J & J (2009)

Hanna Järvenoja & Sanna Järvelä (2009)

Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges?

British Journal of Educational Psychology , 463-481

Research moves from ideas of self regulated learning to how motivation is regulated in collaborative contexts where there are socio-emotional challenges.

P463 ‘ During recent years, self regulated learning (SRL) has become a major research field. SRL successfully integrates the cognitive and motivational components of learning. Self regulated learning (SRL) p463 ‘ an active, goal orientated process that encompasses the control of cognitive and metacognitive actions, motivation and affect, and context’ with social as primarily contextual article goes on to interrogate the impact of socio-emotional challenges.

In collaborative learning individuals need to regulate the process of learning together and this involves

· Negotiate

· Compromise

· Reconsider

· Explain

· Listen

P464 ‘ group members regulate their emotions and cognition together through shared responsibility for the learning task requirements’ can be conceptualized as either

1. Shared regulation – group employs common strategies and tactics to control challenges together’

2. Co-regulation , ‘in which individuals assist each other’s regulation’ – ‘ the individual seeks to affect others and is affected by others with the intention of achieving their own goals’

RQs p 466

1. What kinds of socio-emotional challenges students experience during collaborative learning

2. Whether students use self, other, or shared regulation in socio-emotionally challenging situations

3. How group members interpretations of the group challenges and of the different forms of regulation vary within and between the group

Method

63 first year teacher education students. Studied (f-f) in groups of 3-5 and participated in 3 different collaborative tasks(1-structured, creates cognitive conflicts between group members, stimulate student augmentation n and negotiation), (2-case, encourage discussion and sharing of authentic real-life experiences, share expertise), (3=Open, stimulate group to take responsibility and regulate their work, encourage students v to be persistent and tolerate uncertainty))

Measurements

Adaptive Instrument for the Regulation of Emotions (AIRE - ? whether methodology paper published). 4 sections

1. Personal task specific goals (originates from research on achievement, well-being and social Goals Dowson & McInerney(2003) – Students asked to identify the most important goal from 12 options)

2. Socio-emotional challenges (5 point Likert scale – the extent to which they experienced 14 socially challenging situations - based on empirical studies ( Van den Bossche et al, 2006) why learners fail to successfully complete. After rating all the challenges, students were asked to indicate which challenge triggered the most emotions in their group in the specific task they had just finishes) p469 ‘The 14 challenge scenarios represent five different challenge types, namely challenges in personal priorities (A,B), work and communication(C,D,E,F), teamwork(G,H,I,J) collaboration(K,L,M) and external constraints(N). This thematic distribution demonstrates that the challenges within each category share some qualitative characteristics. However, each challenge scenario describes a socio-emotionally different situation that is independent of the other scenarios)

3. Regulation of emotions (self(i), shared(we). Other(I))

4. Goal attainment and reflection on group work

Results

Quantitative

1. Association of collaborative task(1,2,3) with thematic category (5) for socio emotional challenge i.e. challenge associated with task - KRO BUT tasks always done in the same order therefore effects may be due to time spent working together rather than the type of collaborative task. Over the three tasks ( time) teamwork and collaboration become more challenging and personal priorities and work and communication less so.

2. Reports of regulation type varied between tasks and groups. Reports about self regulation varied within groups – p472 ‘ an indicator of intrinsic group dynamics’

P473 ‘To sum up, students reported experiencing a variety of socio-emotional challenges in collaborative learning situations. There was a shift from more personal priorities challenges to collaborative type challenges when the task became less structured. Regardless of the task or type of challenge, the students engages in self and shared regulation processes. The level of congruent reports of shared –regulation by group members was different. Differences that are elaborated in the qualitative analysis.

Qualitative – individual measures using personal goals(themes), socio-emotional (themes), control of social challenge, ratings of category, goal achievement and function of group in achieving goal

2 project groups chosen for detailed comparisons p473 ‘ in order to demonstrate how groups’ intrinsic dynamics vary, and how the congruence or dissimilarity in reports of shared-regulation can be explained’ Group G range of reported oshared regulation was small, whereas in B it was substantial.

Group G Task 3 (note the task could be considered to be more challenging than task 2 (see B group) but then students have group worked together for longer)

Shared learning as the personal goal

2 students reported that emotion came from challenges in collaboration and two from challenges in teamwork

2 students reported slightly more individual regulation , socially shared regulation similar for all. P474 ‘ suggesting that group members had a shared understanding oh how they interacted as a group’

all 4 students were satisfied that their personal goals had been achieved and all 4 recognised the part that the group had played in this achievement.

Group B Task 2

2 students had a personal goal well being ( avoid being stressed) whereas the other two had a social goal (have a good time and enjoy the experience)

For socio emotional challenge 2 students reported personal priorities, 1 communication and another teamwork.

