Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Instruction

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

Supporting groups’ emotion and motivation regulation during collaborative

learning
Hanna Järvenoja∗, Sanna Järvelä, Jonna Malmberg
Faculty of Education, University of Oulu, Finland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study investigates when and how students activate co- and socially shared emotion and motivation reg-
Motivation ulation in collaborative learning and whether the S-REG mobile application tool can support this regulation. In a
Emotions mathematics course, 44 higher education students worked with a collaborative assignment. The S-REG tool
Co-regulation traced groups' emotional and motivational states in different sessions, and the occurrence of co-regulation and
Socially shared regulation
shared regulation of motivation and emotions were coded from video-recorded collaborative work (44 h). The
Collaborative learning
groups activated more co-regulation than shared regulation of emotions and motivation, but the shared-reg-
ulation episodes were longer-lasting. The groups’ emotional and motivational states were associated with the
occurrence of co-regulation in the beginning of the learning sessions. The results suggest that the S-REG tool
balanced collaboration by prompting the groups to regulate emotions and motivation right in the beginning of
the motivationally and emotionally challenging learning sessions.

1. Introduction
Understanding regulation in collaborative learning is critical for
productive engagement and participation in real-life learning environ-
ments and social learning contexts (Volet & Summers, 2013). These
regulation activities cover a wide process, where cognition, emotion,
motivation and behaviour are adapted according to the aims, goals and
standards of both the individuals (Zimmerman, 2013) and the group
(Hadwin, Järvelä, & Miller, 2017). While researchers recognise emo-
tions and motivation as a part of regulated learning of (collaborative)
groups (Kempler Rogat, Linnenbrink-Garcia, & DiDonato, 2013; Kwon,
Liu, & Johnson, 2014), most studies have examined groups’ metacog-
nitive processes and cognitive regulation, such as temporal progress
(Malmberg, Järvelä, & Järvenoja, 2017; Molenaar & Chiu, 2014) and
transformation across learning phases and tasks (Bannert, Reimann, &
Sonnenberg, 2014; De Backer, Van Keer, & Valcke, 2015). Conversely,
studies focusing on emotion and motivation regulation in social
learning situations have focused on describing how groups constitute
(socially shared) regulation (e.g. Duffy et al., 2015; Kempler; Khosa &
Volet, 2014; Näykki, Järvelä, Kirschner, & Järvenoja, 2014; Kempler
Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011; Ucan & Webb, 2015; Whitebread &
Pino-Pasternak, 2013).
While research on supporting metacognitive and cognitive processes has
produced promising results (Bannert & Reimann, 2012; Schnaubert &
Bodemer, 2017), we do not know yet how the support for motivation and
emotion regulation can increase such regulation within a group. Research
has revealed that students in collaborative groups do not recognise the
need or opportunity for regulation (Barron, 2003; Järvelä, Järvenoja,
Malmberg, & Hadwin, 2013; Miller & Hadwin, 2015). Before the sup-
port tools can reach their full potential, we need more research-based
evidence of groups’ regulation of motivation and emotions across the
phases of learning. Hence, in this study, we designed and implemented a
mobile application called S-REG tool to support regulation of motiva-
tion and emotions within groups.
1.1. Motivation and emotion regulation as part of groups’ regulated learning
process
Conceptualising the regulation of learning as interactive, dynamic,
and situated in a context brings motivation and emotions to the centre
of the regulated learning process in a novel way (Järvenoja, Järvelä, &
Malmberg, 2015) because situational experiences and socio-emotional
aspects are instrumental in directing a group's learning process and
cognitive regulation (Volet, Vauras, & Salonen, 2009). Empirical re-
search has shown that conflicting views and socio-emotional challenges
exist in a genuine collaboration (Barron, 2003; Järvenoja, Volet, &
Järvelä, 2013; Kreijns, Kirschner, & Vermeulen, 2013; Zschocke,
Wosnitza, & Bürger, 2016). When these situations emerge, they chal-
lenge the group's motivational and emotional processes as an entity
(Kempler Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011) and invite the groups to

