Examining Self- and Co-regulated Processes in a Collaborative Learning Environment Nicole C. DiDonato, Ph.D.

Montclair State University

This qualitative study investigated the potential for peers to support the development of self- and co-regulated learning in a collaborative learning environment. In doing so, videos of students’ interactions were analyzed in order to present a case study of how one group’s use of co-regulated learning processes (CRL) led to increases in individual members’ self-regulated learning (SRL) when students participated in a collaborative project over a nine-week period.

•N = 4 •Gender: 2 Male, 2 Female•Grade/Age: 6th grade (11-12 years old)•Ethnicity: 3 Hispanic, 1 African American

•This research is part of a larger qualitative study that examined self-and co-regulatory processes in sixteen groups, space limitations here do not allow for such an in-depth investigation to be presented.

SRL: Planning, monitoring, and evaluating aspects of one’s cognition, motivation, and behavior

CRL: Interactions between two or more peers that coordinate SRL processes until the less regulated peer is able to self-regulate independently (McCaslin & Hickey, 2001; Yowell & Smylie, 1999).

• FEATURES• Collaborative, Interdisciplinary• Features of High-SRL tasks

• Autonomy in selecting topic and planning how to solve it; Meaningful; Authentic; Complex; Self & Peer evaluations

TERMINOLOGY

PARTICIPANTS

THE TASK

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONABSTRACTSHARED INTEREST: Soccer TOPIC: Create a district wide soccer team STEPS1.Collected and analyzed individual players’ statistics from multiple teams across the district in order to recruit the players for their team2.In an excel spreadsheet they recorded and tracked names, experience (measured in years), as well as summary statistics from the prior season (e.g., goals scored, number of yellow and red cards)3.Information was used to select twenty-two members for their all-star team4.Researched example sports contracts and used these to create their own contract for their team members5.Designed a team logo and uniform and contacted potential vendors for pricing details

• Researched different lightweight, sweat, and heat resistant fabrics

6.Researched various types and prices of equipment (e.g., cleats, gloves, shin guards, and so on) needed for year 1 budget

DATA ANALYSISData: Video transcripts (N=11, 1544 mins) of students’ group

work STEPS:1. Constructed summaries of group members’ conversations

and behavior for every fifteen minutes of tape• Verbatim discourse + descriptions of students’

nonverbal behavior• Recorded in Nvivo software program

2. Initially a coding scheme by Wolters, Pintrich, and Karabenick (2005) adapted to include co-regulation processes was used to code the data, however during analysis it was modified to reflect new codes and ways to categorize the data (See Appendix 1)

3. 20% of the transcripts were dual coded to establish reliability, which was 88%. After discussion agreement was reached on all codes

4. Frequency counts of codes were calculated by time period referring to the first, second, and third, three-week period of the project, respectively

5. Instances of SRL and co-regulation (by time period) were compiled into two separate documents and narratives were constructed to describe themes across the codes and to make connections across themes and data sources

6. Constructed a cross- narrative analysis to describe similarities, differences, and connections across self- and co-regulation and time

DATA ANALYSIS

RESULTSPlanning • Henry contributed three of the four project ideas and he

was the only person who accepted proposed project ideas. (See Appendix 2)

• Process planning activities occurred mostly during Time 1 and were co-regulated by Henry. (See Example 1, Appendix 3)

• He assigned roles to other group members• Accompanied by explanations for why it was necessary

to complete a particular assignment. (See Appendix 3, Example 2)

Monitoring• While Henry continued to actively engage in co-regulating

monitoring processes, other group members also assumed a more active role self and co-regulating monitoring processes (See Appendix 2; See Appendix 3, Example 3, 4)

Evaluation• Henry was responsible for all instances of co-regulated

evaluation processes (See Appendix 2, See Appendix 3, Examples 5, 6

DISCUSSIONQualities about the nature of co-regulated interactions that

potentially contributed to individual group members’ increased use of self-and co-regulated processes

1. Henry established group goals and a shared plan that was agreed upon by all group members early in the project period

• What Cohen (1994) termed, interdependence -- by encouraging group members to adopt common goals and to all actively contribute to attaining those goals

2. Explanations accompanied co-regulated efforts• Has been identified as one characteristic of effective

co-regulation (Volet, Summers, & Thurman, 2009) • Exposes group members to the co-regulator’s internal

thinking processes which provided justifications and contextual cues for why a particular strategy was appropriate or useful to employ.

• May have the same benefit for co-regulated learning as it does for problem solving processes and high-level engagement during group work (Cobb, Yackel, & Wood, 1992; Webb, Nemer, & Ing, 2006) .

3. Fading co-regulated support• Henry was an authoritative leader (Goldman, 2007) in

that he relinquished control over co-regulated processes as individual group members became more comfortable assuming these responsibilities.

• Vauras et al., (2003) has noted that negotiation, an important element of effective collaboration, can be constrained if group roles do not allow for space it.

• The fact that Henry was able to share co-regulated processes with his other group members may have played a role in motivating them to take on greater responsibility for regulating themselves and others.