chinese members inthemixed pairs dyads continued to emphasize socially oriented SRLactions in their interactionswith their Canadian partners. Thus theymaintained an orientation consistent with their Chinese culturalidentity within the context of the interaction, indicating that thevalues and expectations of their home culture continued to beexpressed in their choices of orientation in their interactions withtheir partners.

5.2. Conclusions and implications for theory and practice

The results obtained in this research are consistent withpredictions based on a contextual and socio-cultural theoreticalperspective on SRL processes. From this perspective, individualsmay demonstrate individually oriented SRL actions in collaborativelearning situations when they want to maintain their own goals orneed to refute others’ opinions; they may, however, performsocially oriented SRL actions when their goals are tomeet the needsand expectations of the group or of other individuals within thegroup. While individuals usually need to balance both an individualand a social orientation in their choice of SRL actions in anyparticular social situation of learning, their tendency to exerciseindividually or socially oriented SRL actions is influenced by theircultural expectations and framing of the social learning context andactivity.

Both types of SRL orientations complement each other in that itis desirable to refuse others’ opinions when they are incorrect (IND-SRL) and to accept others’ meaningful advice when it is correct(SOC-SRL) to achieve effectiveness and efficiency in one’s learning.However, in the context of discourse interaction with others incomplex learning situations, individuals may have difficultydeciding what type of orientation of SRL action is preferable toexercise at each instance in the learning dialog. Therefore,they unconsciously resort to preferences based on their previouscultural experience.

If these conclusions are supported by subsequent research, theywill help us to better understand SRL processes and address many

Y. Shi et al. / Learning and Instruction 23 (2013) 52e5958

contradictions in current SRL research. For example, we previouslyidentified cross-cultural studies that reported that students fromcollectivistic cultures are less self-regulated than those from indi-vidualistic cultures, but that they are often strong competitors inacademic situations. Our study found that the extent of thesestudents’ actual engagement in SRL was not low when sociallyoriented SRL actions were taken into account. Our results show howimportant social and cultural contexts of learning groups can be ininfluencinghowindividuals framea learningsituationtoenable themto adopt individual and social orientations to SRL that can effectivelysupport their learning and that of the group. Thus, the theoreticalframework,methodology, andfindings of this study can contribute toopening new research directions in SRL research to investigate howindividually and socially oriented SRL processes function to supporteffective learning in social and multicultural contexts.

The results also have potential implications for educationalpractice by providing a research perspective that can help enableeducators to better understand both how individually oriented andsocially oriented SRL are natural processes that can complementeach other to support students’ learning in social contexts, and howthese processes are influenced by the cultural experience andorientation of students in multicultural contexts of learning. Suchan understanding can help educators facilitate the functioning of

Appendix A

Descriptions and Examples of the Variables Used to Code Learners’ IND- and SOC-SR

Variables Description

Goal setting (G) An intended outcome for learning relatedto obtaining declarative or procedural knowledge

Planning (P) Choice of an action or a sequence of actionsto achieve a learning goal

Motivation (M) Desire to succeed in learning such as interest,confidence, and duty.

Searchinginformation (S)

Search for new information needed to solvea problem or improve understanding

Clarification (C) Expression of the meaning of what is currently read

Elaboration (E) Explanation of a concept by citing what waslearned before

Summarization(SUM)

Brief account covering several points of whatwas learned

Review (R) Re-examine previous records, such as notes, andlearned topics

Note-taking (N) Writing or copying pieces of information

Prediction (PRED) Statement of whether concerned informationwill be found somewhere

Locating (L) The exact place where learning happened fora review purpose

Environmentstructuring (ES)

Efforts to organize the learning context in waysthat help learn better

Help seeking (H) Solicitation of unknown information fromother people

Monitoring (MON) Tracking the appropriateness of learned materialand others’ intention

Self-evaluation (SE) Judgment on effectiveness of learning processes

Satisfaction (SAT) Positive reaction to a piece of expression

Adaptation (A) Change on learning directions based ondissatisfaction

collaborative learning groups, of individuals within these groups,and integration of students from different cultures into multicul-tural contexts of learning.

5.3. Future research

This study represents a first attempt to validate predictionsderived froma contextual and socio-cultural theoretical perspectiveon SRL processes in social and multicultural contexts. Additionalstudies will be needed in other social and collaborative learningcontexts, including studies in different cultures and multiculturallearning contexts, to further validate and flesh out this theoreticalaccount of SRL processes. Studies of gender effects in such contextsalsowill be needed.Whileweadvocate a perspective that focuses onthe study of individual and social SRL actions in authentic social andmulticultural contexts, such research may be complemented byother research approaches. For example, future studies also mightinvestigate cultural preference as a controlled variable by usinga priming procedure to influence a learner to adopt an individual orsocial orientation to a learning situation. Moreover, further analysisof the interactions that take place in such learning situations and ofthe content of learning actions will be needed to enrich thecontextual account of SRL processes.

L Actions.