∗
Corresponding author. Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education, P.O. Box 2000, FIN-90014, University of Oulu, Finland.
E-mail address: hanna.jarvenoja@oulu.fi (H. Järvenoja).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.11.004
Received 27 June 2017; Received in revised form 6 November 2017; Accepted 21 November 2017
0959-4752/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Järvenoja, H., Learning and Instruction (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.11.004
H. Järvenoja et al.
regulate the situation together (Järvelä & Järvenoja, 2011; Järvenoja &
Järvelä, 2009). For example, a case study with adult students partici-
pating in updating training demonstrated how challenging situations
emerge during collaboration and develop into socio-emotional conflicts
(Näykki et al., 2014). A group's failure at timely, accurate emotion
regulation can result in frustration, unfunctional interaction and un-
favourable learning results. However, when group members are willing
and able to invest their energy in regulating the motivation and emo-
tions in the group, they can become closely attuned to the opportunities
associated with the experience of shared understanding (Crook, 2000).
Xu, Du, and Fan (2013) conducted a study on graduate students' emo-
tion management in online collaborative group work conditions in the
US. The students responded to a questionnaire concerning their emo-
tion management and monitoring of motivation as well as collaboration
and self-regulated learning related scales. Xu et al. (2013) found that
emotion management correlated not only with motivation and self-
regulated learning, but also with collaboration. A multilevel analysis
further revealed that group-level emotion management was positively
related for example to feedback, motivation monitoring and help-
seeking behaviour indicating that emotion regulation is widely inter-
related with other aspects of self-regulated learning in a collaborative
group context. The same authors (Xu, Du, & Fan, 2014) found parallel
results concerning emotion management in online group work with
Chinese students.
It is evident that regulation of motivation and emotions function as
a facet of a wider regulated learning process and is crucial for both the
collaborative group as an entity and for the individual learners parti-
cipating in collaboration (Linnenbrink-Garcia, Kempler Rogat, &
Koskey, 2011; Wosnitza & Volet, 2005). Recent empirical studies have
provided evidence on how motivation and emotion regulation is con-
nected to the wider regulated learning process (Schwinger, Steimayer,
& Spinath, 2012; Wolters, Benzon, & Arroyo-Giner, 2011). Webster and
Hadwin (2015), for example, focused on emotion regulation while
studying undergraduate students' emotions across two episodes. Their
results revealed a link between emotions and self-regulatory processes.
Positive emotions were associated with positive self-evaluations of goal
attainment, while negative emotions predicted negative evaluations.
Participants also reported using a variety of emotion regulation stra-
tegies during studying. Wolters and Benzon (2013) assessed college
students' motivation regulation strategies via a self-report survey fo-
cusing on motivation strategies and motivational beliefs complemented
with items concerning the students' use of cognitive and metacognitive
strategies and procrastination. Their findings showed a connection be-
tween students’ reported motivation regulation strategies with meta-
cognitive, cognitive and behavioural aspects of self-regulated learning.
However, Wolters and Benzon highlighted that motivation regulation is
an additional aspect of self-regulated learning rather than composing a
unitary construct with cognitive processes.
To conclude, emotion and motivation affect the groups’ regulation
processes in complex ways instead of being only a motivational ground
or condition for regulated learning. Skilful self-regulated learners can
strategically plan, monitor and evaluate their cognitive process as well
as their motivation and emotions, both as individual learners and in co-
ordination with others. By engaging in motivation and emotion reg-
ulation, groups can actively adjust their motivation and channel the
emotional atmosphere within the group to overcome the challenges
(Järvelä, Järvenoja, Malmberg, Isohätälä, & Sobocinski, 2016).
Through emotion and motivation regulation, these conditions are ac-
tively shaped and adapted to create a ground for balanced collaboration
and metacognitive processes (Efklides, 2011; Schunk & Zimmerman,
2008; Winne & Hadwin, 2008). Despite the increased evidence of the
benefits of emotion and motivation regulation for collaborative
2
Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
learning and regulation, researchers have not fully explored how sys-
tematically the groups manifest them on a social plane.
1.2. Types of regulation on a social plane
Regulation can be realised in different individual and social planes
through different types of regulation. Researchers have offered varying
definitions and terms to describe the social forms of regulatory activ-
ities within collaborative groups, but the most established definition
and systematic research has derived with co- and socially shared reg-
ulation (Hadwin et al., 2017). Traditionally, co-regulation has served a
developmental purpose for learning regulation skills through scaf-
folding by a more competent other, e.g. a teacher (McCaslin & Burross,
2011), but in collaborative learning, the co-regulation takes place be-
tween the equal group members (Järvenoja et al., 2015). Within col-
laborative groups, co-regulated learning occurs when learners’ reg-
ulatory activities are guided, supported, shaped or constrained by
others in the group (Hadwin & Oshige, 2011; Volet, Summers, &
Thurman, 2009). Co-regulation plays a role in shifting groups toward
more productive learning (Hadwin et al., 2017), and it can create af-
fordances and constraints for productive self-regulated learning and
shared regulation of learning in forthcoming learning situations.
For example, in collaborative work, support can come from one
person, team members or from affordances from the technological tools.
Co-regulation may be supported by one individual or collectively across
members of a group, such as when a prompt shifts the way each individual
approaches the problem (Miller & Hadwin, 2015). Hadwin et al. (2017)
specified that, in the context of collaborative learning, co-regulation serves
as a mechanism for shifting regulatory ownership to an individual or a
group. Therefore, co-regulation is a temporary and shifting support, en-
abling future regulatory uptake by the “co-regulated”. It implies that
regulatory expertise is distributed and shared across individuals and
evoked when necessary by and for whom it is appropriate.
When groups engage in shared regulation, they extend their reg-
ulatory activity from the “I” to the “We” level to regulate their collec-
tive activity in agreement (Järvelä & Hadwin, 2013). Shared regulation
is a collectively agentic process where group members adopt joint goals
and standards. They work together to complement and negotiate shared
perceptions and goals for the task, they coordinate strategic enactment
of the task and collectively monitor group progress and products, and
they make changes when needed to optimise collaboration in and
across tasks. Socially shared regulation differs from co-regulation to the
extent to which joint regulation emerges through a series of transactive
exchanges amongst group members. Rather than being guided or di-
rected by any one person, joint strategies and awareness intentionally
co-emerge, although they may initially be stimulated by co-regulatory
prompts (Hadwin et al., 2017).
Both regulation types combined with individuals' self-regulation
play a part in collaborative learning. As reflected in the group learning
literature, the regulation on a social plane is multi-faceted not only in
terms of it targets (cognition, behaviour, motivation and emotions;
Zimmerman, 2013) but also by its type. Collaborative learning involves
multiple people sharing responsibility for a collective task and, ideally,
simultaneously shifting between self-regulation, co-regulation and
shared regulation in time (Järvelä & Hadwin, 2013). Grau and
Whitebread (2012) explicitly acknowledged the variation in regulation
between individual and social planes by first developing coding
schemes that looked at individual self-regulatory processes in the con-
text of group work and then searching for episodes of shared regulation.
They further looked at relationships between social intentionality and
the focus of individual regulation within the group. They acknowledged
the context by analysing the young children's temporally evolving
H. Järvenoja et al.
collaboration processes in real classrooms. Similarly, Ucan and Webb
(2015) examined the emergence of metacognitive, emotional and mo-
tivational co- and shared-regulation processes during science inquiry
learning among two groups of seventh graders. Their results indicated
that, even though emotion and motivation regulation during colla-
boration does not appear much, it supports groups to maintain a posi-
tive atmosphere and interaction within the group.
1.3. Supporting groups’ emotion and motivation regulation with