2 students reported relatively high levels of shared regulation - p475 ‘members of this group did not seem to share an understanding of the shared-regulation’

All reported that they achieved personal goals but differed on their interpretation of the role played by the group.

Conclusion

P476 ‘ Most group members believe they do something together to overcome socio-emotional challenges’

‘The concept of socially shared regulation requires further eloboration and empirical evidence. The concept of socially shared regulation ( Volet et al, 200() emphasizes the use of common strategies and tactics by group members’

Socio-emotional challenge scenarios and their distribution to the different challenge types

Personal priorities

A. Our goals for the project were different

B. We had different priorities

Work and communication

C. We seemed to have incompatible styles of

working

D. We seemed to have different styles of interacting

E. One/some people had problems with other students' accents and/or level of language proficiency

and thought it was difficult to work with them

Teamwork

R People in our group did not connect very well

with one another

G. One/some people were not fully committed

to the group project

H. People had very different standards of work

I. Group members were not equal

J. Some people were easily distracted

Collaboration

K. Our ideas about what we should

do were not the same

L We differed in our understanding of the content/task

M. Our conceptions of how to organize the work varied

External constraints

N. We had different personal life circumstances

or family/study and work commitments

Examples of self, other and shared self-regulation related to challenges C and L

Type of regulation	Challenge CChallenge L
self	I tried to accept the situation, realizing that some people had different styles of working	I tried to accept the situation, realizing that some people had a different perspective or understandings of the content
other	I told the others we needed to accept different styles of working	I told the others we needed to accept that there can be different ways to understand and interpret the content or the task
shared	We accepted that different members had different styles of working	We accepted that different members had different perspectives or understanding of the content or the task

chat v W/B Dillenbourgh and Traum

Pierre Dillenbourg & David Traum (2006)

Sharing solutions: Persistence and Grounding in Multimodal Collaborative Problem Solving

The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 121-151

Questions

P122

‘What are the cognitive effects of specific types of interaction?’

‘Under what conditions do these interactions appear?’

Emphasis on

· differences in scale( how many, how long)

· complexities of what is being shared.

Grounding ( originally a term used in psycholinguistics for communication between pairs)

‘When community members interact over months and years they develop a specific culture ( relevance to group character). This culture is what common ground is to the pair. Cultures share not only concepts but a system of values, a frame for interpreting situations, a set of stories, and a history ( KRO also a way of communicating) .

Software for collaboration (***)

P122-123 “If collaborative learning is a side effect of the process of building shared understanding then CSCL should investigate how software contributes to build shared understanding. On obvious answer is that building a common visual representation (textual or graphical) of the problem at hand contributes to the construction of shared understanding’. WSIWIS ( what you see is what I see). N.b. no individual will share exactly the same understanding of this space as another.

Collaboration as a process

Communication

Diagnosis ( leads to feedback)

Feedback (acknowledgement, repair, KRO ?? support and can only take place in the forum)

‘Misunderstanding has a different epistemic value in research on efficient communication and research in collaborative learning’ For the former it is communication break down ( KRO the social aspect of group collaboration) and in the latter a learning opportunity.

To repair misunderstandings about knowledge learners have to engage in construction activities , i.e. extra effort. ( KRO and therefore the need for a forum)

Grounding behaviour varies with the media involved. There are media- related constraints

Clark & Brenman (1991)	Dillenbourg & Traum (2006)
Co-presence
Visibility object is present
Audibility have to elicit information about an object as it is not visible
cotemporality
simultaneity
sequentiality
reviewability	persistence
revisability	Mutual reveisability

Research Question

‘What is the complementarity between a whiteboard and a chat interface in constructing shared understanding?’

Hypothesis ‘W/B would be subordinated to the chat interface and that the role of the WB would be to support the grounding of the textual interactions in the MOO’ note W/B allows for deitic gestures and therefore reduces the distance of what is being represented. That the whiteboard would enable pairs to draw schemata that carry information that is difficult to carry through verbal expression’

Participants

20 pairs of post grad psychology students. Different l amounts of MOO expertise and most had no previous experience of working with each other.

Chat interface, a MOO ( a text based virtual environment, users represented by an avatar that is able to perform actions in space , including leaving and entering). Language based, sequential)

W/B graphically and spatially orientated, colour

Cost of interaction higher in both of these environments than in f-to-f.

Task – solve a murder

Crime scene - Hotel , spatial map in the MOO environment . 11 people, 1 victim several objects.

Role of grounding – what variables were measured

· Acknowledgement rate

· Medium used ( chat or W/B)

· Content categories of acknowledgements

Task knowledge

Management

Meta communication

Technical

· Measures of redundancy ( KRO good measure to think about) in terms of learning it is a measure of inefficiency.