Example

A: So the first thing we have to do is to find information aboutthe score model, right? (SOC-G)B: Yes, we need to figure out what a score model means. (SOC-G)A: First we are going to look at the score model to answer the firstquestion. (IND-P)B: Ok, let’s do this first. (SOC-P)A: The score model is interesting, right? (SOC-M)B: Not as interesting as what you think. (IND-M)A: Do you want to go to part two at the next page? (SOC-S)B: No, I want to look at part three. (IND-S)A: SS is a kind of variance, right? (SOC-C)B: I think MS is a kind of variance. (IND-C)A: I remembered in the elementary statistics course the nullhypothesis is that all group means are equal. (IND-E)B: Right, mu one equals mu two equals mu three. (SOC-E)A: Basically this page says which part of score is due to the group,and which is due to the deviation from the group. (IND-SUM)B: Yes, it divides a score into several effects. (SOC-SUM)A: Let’s reread the problem description. (IND-R)B: Ok, (read). (SOC-R)A: Copy and paste the whole paste the paragraph? (SOC-N)B: No, just the formula. (IND-N)A: The critical value may be in part two? (SOC-PRED)B: No, I think it is explained in part three. (IND-PRED)A: We were in part seven just now? (SOC-L)B: I think we were in part six. (IND-L)A: Can we open the new topic in a new window? (SOC-ES)B: No, too many windows will be distractive. (IND-ES)A: What’s the R square? (IND-H)B: Do you know whether the R square is a required concept inour joint report? (SOC-H)A: I feel this page is not important. (IND-MON)B: So you may hope to drop this topic? (SOC-MON)A: Have we learned enough for question one? (SOC-SE)B: No, I don’t think so (IND-SE)A: MSE is SSE divided by its degree of freedom. (IND-C)B: Great. (SOC-SAT)A: So far we have read a lot but I don’t know whether wecould answer a question. (IND-SE)B: Yes, we need to learn according to a question (SOC-A)

Y. Shi et al. / Learning and Instruction 23 (2013) 52e59 59

References

Alegria, M. (2009). The challenge of acculturation measures: what are we missing?A commentary on Thomson & Hoffman-Goetz. Social Science & Medicine, 69(7),996e998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.07.006.

Allison, P. D. (1999). Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and application.Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Häkkinen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2007). Combining individualand group-level perspectives for studying collaborative knowledge construc-tion in context. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 448e459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.04.003.

Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learningfacilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology,96(3), 523e535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.523.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.Bempechat, J., & Drago-Severson, E. (1999). Cross-national differences in

academic achievement: beyond etic conceptions of children’s understand-ings. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 287e314. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543069003287.

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology:An International Review, 46(1), 5e68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x.

Boekaerts, M. (2002). Bringing about change in the classroom, strength andweaknesses of SRL. Learning and Instruction, 12(6), 589e604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00010-5.

Evensen, D. H., Salisbury-Glennon, J. D., & Glenn, J. (2001). A qualitative study of sixmedical students in a problem-based curriculum: toward a situated model ofself-regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 659e676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//O022-O663.93.4.659.

Frederiksen, C. H. (1999). Learning to reason through discourse in a problem-basedlearning group. Discourse Processes, 27(2), 135e160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545055.

Frederiksen, C. H., & Donin, J. (2005). Coaching and the development of expertise:designing computer coaches to emulate human tutoring in complex domains. InS. Pierre (Ed.),Développement, integration et evaluation des technologies de formationet d’apprentissage (pp. 179e219). Montréal: Presses Internationales Polytechnique,(Development, integrationandevaluationof technologies for learningand training).

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience.London: Harper and Row.

Grau, V., & Whitebread, D. (2012). Self and social regulation of learning duringcollaborative activities in the classroom: the interplay of individual and groupcognition. Learning and Instruction, ���, 1e12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.03.003.

Hacker, D. J., & Bol, L. (2004). Metacognitive theory: considering the social-cognitiveinfluences. In D. M. McInerney, & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp.275e297). Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age Pub.

Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: a culturalperspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,76, 349e366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.349.

Järvelä, S., & Järvenojä, H. (2011). Socially constructed self-regulated learning andmotivation regulation in collaborative learning groups. Teachers College Records,113(2), 350e374.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996a). Cooperative learning and traditionalAmerican values: an appreciation. NASSP Bulletin, 80(579), 63e65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019263659608057911.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996b). Cooperation and the use of technology. InD. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications andtechnology (pp. 785e812). New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kwan, V. S. Y., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. S. (1997). Pancultural explanations for lifesatisfaction: adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 73, 1038e1051. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.1038.

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact ofbiculturalism: evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395e412.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.395.

McInerney, D. M. (2008). The motivational roles of cultural differences andcultural identity in self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk, &B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory,research, and applications (pp. 369e400). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates Publishers.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224e253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224.

Martin, J., & McLellan, A. (2008). The educational psychology of self-regulation:a conceptual and critical analysis. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(6),433e448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9060-4.

Mercier, J., & Frederiksen, C. H. (2007). Individual differences in graduate students’help-seeking process in using a computer coach in problem-based learning.Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 184e203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.013.

Muis, K. R. (2008). Epistemic profiles and self-regulated learning: Examiningrelations in the context of mathematics problem solving. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 33(2), 177e208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.10.012.

Norenzayan, A., Choi, J. A., & Peng, K. (2007). Perception and cognition. InS. Kitayama, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 569e594).New York: Guilford Press.

Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. InB. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academicachievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed). (pp. 125e151). NJ, US: LawrenceErlbaum Associates Publishers.

Tannen, D., & Wallat, C. (1987). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas ininteraction: examples from a medical examination/interview. Social PsychologyQuarterly, 50(2), 205e216. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786752.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: WestviewPress.

Yang, K. S. (1995). Chinese social orientation: an integrative analysis. In T. Y. Lin,W. S. Tseng, & E. K. Yeh (Eds.), Chinese societies and mental health (pp. 19e29).Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Development and adaptation of expertise: the roleof self-regulatory processes and beliefs. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness,P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertiseand expert performance (pp. 705e722). NY, US: Cambridge UniversityPress.