technological tools
Awareness of emotions, socio-emotionally challenging situations
and their motivational conditions are the stimulating premises to acti-
vate strategic regulation to respond to social, situational and personal
conditions (Boekaerts, 2011; Diamond & Aspinwall, 2003; Järvenoja
et al., 2015; Op't Eynde & Turner, 2006). In practice, learners evaluate
whether the situation evoking emotions specific for that context and
situation is relevant to their needs or well-being and whether the si-
tuation is consistent with their motivational goals (Jiang, Vauras, Volet,
& Wang, 2016). Skilful self-regulated learners can react proactively to
the existing situation instead of only “turning off the fire” when chal-
lenge or conflict emerges (Boekaerts, 2011; Fried & Chapman, 2012).
Unfortunately, not every student can regulate their learning, much less
their motivation and emotions.
Since earlier research has revealed that students do not always re-
cognise the opportunities for regulation in collaboration (Barron, 2003;
DiDonato, 2013; Järvelä et al., 2013), researchers have developed
technological tools to prompt and support regulation (Azevedo &
Witherspoon, 2009; Järvelä, Kirschner et al., 2016; Miller & Hadwin,
2015). Some have succeeded in supporting individual self-regulated
learning and metacognitive monitoring (Bannert & Reimann, 2012;
Schnaubert & Bodemer, 2017), but less efforts have been made sup-
porting regulation in collaborative groups (Järvelä et al., 2015). Our
work has concentrated on planning and reflection tools for prompting
individual and group planning and reflection processes (Malmberg,
Järvelä, Järvenoja, & Panadero, 2015; Miller & Hadwin, 2015), col-
lective visualisations of individual plans and perceived challenges
(Miller & Hadwin, 2015) and emotional, cognitive, and motivational
states (Järvelä, Kirschner et al., 2016). The guiding principle in these
tools has been to support regulation by prompting learners and groups
to increase awareness of their own, others', and their group's learning
processes, externalise their own, others', and their group's learning
processes in a social plane, and activate key regulation processes, such
as setting goals, making plans, adopting strategies, and monitoring and
evaluating (Järvelä et al., 2015).
To conclude, studies have shown the importance of emotion and
motivation regulation in learning (e.g. Wolters & Benzon, 2013), but
the literature lacks an accurate understanding of how emotion and
motivation regulation is activated during collaborative learning
(Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2011). Specifically, no research has in-
vestigated how emotion and motivation regulation is situated in the
temporal progress of the regulated learning process, when groups en-
gage in motivation and emotion regulation during their collaboration,
or how emotion and motivation regulation is affected when it is sup-
ported with external prompts or tools.
2. Aim
This study aims to explore when and how students activate co- and
socially shared emotion and motivation regulation in collaborative
learning tasks and whether it can be supported with the S-REG mobile
application tool. The research questions are: 1) What type of
3
Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
motivational and emotional reasons do groups allocate for their emo-
tional and motivational states as they enter collaborative learning ses-
sions? 2) How does the group's regulation of emotions and motivation
occur within and across collaborative learning sessions? 3) How is the
use of the S-REG tool associated to the occurrence of co- and shared
regulation?
3. Method
3.1. Participants and context
This voluntary study involved 44 s-year teacher education students
(36 females and 8 males, mean age 24.9 years) who were participating
in a compulsory seven-week math didactics course. The math course
was composed of seven lectures and one extensive collaborative course
assignment. The students collaborated in eleven groups of three to four
members to create a midterm plan for a primary school mathematics
topic. The midterm plan was supposed to involve theory-grounded
pedagogical principles, several lesson plans and a plan for assessment.
The assignment was conducted during several collaborative group
sessions, and it was presumed that the groups planned and organised
their group work independently.
The students composed their midterm plan during five 2-h sessions
in the classroom-like laboratory space. The group work was recorded
with a 360-degree video camera system capturing the students’ dis-
cussions, movements, expressions and gestures. The groups used the
laboratory space three to five times (M = 4, SD = 0.96), resulting in
video recordings from 41 collaborative group task sessions (three to five
collaborative group task sessions from each group; 44 h video of data
altogether).
3.2. The S-REG mobile application
The group work was supported with an HTML5 mobile application
called the S-REG tool (BLINDED). The S-REG tool (Fig. 1) is a re-
sponsive group awareness tool designed to run on smartphones, tablets
and desktops. It aims to support group members' awareness of the
motivational, emotional, and cognitive states of the collaborative
learning and prompts groups to activate appropriate group-level reg-
ulation to respond to the group's situational needs. S-REG tool consisted
of three phases, namely individual-level evaluation and group-level
discussion and prompting. The tool provide a visual representation of
the groups' cognitive, motivational and emotional state utilizing a
traffic light metaphor, where a green light indicates that everything is
fine, a yellow light indicates some challenges or unclear situation and a
red light indicates severe challenges and need for regulatory actions in
one of the states.
The S-REG tool use proceeds in three phases. In the first phase,
group members use the S-REG tool individually, while in the second
and third phase the S-REG tool directs the group members’ to discuss
and use the tool together (albeit everyone is using their own device). In
the beginning, the group members are asked to individually consider
their cognitive (“I know how to proceed working”), motivational (“I am
motivated to work”), and emotional (“My current feeling”) state in the
current situation with a finger or a mouse operated, round-shape sliding
scale (Figs. 2 and 1B). The fuller the sliding scale, the more capable the
user feels toward the collaborative learning with that particular focus
area. In the log file, the evaluation is registered with a value on the
scale ranging from zero to a hundred.
Once the individual responses are collected, they are merged to
create a group visualization, i.e. the traffic lights, to represent the entire
group's motivation, emotion and cognitive states. The S-REG tool
H. Järvenoja et al.
generates a separate visualization for each of the three focus areas so
that the group can reflect on their collaboration on each of them (Figs. 2
and 1C). Together with a received light, an explanation about the
colour is received. As it is presumed that all group members' con-
tributions is needed for collaboration, the traffic light reflects the lowest
value given by a group member in the given situation. A green light
indicates that everything is fine, and it is received when all the group
members' evaluations fall within the final third of the sliding scale
(each evaluation exceeded 66 in the log file). The green light is ac-
companied by the explanation, “everything is fine”. The yellow light
indicates some challenges, and it is received when one or more group
members' evaluations fall within the second third of the sliding scale (a
log file value between 34 and 65). The yellow light is accompanied by
the explanation, “situation is unclear”. Lastly, the red light indicates
serious problems within the group, and it is received when at least one
4
Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. The S-REG tool use procedure.
group member's evaluation remains within the first third of the sliding
scale (a log file value of 33 or less). The red light is accompanied by the
explanation, “situation calls for action”.
In the final phase, the S-REG tool prompts the group to discuss and
elaborate the reasons causing the traffic light. This is done by using a
visual icon with a prompt to “discuss” (Fig. 2). If the traffic light in-
dicator is green, the S-REG tool asks the group members to elaborate in
more detail the reason for the green colour. If the traffic light indicator
is either red or yellow, the S-REG tool prompts the group members to
specify a reason for the colour in question from a list of pre-stocked
options, namely challenges concerning interest, ability and goals for the
motivational state and feelings of annoyance, boredom, frustration or
worry for the emotional state. Finally, the S-REG tool prompts the
group to search for appropriate regulation strategies for the situation
(Fig. 1C and D; Table 1).
Fig. 2. S-REG tool user interface in which in-
dividual students: (1) evaluate motivational and
emotional state; and (2) the group gets a “traffic
light” illustration of their joint emotional and
motivational state.
H. Järvenoja et al. Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Regulation strategy prompts for each reason of motivational and emotional state.