Findings

Interaction more likely to be acknowledge if it carries an emotional load

For task knowledge there is more acknowledgement for inferences than for facts

Hypothesis about the role of the w/b was not supported . Although some pairs drew timelines, maps graphs (SNA type) W/B was mainly used for organising information – the facts and inferences and representing the state of the problem.

Conclusions

The dialogues were instrumental for grounding whiteboard information

Due to persistency of display information on W/b acted as a trigger

W/B does not ground utterances, it grounds the discussion

wiki, RE,

Shailey Minocha & Peter G. Thomas

Collaborative Learning in Wiki Environment: Experiences from a software engineering course.

New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 13,2, 187-209

Pedagogical claims for the wiki

P190

‘allows for the generation of social constructivist scenarios wherein a group of learners collaboratively construct shared artifacts’

( KRO – an artifact implies a finished product. What aspects of the finished product influence learning?)

‘facilitates student collaboration via co-production of text and development of argument and concensus by communication of ideas through a shared online workspace’

(KRO I thought there were some methodological flaws – see later; more importantly I do not think that there is any evidence for concensus nor would I expect that the wiki to provide a way of reaching a concensus. When you write something to a wiki you are externalizing an idea as a product rather than offering up as an idea in progress . A discussion does just that it invites a different opinion whereas committing to a wiki does not.)

Purpose of collaboration

P195 in a RE context ‘ the collaboration involves discussing duplications, conflicts, and ambiguities with the aim of achieving an agreed set of unambiguous requirements’

p188

‘wiki can grow and evolve and therefore address pedagogical objectives such as ‘

student involvement

· group activity

· peer and tutor review

· knowledge sharing

· knowledge creation

· all from Minocha et al, 2007.

Design

Salmon’s 5 stage model influenced the design.

Used assessment as main design element ( Shared wiki 4-7 students)

TMA01

Papers about wikis

Guidance on using a wiki including for collaborative work, wiki-netiquette,

Ice- breaker using the wiki - add a small piece of biographical information, opt for a stakeholder role – seen as exchange of information stage of the Salmon model.

TMA02

Each student adds three requirements to the wiki from his/her chosen perspective

TMA03

Agree on a set of fit criteria ( KRO only time there is real sense of having to work together?)

Through the exercise on reflection ( see below)

Reflective activity

P196 ‘ Reflection is a strategy that facilitates learning ( Moon ,2000). It is the reexamination and reinterpretation of experiences and is central to effective learning and development.’ ( KRO inner language)

The course provided a reflective tool ( trigger questions) and asked students to apply it across 3 dimensions

Experience of using the wiki as a tool

Personal views of the course and collaboration in particular

Role of collaboration in RE. Requirements engineering)

Data sources

Sample of 40 reflective account ( from TMA03)

Discussion forum – no of messages = 40 for 117+ students)

Direct emails from students (15)

Direct emails from tutors (14)

Research questions

1. Did the wiki activities facilitate collaborative learning? 26 said tes, 5 to some extent 77.5%

(KRO rather an ambiguous formulation)

2. did the wiki activities enhance understanding of RE 75%

3. was reflection effective 95%

Findings

KRO findings based on a thematic analysis that was strange . Themes identified , then sub themes.

Also

Question of whther or not the responses were influenced by being part of the assessment.

Also

Not sure whether or not the findings relate directly to the themes.

Collaboration & learning

P201 ‘group knowledge quickly becomes aggregated in one place.’

Wiki is an inappropriate medium for discussion, lack of threading & time stamps

Wiki as a tool

Continual availability

Facilitative qualities ( used group discussion pages – although overall this discussion page was not considered the appropriate tool }

Cost savings

Traceability ( impoerant for assessment and for RE)

Tensions

Collaborative work and self pacing of the busy distance learner

P202 ‘ I organize my studying around my life NOW….. I’m being asked to organize my life around my studying’

P204 ‘ synchronous discussion medium for timely decision making’ (KRO producing a collaborative artifact inevitably requires this’

Navigation poor – always have to return to the root page no alerts ( now there is a facility)

No locking facility (KRO I think this is now available)

overview of articles reviewing content analysis

Som Naidu & Sanna Jarvela (2006)

Analyzing CMC content for what?

Computers and Education, 46,1, 96-103

Review of the articles in the special edition

What needs to be understood?

Leads to the question of what constitutes collaborative learning and the processes that determine its success

What is it? P99 ‘Collaboration involves sharing information, understanding, experience and expertise. There can be many types of collaborative activity which may manifest in several ways while serving many different functions. For example collaborative could serve as a ‘ culturative process which helps participants to become members of a knowledge community that are different from knowledge communities they already belong to’

KRO Why is collaborative learning desirable ? –CF – an approach to learning based on doing something and sharing the doing with peers

P97 ‘ provides a natural setting for self explanation and explaining to others’

P97 ‘Can interaction be more rich in the service of learning when it is not spatial ( in terms of teacher-student interaction or discourse) but virtual, asynchronous, multimediated and not linear?’

