Examining Self- and Co-regulated Processes in a Collaborative Learning Environment
Nicole C. DiDonato, Ph.D.
Montclair State University
ABSTRACT
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’ selfregulated learning (SRL) when students participated in a
collaborative project over a nine-week period.
TERMINOLOGY
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 selfregulate independently (McCaslin & Hickey, 2001; Yowell &
Smylie, 1999).
PARTICIPANTS
•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.
THE TASK
•
FEATURES
• Collaborative, Interdisciplinary
• Features of High-SRL tasks
• Autonomy in selecting topic and planning how to
solve it; Meaningful; Authentic; Complex; Self & Peer
evaluations
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SHARED INTEREST: Soccer
TOPIC: Create a district wide soccer team
STEPS
1. Collected and analyzed individual players’ statistics from
multiple teams across the district in order to recruit the
players for their team
2. 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 team
4. Researched example sports contracts and used these to
create their own contract for their team members
5. 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 ANALYSIS
Data: 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)
DATA ANALYSIS
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
RESULTS
Planning
• 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
DISCUSSION
Qualities 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.