Reason for Prompt for discussion

Motivational state:
Our challenge relates to …
Interest Discuss the different situations in which this knowledge is useful and meaningful for you. How could you modify the task to increase your
interest in the task?
Ability Discuss the strengths of your group. How could you benefit from these abilities? How can you modify the task so that you can use your group
members' strengths?
Goals Discuss the reasons that make this task important to you. Why it is important to you to commit to the group work right now? What things are
competing with your attention and distracting you from working? Why?

Emotional state:
Our challenge relates to …
Frustration Discuss why your work is not going as you wish. Is there anything you could do (differently)? Is everybody committed to your joint goals? Do
you acknowledge everyone and take into consideration different thoughts and opinions?
Boredom Discuss the reasons causing you to be bored. Does everybody participate? Do you think that all group members' contributions are
acknowledged? How could you take more responsibility together as a group?
Worry Do you think that you cannot manage the task? Why is that? Would you benefit from reviewing your plans once again? What strengths do each
of you have? How could you benefit from them?
Annoyance In group situations, you need to confront different perspectives, as not all group members are committed to similar ways of working. Can you
benefit from different views? Can you alter your own ways of working to participate better in the group work?

In the beginning of the math course, the use and purpose of the S-
REG tool was explained and taught to the students. They were then
instructed to use the S-REG tool in the beginning of each collaborative
session. That is, each student was supposed to use the S-REG tool every
time they participated in a collaborative group session (3–5 sessions per
group). Prior to S-REG tool use, the students were asked to consider in
general the requirements and goals of the current collaborative working
phase with their group members to create a shared understanding of the
session requirements. All the actions and choices the students made
with the S-REG tool were recorded in a log file. In total, there were
103 S-REG tool log files for the analysis.
3.3. Analysis
The data analysis was divided into three phases utilizing first the
groups’ emotional and motivational state gained from the S-REG tool use
(i.e. traffic light values) combined with the data about the reason for
the emotional and motivational state. Second, the actualised co- and
socially shared regulation of motivation and emotions was coded from the
video data. In the third phase, the two data sources were combined.
3.3.1. The first analysis phase
The groups' emotional and motivational states were summed up from
the individual group members’ responses to the S-REG tool and com-
bined with the information about the reasons for these states.
Descriptive statistics and a chi-square test were performed to in-
vestigate how the explicated reasons for motivational and emotional
state corresponded with the level of the challenge indicated in the form
of the traffic light.
3.3.2. The second analysis phase
This phase of the analysis focused on the occurrence of co- and
shared regulation of motivation and emotions in the videotaped colla-
borative learning sessions. Prior to watching the video with NVivo
video analysis software, a coding protocol was created based on the
literature concerning regulated learning in a social learning context
(e.g. Järvelä, Malmberg, & Koivuniemi, 2016; Kempler Rogat &
Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011; Khosa & Volet, 2014; Lajoie et al., 2015;
McCardle & Hadwin, 2015). The unit of analysis was a meaningful
episode.
In the first stage of the coding, the videotaped group work was
segmented according to the groups' socio-emotional interaction
(Kempler Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011; Näykki et al., 2014). In-
teractions were coded as socio-emotional if they included a discussion
about emotions or motivation (e.g. sharing feelings towards the task,
self-praising or discussing the task value and progress) or a notable
expression of positive or negative emotion (e.g., laughter, cheering,
expressing frustration, telling jokes, or emotional reactions to the out-
come) followed by a reaction from a group member. A socio-emotional
interaction segment could include motivation or emotion regulation
when it was possible to recognise an initial indication of a challenge,
such as a lack of ability or a negative emotion, or a clearly observable
challenge, such as off-task behaviour, which was followed with a re-
action that aimed to address the challenge. Regulation was also coded if
the group members engaged in an interaction that aimed to increase
group cohesion, such as making comparisons with the other groups in
favour of the own group. Motivation regulation was coded from a socio-
emotional interaction segment when the group members' discussion
included utterances that had the purpose of increasing motivation in
the group. The motivation regulation could focus on, for example, dis-
cussing beliefs about the abilities and strategies to complete a task, expres-
sing a good team spirit, praising the group or encouraging another group
member. Emotion regulation was coded when a socio-emotional inter-
action segment included utterances in which group members addressed
positive or negative feelings towards the collaboration or the task and made
suggestions on what to do about them. In practice, motivation and emo-
tion regulation were often embedded with each other. For example, a
negative feeling (emotion) could be associated with ability (motiva-
tion), and regulation could focus on decreasing a negative feeling and
increasing motivation (see Example 1 below). Altogether, 422 socio-
emotional interaction segments were located. The length of the segment
varied from 3 to 25 min. Inter-rater reliability was checked by calcu-
lating the Cohen's kappa value (k = 0.98).
In the second stage of the coding, episodes that included co- and
shared regulation were located from the socio-emotional interaction
segments. One socio-emotional interaction segment could include none

5
H. Järvenoja et al. Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 2 This example derived from a group of four members (three females,
Frequencies of the student-reported motivational and emotional reasons for the challenge one male) and took place during the group's first collaborative session.
level gained in the form of the traffic light in the S-REG tool. In the excerpt, group members Minea and Teemu are talking with a
student from another group. Meanwhile, Maria reveals to Pia that she is
Motivation Reason Motivation Traffic Light Total χ2
feeling distressed and is worried that she won't be able to do all the
Yellow Red coursework. Pia tries to encourage Maria by telling her that making a
clear schedule will help.
Interest 15 24 39
Ability 30 9 39
Goals 8 4 12
Maria: I’m feeling terribly distressed about all the coursework. I
Total 53 37 90 12.261* won’t be able to do it all. I certainly cannot. [indicating a challenge
with an emotional and motivational nature]
Emotion Reason Emotion Traffic Light Total χ2 Pia: Yes, you can. [co-regulating motivation; supporting ability]
Maria: No, I won’t. Everything is just piling up … uh!
Yellow Red
Pia: Yeah, but now it won’t. When we do a clear schedule and then
Annoyed 4 18 22 we divide it into smaller parts, it will become easier. [co-regulating
Bored 11 2 13 motivation; introducing a cognitive strategy]
Frustrated 19 19 38
Maria: But this is a pretty fast schedule.
Worried 6 2 8
Total 40 41 81 17.130** Pia: Well, but we want to do this quickly out of the way. If we do so,
then you will have a pleasantly relaxing end of the spring. [co-
Note. *p = 0.002, **p = 0.001 regulating motivation and emotions; pointing to the value of task
performance]
to several codings of the two categories. In other words, the regulation
episodes were typically shorter than interaction segments, and not all In contrast, an episode was coded as shared regulation, if more than
interactions included regulation. The parts of the socio-emotional in- one member built upon each other's efforts to increase, maintain or
teraction segments that included visible signs of regulating the emo- restore motivation within the group or did the same to control the
tions or motivation were coded to one of the two categories, namely co- emotional atmosphere, such as frustration expressed by group mem-
or shared regulation (k = 0.60). Because a considerable proportion of bers. A coded shared regulation episode included a series of transactive
self-regulation is invisible, individual regulation was excluded from the exchanges amongst more than one group member. Furthermore, the
analysis to avoid biased and invalid results. focus of the regulation utterances was on a “we” level, i.e. group
The episode was considered as co-regulation when one or several members aimed to affect the shared processes. Altogether, there were
group members tried to increase motivation within the group or offered 68 indications of shared regulation of emotions and motivations within
support, advice or encouragement when group members expressed a the groups. A transcribed example of the shared-regulation episode is
lack of motivation or negative feelings affecting the group work. Co- presented below.
regulation was coded when a group member made a regulatory in-
Example 2. A shared-regulation episode
itiative and another group member seized the regulation prompt, but
This example derived from a group of four female members in the
did not contribute to the interaction by transacting new regulatory
beginning of the group's fourth collaborative session. In the excerpt,
contributions. However, the group members could continue by con-
they are discussing how they cannot prepare for the session because one
tributing to the learning activity. Altogether, there were 142 indications
of the members is missing. They do not know what to do, and their
of co-regulating emotions and motivations within the groups (see a
frustration and lack of motivation are evident. Finally, Anna initiates a
transcribed example below).
regulation discussion by suggesting how to proceed. Jenna and Emma
Example 1. A co-regulation episode grasp this opening and continue it further.