‘What are the interactions for supporting productive joint engagement and shared understanding?’

Collaborative traits . Authors claim that these are learned behaviours p100 ‘ characteristics of this trait include a willingness to share, demonstration of respect towards alternative views and dispositions, and the ability to listen carefully and attentively (Koschmann, 1996).

Methodological considerations

P98 ‘ Strategies for the analysis of a particular type of CMC application will have to be carefully selected or developed in alignment with the purposes that the conversation is designed to engender. Furthermore, care needs to be exercised against over analyzing CMC content, or attempting to apply overly reductionist strategies to the study os a rather complex communication channel ( Hemelo-Silver, 2003; Schrire, 2005)

Articles in the special edition identified the following as important steps

P98

· ‘Determination of a unit of analysis

· Development of a segmentation procedure

· Determination of the reliability of the segmentation procedure

· Development of coding categories and rules and

· Determination of the reliability of the coding strategies’

What kinds of RQs

What are successful and critical attributes of CSCL environments

What are the successful and critical attributes of collaborative learners?

How can one generate and engender these ‘attributes and behaviours’ in CSCL environments

Need to consider whether the process of collaboration is facilitated or directed

Theoretical frameworks

P99 ‘strategies should have a strong theoretical base’ ‘ It is arguable that a search for a theoretical base for research into computer mediated communications is rather far fetched and unrealistic. After all CMC is not much more than writing short letters via networked computers. Yet, it is different ……. Because it has a unique set of forms, norms and conventions’

P100 ‘During the recent years there has been a lively discussion on whether we should follow an individual or social perspectives on activity and should we conceptualize the current understanding on situative or cognitive approaches ( e.g. Anderson, Greeno, Reder and Simon, 2000). Through the influence of sociocultural and situated cognition theories, it has been recognized that individual learners are also influenced by social values and context in which the learning takes place. Cognition and social interaction is no more a separate variable or a distinct factor, which can be applied in explanation of an individual readiness to act or learn – but reflective of the social and cultural environment’

Conclusion

Complex interaction of cognitive, social, emotional, motivation

Need p101 ‘data from multiple sources’ e.g. Schrire(2005) –in the special issue.

student reflections - Murphy

Students’ self analysis of contributions to online asynchronous discussions

Elizabeth Murphy (2005)

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 21(2), 155-172

Findings support Kanuka and Anderson (1998) p166 ‘construction of knowledge is not an observable activity’ (KRO ? instead - may not always be observable)

Kunuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998)

Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1) http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol13.1/kanuka.html

KRO - ? a way of developing meta skills for knowledge construction

Reflects the competencies required to learn online collaboratively

Method

Provide a set of four activities for students ( mature – education) to self assess in a social contructivist learning context by looking at

1. No. of postings made on a weekly basis and their length. Includes bar chart as a visual representation.

2. Analysis of claims and gounds (evidence), 8 claim types, 6 ground type. Look at number made, and distribution over the modules. Includes bar chart as a visual representation.

3. Reflect on these

Findings - Reflection by the student ( the last activity, qualitative data)

‘by nature relatively quiet ….. even in a group setting’

‘only contribute when something significant to add’

method of contributing – ‘disrupting mindsets’

try to get others to interogate their understanding

‘In trying to advance the discussion and promote knowledge building , I aim to include a personal element in my posting to exemplify metacognitive activity taking place. If other learners witness the occurrence of personal refelection and introspection, they may be inclined to do the same’

‘In trying to avoid repetition among postings, which would detract from reader interest, I attempted to add novel thoughts and ideas to stimulate further discussion’

‘although the contents of these twenty messages may not have directly contributed to the construction of knowledge, they played a role in establishing group dynamicsand infacilitating collaborative learning processes. Even informing the group of my personal situation throughout the last week ( getting married) of the group project was critical in maintaining the level of trust and confidence that had been established within our group’

‘many of my messages contained positive feedback in relation to the group’s efforts, thus contributing to the sense of morale that characterised our group’

‘I argue that the absence of this social ‘human’ element would have hindered the group’s eventual success and detracted from the learning that occurred through completion of the collaborative project’

‘I know there were many postings from other students that stimulated my thinking and that resulted in the reconstruction and reshaping of my own knowledge, yet I did not respond to these postings in the discussion forum’

Conclusion ( of the student)

· Shorten messages

· Read and respond to the messages of others

· See to ongoing participation

· Self analysis has been useful