Fig. 3. Distribution of the received traffic lights, representing the

groups' motivational and emotional states.

6
H. Järvenoja et al. Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Jenna: But I’m feeling like … what can we do today? Because Sara is

missing, and she hasn’t got a clue about this project yet, and we won’t

meet her until Thursday.

Anna: Yeah, that is…

Jenna: And then, we can’t make any decisions now since one member of

the group doesn’t know anything yet.

Emma: Yeah, it’s just that … we haven’t decided before … and now we

can’t decide the tasks that should be prepared at home before every

meeting.
[indicating a
Jenna: Yeah.
challenge with a
Anna: Mm.
motivational and
Emma: Because, after that, we should anyway discuss it with Sara.
an emotional
Jenna: Yeah.
nature]
Emma: And that is, basically, we don’t have any shared things to do in

here either.

Jenna: Yeah.

Emma: Because, in a way, we didn’t prepare ourselves.

Anna: Mm.

Emma: Because we can’t prepare ourselves yet.

Jenna: Yeah.

Emma: So, these [sessions] are somewhat useless for us now because

Sara is so clearly missing from the group.

Jenna: Mm.

Anna: Mm. But I think we could start to think if we can come up with

some integrative perspective to our task. So, there would be at least

something we could work on and progress a bit with the task.

Emma: Yeah.

Anna: Yeah.

Emma: We could think something … something nice. [socially shared

Anna: If we can formulate something. regulation of

Jenna: Mm, yeah. motivation;

Emma: Nevertheless, the pupils are already on a sixth grade so it could redirecting focus]

be a little trickier integration, nothing too…

Jenna: Yeah, yeah.

Anna: Mm.

Emma: But let’s see about that soon.

Jenna: Yeah.

Anna: Yes!

7
H. Järvenoja et al.
To sum up, this phase of the analysis depicted how the co- and
shared regulation was located in the collaborative learning session as a
part of the socio-emotional interaction. The analysis proceeded by first
calculating descriptive statistics in terms of frequencies and duration of
regulation codes and then performing a chi-square test (for frequencies)
and a t-test (for durations) to investigate relations between the two
regulation types. Second, the analysis continued to investigate the oc-
currences of regulation in collaborative learning sessions in more detail.
For this purpose, all 41 collaborative sessions were commensurate in
terms of session duration. Third, the commensurable sessions were di-
vided into three equal time sequences (i.e. beginning, middle and end),
and a repeated measure analysis of variance between three different
time segments was performed.
3.3.3. The third analysis phase
In this phase, the groups’ emotional and motivational states were
combined with their regulation activity coded from the video data.
First, the motivational and emotional states were integrated since there
was a strong correlation between the motivational and emotional states
(rs = 0.687, p < 0.000). Next, a correlation analysis was run between
the states and the co- and shared regulation on a session level as well as
for each three-time sequence (beginning, middle and end).
4. Results
4.1. What type of motivational and emotional reasons did groups allocate
for their emotional and motivational states as they entered the collaborative
learning sessions?
In regards to the motivational state, the groups received a yellow
light most frequently (f = 53), followed by a red light (f = 37) and a
green light (f = 13). For the emotional state, the distribution in the
frequency of the yellow and red lights was more even (f = 40 and 41,
respectively). Again, the green light was received less often (f = 22; see
Fig. 3).
When the groups received the yellow traffic light indicating some
challenges in motivational state, they most typically associated it with
the (lack of) ability to work with the task (57%; see Table 2). Some
challenges in emotional state were associated with frustration (48%)
followed by boredom (28%). When the groups got a red traffic light
indicating severe challenges in motivation, the most typical motiva-
tional reason was (a lack of) interest and, for severe emotional chal-
lenges, frustration (46%) and annoyance (44%). A chi-square test of
independence was performed to examine the relation between the
challenge level (traffic light value) and motivational and emotional
reason associated with the challenge. The relation between these vari-
ables was significant (motivation: χ2 = 12.261, df = 2, p = 0.002;
emotion: χ2 = 17.130, df = 3, p = 0.001).
8
Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
4.2. How did groups’ regulation of emotions and motivation occur within
and across collaborative learning sessions?
Altogether, 422 socio-emotional interaction segments were found
covering 22% of the groups' videotaped collaborative work (9 h 41min).
Of these socio-emotional interaction segments, 14% included ob-
servable socially oriented motivation and emotion regulation (i.e. ei-
ther co- or shared regulation). That is, socio-emotional interaction
episodes did not automatically involve co- or shared motivation or
emotion regulation. Instead, regulation of motivation and emotions on
a group level covered only 3% of groups’ collaborative working (1 h
19min). There were some variations of the occurrence between the
sessions (co-regulation: χ2 (9) = 22.2, p = 0.008; shared regulation: χ2
(6) = 26.8, p < 0.000), but in 39 of 41 sessions either one or both
regulation types were activated. In sum, although emotion and moti-
vation regulation was relatively rare, the groups engaged in co- and
shared regulation throughout the collaborative group assignment.
Within the collaborative sessions, both co- and shared regulation
was used from the beginning until the end. Fig. 4 illustrates when coded
co- and shared regulation activities occurred during the collaborative
learning task session. A repeated measure analysis of variance was
performed between three different time segments (beginning, middle
and end), confirming that a certain phase of the learning session (be-
ginning, middle or end of the session) was not particularly related to the
occurrence of the co-regulation (F(2) = 0.219, p = 0.804) or shared
regulation (F(2) = 0.013, p = 0.988).
Across all the collaborative learning sessions, co-regulation of mo-
tivation and emotions was activated more often (f = 142; M = 3.46
times per session) than shared regulation (f = 68; M = 1.66 times per
session; χ2 (1) = 26.1, p < 0.001). However, when shared regulation
was activated, it typically lasted longer (M = 28 s) than co-regulation
(M = 21 s; t(208) = −2.867, p = 0.005). Spearman's correlation test
did not show any correlation between the two types of regulation
(rs = 0.205, p = 0.198) in general, but a more detailed analysis re-
vealed a negative correlation between the co- and shared regulation in
the final of the three time sequences (beginning, middle and end)
(rs = −0.443 p = 0.010).
4.3. How is the use of the S-REG tool associated to the occurrence of co- and
shared regulation?
The next investigation concerned how S-REG tool use contributed to
the groups' motivation and emotion regulation. A Spearman's correla-
tion analysis revealed a correlation between the occurrence of co-reg-
ulation and the groups' reported emotional and motivational states at
the first time sequence (beginning) of the collaborative learning ses-
sions (rs = 0.402, p = 0.046). No correlations were found between co-
regulation and the latter two time sequences (middle and end) nor any
time sequence and shared regulation.
Fig. 4. Time-related distribution of co- and
shared regulation within collaborative task ses-
sions.
H. Järvenoja et al.
5. Discussion
How emotions influence learning is a complex phenomenon (Pekrun
& Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2014), and we still need more evidence on how
motivation and emotion regulation is a part of collaboration. This study
investigated when collaborative groups activated motivation and
emotion regulation and whether the S-REG tool supported them in
active co- and socially shared regulation. The results show that only a
small portion of the interaction included co- and shared regulation of
motivation and emotions. This is in accordance to earlier findings in-
dicating that collaborative groups do not always recognise a need for
regulation (Ben-Eliyahu & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013; Järvelä et al.,
2013; Miller & Hadwin, 2015; Ucan & Webb, 2015) although colla-
borative learning situations require regulation of emotions and moti-
vation (Duffy et al., 2015; Järvenoja et al., 2013; Lajoie et al., 2015;
Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2011). It should be noted that not all socio-
emotional interactions include or call for regulation of motivation or
emotions, but that collaborative learning includes a variety of other
socio-emotional dimensions that either promote or hinder collaboration
(Baker, Andriessen, & Järvelä, 2013). Moreover, while regulation of
emotions can consist of actions that are targeted to protect oneself and
control emotions (Boekaerts & Pekrun, 2015), this was not the focus of
this study. Instead, the focus was on the regulation of learning; that is,
on regulation that aims to improve motivational and emotional condi-
tions of learning. Therefore, the limited amount of co- and socially
shared regulation in this study does not indicate that group members
did not engage in socio-emotional interactions, which could have a
positive or negative impact on learning. However, former research has
suggested that participating in interactions can also be beneficial for co-
and socially shared regulation of learning (Grau & Whitebread, 2012;
Isohätälä, Järvenoja, & Järvelä, 2017; Sinha, Rogat, Adams-Wiggins, &
Hmelo-Silver, 2015).
While the groups activated co- and shared emotion and motivation
regulation infrequently, the results showed that they did activate them
throughout the learning process. The longer-lasting shared-regulation
episodes suggest that, when group members reciprocally commit to
improving the group's emotional atmosphere and joint motivation, they
more likely share the regulation responsibility, bringing it to the “we”
level (Järvelä & Hadwin, 2013). The more frequent but shorter-lasting
occurrence co-regulation implies that, in some situations, shifting sup-
port with a peer is more relevant to activate group work (Malmberg
et al., 2017).
The rare emotion and motivation regulation suggests that such
regulation relates to emerging needs within the groups instead of cer-
tain phases of collaborative work. The activation of emotion and mo-
tivation regulation derives from the combination of personal, con-
textual and social aspects that together create a need to regulate
emotions or motivation in the moment (Boekaerts, 2007; Järvenoja
et al., 2015; Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2011; Meyer & Turner, 2006;
Volet, Vauras, et al., 2009; Zschocke et al., 2016). The results support
earlier findings that emotion and motivation regulation emerges in si-
tuations where students' engaged learning is challenged (Ben-Eliyahu &
Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013), highlighting a need to raise awareness of
groups’ socio-emotional conditions (Kreijns et al., 2013), such as with
technological prompts.
Technological possibilities can be harnessed to support learners in
this process. Earlier studies have used technological tools and en-
vironments for self-regulated learning support. For example, MetaTutor
(Azevedo, 2015) presents state-of-the-art technology grounded in self-
regulated learning theory whereby learners are given prompts that
promote metacognitive awareness in each phase of the regulated
learning cycle. Azevedo and Witherspoon (2009) detected, traced,
modelled and fostered students' self-regulatory and metacognitive
processes during learning in hypermedia learning environments and
identified the critical monitoring processes that provide a sufficient
foundation for regulated learning to occur. We, instead, provided the S-
9
Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
REG tool to support students to prompt explicitly groups' awareness of
the “hot” motivation and emotion regulation processes in addition to
cognitive ones. According to the results, the S-REG tool prompted co-
regulation in the group, which may indicate that it increased awareness
of individual students’ situational motivation and emotions and became
concrete in shifting support with a peer. As co-regulation was increased
particularly at the beginning of the collaborative learning session, it
was useful for creating a balanced condition for collaborative learning
for the latter phases because it tapped the unfavourable aspects in the
beginning (Kimmel & Volet, 2010; Zschocke et al., 2016).
Recently, Hadwin et al. (2017) discussed the relation between co-
and shared regulation and emphasised their independent but supple-
mentary purpose for learning as well as co-regulation as a preparatory
mechanism for shared regulation. Co-regulation enables the fine-tuning
of cognitive, behavioural, motivational and emotional conditions as
needed for shared regulation to occur (Hadwin et al., 2017). While the
results of this study support the first argument about co- and shared
regulation being independent processes, no correlations or patterned
connection was found regarding the relationship between the two types
of regulation. The two regulation types, however, existed in parallel,
indicating that neither would overrule the other. We argue that co- and
shared regulation of emotions and motivation responded to different
types of needs in the group (Malmberg et al., 2017). This is not to say
that the co-and shared regulation of motivation and emotions would
not be supplementary to each other serving the motivated, engaged
learning of the entire group. Groups working on a common task can be
conceptualised as social systems comprised of multiple self-regulating
individuals who must guide and support regulating as well as regulate
together as a collective social entity (Volet, Vauras, et al., 2009).
Accordingly, groups may need different types of support or differ-
ently timed support in the situation that calls for shared regulation
compared to situations calling for co-regulation of emotions and mo-
tivation. This may also explain why S-REG tool use in this study cor-
related only with the occurrence of co-regulation. The groups used the
S-REG tool in the beginning of the collaborative learning sessions;
consequently, the nature of the experienced motivational and emo-
tional challenges may have been individual in nature. These situations
triggered groups to co-regulate individual members' motivation and
emotions to ensure socio-emotional grounding for collaboration.
Promoting shared regulation within groups would have called for tools
that tap the emerging motivational and emotional challenges within the
group during collaboration (Kwon et al., 2014). Adaptive systems that
have the potential to react “on the fly” to learner activity and needs
(Azevedo et al., 2013) can be extended to provide tailored and targeted
support for shared regulation on a collective group level. Recent ad-
vancement in technology-assisted data collection help focusing on the
“on-line learning processes” and collecting data about learning traces to
make these complex regulatory processes visible and better learning
support (D'Mello, Dieterle, & Duckworth, 2017; Järvelä, Malmberg,
Sobocinski, Haataja, & Kirschner, 2017). A prerequisite to fully harness
this potential is to understand the fluctuation and relations between co-
and shared regulation and to acknowledge individuals' and groups'
different motives to activate these processes relative to motivation and
emotion regulation.
This study focuses only on the episodes with clear evidence of socio-
emotional interaction, which sets limitations on interpreting the results.
Within a functional group, a fine-grained adjustment of emotional and
motivational atmosphere can take place constantly as embedded in
cognitive activity (Baker, Andriessen, & Järvelä, 2013). These interac-
tions were excluded from this study. Furthermore, this study did not
focus on the type of strategies groups use to regulate different moti-
vationally or emotionally challenging situations. A solid base of em-
pirical research has investigated motivation and emotion strategies on
an individual level (Ben-Eliyahu & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013; Wolters &
Benzon, 2013) and made some attempts to employ these on a group
level (Järvelä & Järvenoja, 2011). However, further studies are needed
H. Järvenoja et al.
to clarify whether and to what extent the shared emotion and motiva-
tion regulation strategies are similar to the self-regulated regulation
strategies.
To conclude, this study shows evidence that regulation of motiva-
tion and emotions is an inherent part of regulation of learning during
collaboration. It contributes to research concerning how collaborative
groups maintain an engaged learning process through joint regulation.
The challenge for future research is to provide more evidence on the
temporal variation (Molenaar & Chiu, 2014) of emotion and motivation
regulation processes as well as situate these regulative activities with
collaborative learning. This understanding is essential particularly
when adjustable and timely technologies are created to support groups
in building together emotionally balanced, motivated learning.
Funding
This work was supported by the Finnish Academy [grant number
297686].
References
Azevedo, R. (2015). Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science:
Conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educational
Psychologist, 50(1), 84–94. http://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1004069.
Azevedo, R., Harley, J., Trevors, G., Duffy, M., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Bouchet, F., et al.
(2013). Using trace data to examine the complex roles of cognitive, metacognitive,
and emotional self-regulatory processes during learning with multi-agent systems. In
R. Azevedo, & V. Aleven (Eds.). International handbook of metacognition and learning
technologies (pp. 427–449). New York, NY: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4419-5546-3_28.
Azevedo, R., & Witherspoon, A. M. (2009). Self-regulated use of hypermedia. In D. J.
Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.). Handbook of metacognition in education
(pp. 319–339). New York, NY: Routledge.
Baker, M., Andriessen, J., & Järvelä, S. (Eds.). (2013). Affective learning together. Social and
emotional dimensions of collaborative learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bannert, M., & Reimann, P. (2012). Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning
through prompts. Instructional Science, 40(1), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11251-011-9167-4.
Bannert, M., Reimann, P., & Sonnenberg, C. (2014). Process mining techniques for ana-
lysing patterns and strategies in students' self-regulated learning. Metacognition and
Learning, 9(2), 161–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9107-6.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3),
307–359. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203.
Ben-Eliyahu, A., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). Extending self-regulated learning to
include self-regulated emotion strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 37(3), 558–573.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9332-3.
Boekaerts, M. (2007). Understanding students' affective processes in the classroom. In P.
Schutz, R. Pekrun, & G. Phye (Eds.). Emotion in education (pp. 37–56). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Boekaerts, M. (2011). Emotions, emotion regulation, and self-regulation of learning. In B.
J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and
performance (pp. 408–425). New York, NY: Routledge.
Boekaerts, M., & Pekrun, R. (2015). Emotions and emotion regulation in academic set-
tings. In L. Corno, & E. M. Anderman (Eds.). Handbook of educational psychology (pp.
76–90). New York: Routledge.
Crook, C. (2000). Motivation and the ecology of collaborative learning. In R. Joiner, K.
Littleton, D. Faulkner, & D. Miell (Eds.). Rethinking collaborative learning (pp. 161–
178). London: Free Association Books.
De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2015). Exploring evolutions in reciprocal peer
tutoring groups' socially shared metacognitive regulation and identifying its meta-
cognitive correlates. Learning and Instruction, 38, 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2015.04.001.
Diamond, L. M., & Aspinwall, L. G. (2003). Emotion regulation across the life span: An
integrative perspective emphasizing self-regulation, positive affect, and dyadic pro-
cesses. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 125–156. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1024521920068.
DiDonato, N. C. (2013). Effective self- and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups:
An analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary
tasks. Instructional Science, 41(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-
9206-9.
Duffy, M. C., Azevedo, R., Sun, N.-Z., Griscom, S. E., Stead, V., Crelinsten, L., ...
Lachapelle, K. (2015). Team regulation in a simulated medical emergency: An in-
depth analysis of cognitive, metacognitive, and affective processes. Instructional
Science, 43(3), 401–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9333-6.
D'Mello, S., Dieterle, E., & Duckworth, A. (2017). Advanced, analytic, automated (AAA)
measurement of engagement during learning. Educational Psychologist, 52(2),
104–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1281747.
Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-
regulated learning: The MASRL Model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538645.
Fried, L., & Chapman, E. (2012). An investigation into the capacity of student motivation
and emotion regulation strategies to predict engagement and resilience in the middle
10
Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
school classroom. Australian Educational Researcher, 39(3), 295–311. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13384-011-0049-1.
Grau, V., & Whitebread, D. (2012). Self and social regulation of learning during colla-
borative activities in the classroom: The interplay of individual and group cognition.
Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.
2012.03.003.
Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2017). Self-regulation, co-regulation and shared
regulation in collaborative learning environments. In D. H. Schunk, & J. A. Greene
(Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance(2nd ed.). New
York, NY.
Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared reg-
ulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers
College Record, 113(2), 240–264.
Isohätälä, J., Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2017). Socially shared regulation of learning
and participation in social interaction in collaborative learning. International Journal
of Educational Research, 81, 11–24.
Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL.
Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.
748006.
Järvelä, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2011). Socially constructed self-regulated learning and
motivation regulation in collaborative learning groups. Teachers College Record,
113(2), 350–374.
Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., & Hadwin, A. (2013). Exploring socially-shared
regulation in the context of collaboration. The Journal of Cognitive Education and
Psychology, 12(3), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.12.3.267.
Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J., & Sobocinski, M. (2016a). How do
types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative
engagement? Learning and Instruction, 43, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2016.01.005.
Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Hadwin, A., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Miller, M., et al.
(2016b). Socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: Understanding and
prompting individual- and group-level shared regulatory activities. International
Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 263–280. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11412-016-9238-2.
Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., et al.
(2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups:
Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 63(1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9358-1.
Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., & Koivuniemi, M. (2016c). Recognizing socially shared reg-
ulation by using the temporal sequences of online chat and logs in CSCL. Learning and
Instruction, 42, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.006.
Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., Sobocinski, M., Haataja, E., & Kirschner, P. (2017). What
multimodal data tell about self-regulated learning process? (Submitted).
Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning situations -
do students regulate emotions evoked from social challenges? British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 79(3), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1348/
000709909X402811.
Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., & Malmberg, J. (2015). Understanding regulated learning in
situative and contextual frameworks. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 204–219.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1075400.
Järvenoja, H., Volet, S., & Järvelä, S. (2013). Regulation of emotions in socially chal-
lenging learning situations: An instrument to measure the adaptive and social nature
of the regulation process. Educational Psychology, 33(1), 31–58. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01443410.2012.742334.
Jiang, J., Vauras, M., Volet, S., & Wang, Y. (2016). Teachers' emotions and emotion
regulation strategies: Self- and students' perceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education,
54, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.008.
Kempler Rogat, T., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2011). Socially shared regulation in colla-
borative groups: An analysis of the interplay between quality of social regulation and
group processes. Cognition and Instruction, 29(4), 375–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07370008.2011.607930.
Kempler Rogat, T., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & DiDonato, N. (2013). Motivation in colla-
borative groups. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O'Donnell
(Eds.). International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 250–267). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Khosa, D. K., & Volet, S. E. (2014). Productive group engagement in cognitive activity and
metacognitive regulation during collaborative learning: Can it explain differences in
students' conceptual understanding? Metacognition and Learning, 9(3), 287–307.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9117-z.
Kimmel, K., & Volet, S. (2010). Significance of context in university students' (meta)
cognitions related to group work: A multi-layered, multi-dimensional and cultural
approach. Learning and Instruction, 20(6), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2009.05.004.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Vermeulen, M. (2013). Social aspects of CSCL environ-
ments: A research framework. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 229–242. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00461520.2012.750225.
Kwon, K., Liu, Y.-H., & Johnson, L. P. (2014). Group regulation and social-emotional
interactions observed in computer supported collaborative learning: Comparison
between good vs. poor collaborators. Computers & Education, 78, 185–200. http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.004.
Lajoie, S. P., Lee, L., Poitras, E., Bassiri, M., Kazemitabar, M., Cruz-Panesso, I., et al.
(2015). The role of regulation in medical student learning in small groups: Regulating
oneself and others' learning and emotions. Computers in Human Behavior, 52,
601–616. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.073.
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Kempler Rogat, T., & Koskey, K. L. (2011). Affect and engagement
during small group instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 13–24.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.09.001.
Malmberg, J., Järvelä, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2017). Capturing temporal and sequential
patterns of self-, co-, and socially shared regulation in the context of collaborative
learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 160–174. https://doi.org/10.
H. Järvenoja et al.
1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.009.
Malmberg, J., Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., & Panadero, E. (2015). Promoting socially shared
regulation of learning in CSCL: Progress of socially shared regulation among high-
and low-performing groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 562–572. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.082.
McCardle, L., & Hadwin, A. F. (2015). Using multiple, contextualized data sources to
measure learners' perceptions of their self-regulated learning. Metacognition and
Learning, 10(1), 43–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9132-0.
McCaslin, M., & Burross, H. L. (2011). Research on individual differences within a so-
ciocultural perspective: Co-regulation and adaptive learning. Teachers College Record,
113(2), 325–349.
Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2006). Re-conceptualizing emotion and motivation to learn
in classroom contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 377–390. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10648-006-9032-1.
Miller, M., & Hadwin, A. (2015). Scripting and awareness tools for regulating colla-
borative learning: Changing the landscape of support in CSCL. Computers in Human
Behavior, 52, 573–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.050.
Molenaar, I., & Chiu, M. M. (2014). Dissecting sequences of regulation and cognition:
Statistical discourse analysis of primary school children's collaborative learning.
Metacognition and Learning, 9(2), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-
9105-8.
Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., & Järvenoja, H. (2014). Socio-emotional conflict
in collaborative learning - a process-oriented case study in a higher education con-
text. International Journal of Educational Research, 68, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijer.2014.07.001.
Op't Eynde, P., & Turner, J. E. (2006). Focusing on the complexity of emotion issues in
academic learning: A dynamic component system approach. Educational Psychology
Review, 18, 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9031-2.
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2014). International handbook of emotions in edu-
cation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Schnaubert, L., & Bodemer, D. (2017). Prompting and visualising monitoring outcomes:
Guiding self-regulatory processes with confidence judgments. Learning and
Instruction, 49, 251–262.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory,
research, and applications. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Schwinger, M., Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2012). Not all roads lead to Rome - com-
paring different types of motivational regulation profiles. Learning and Individual
Differences, 22(3), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.12.006.
Sinha, S., Rogat, T. K., Adams-Wiggins, K. R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2015). Collaborative
group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment.
International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 273–307.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9218-y.
Ucan, S., & Webb, M. (2015). Social regulation of learning during collaborative inquiry
learning in science: How does it emerge and what are its functions? International
11
Learning and Instruction xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Journal of Science Education, 37(15), 2503–2532. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09500693.2015.1083634.
Volet, S., & Summers, M. (2013). Interpersonal regulation in collaborative learning ac-
tivities: Reflections on emerging research methodologies. In S. Volet, & M. Vauras
(Eds.). Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation: Methodological advances (pp.
204–220). Abingdon: Routledge.
Volet, S., Summers, M., & Thurman, J. (2009). High-level co-regulation in collaborative
learning: How does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction, 19(2),
128–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.001.
Volet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009). Self- and social regulation in learning con-
texts: An integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 215–226. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213584.
Webster, E. A., & Hadwin, A. F. (2015). Emotions and emotion regulation in under-
graduate studying: Examining students' reports from a self-regulated learning per-
spective. Educational Psychology, 35(7), 794–818.
Whitebread, D., & Pino-Pasternak, D. (2013). Video analysis of self-regulated learning in
social and naturalistic contexts. The case of preschool and primary school children. In
S. Volet, & M. Vauras (Eds.). Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation:
Methodological advances. London: Routledge.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated
learning. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.). Motivation and self-regulated
learning: Theory, research and applications (pp. 297–314). New York, NY: Taylor &
Francis Group.
Wolters, C. A., & Benzon, M. B. (2013). Assessing and predicting college students' use of
strategies for the self-regulation of motivation. Journal of Experimental Education,
81(2), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.699901.
Wolters, C. A., Benzon, M. B., & Arroyo-Giner, C. (2011). Assessing strategies for the self-
regulation of motivation. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.). Handbook of
self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 298–312). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wosnitza, M., & Volet, S. (2005). Origin, direction and impact of emotions in social online
learning. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2005.07.009.
Xu, J., Du, J., & Fan, X. (2013). Individual and group-level factors for students' emotion
management in online collaborative groupwork. The Internet and Higher Education,
19, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.03.001.
Xu, J., Du, J., & Fan, X. (2014). Emotion management in online groupwork reported by
Chinese students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(6), 795–819.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive
career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00461520.2013.794676.
Zschocke, K., Wosnitza, M., & Bürger, K. (2016). Emotions in group work: Insights from
an appraisal-oriented perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31(3),
359–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0278-1.