Regulating Emotions During Computer-Supported Collaborative Problem Solving
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Regulating Emotions During Computer-Supported Collaborative Problem Solving

on

  • 1,441 views

Elizabeth Webster & Allyson Hadwin

Elizabeth Webster & Allyson Hadwin
University of Victoria
Presented at the 2013 conference for the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE)

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,441
Views on SlideShare
180
Embed Views
1,261

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

3 Embeds 1,261

http://allysonhadwin.wordpress.com 1190
http://marielm1.wordpress.com 70
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Regulating Emotions During Computer-Supported Collaborative Problem Solving Presentation Transcript

  • 1. www.postersession.comRegulating Emotions During Computer-SupportedCollaborative Problem SolvingElizabeth Webster & Allyson HadwinUniversity of VictoriaCollaborative Micro Script: Emotion Regulation & Awareness Tool (Beginning)ParticipantsIntroductionCollaboration has been identified as an essential 21st century learning outcome. With agrowing emphasis on virtual teamwork, the ability to collaborate in online environments isan important skill for university students to attain. An underemphasized aspect is theregulation of emotions. Theory and research indicate emotions are connected to social-behavioral engagement (Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2011), conflict management (Jehn,1997), and trust and cohesion (Jones & George, 1998; Kreijns et al. 2003). Althoughresearch is emerging, few studies have investigated students’ emotional experiences andthe regulation of their emotions during computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL).Purpose & Research QuestionsThe purpose of this exploratory study was to examine university students’ emotions aswell as their goals and strategies for regulating their emotions during two CSCL problem-solving tasks.1. What emotions do students experience immediately before, during, and after a time-limited CSCL problem-solving task?2. What are students’ goals and strategies for regulating their emotions?3. How do goals and strategies change in a second CSCL problem-solving task?ReferencesBoekaerts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: Finding a balance between learning goals and ego-protective goals.In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 417–450). San Diego: Academic Press.Gross, J. J. (1999). Emotion Regulation: Past, Present, Future. Cognition & Emotion, 13(5), 551–573. doi:10.1080/026999399379186Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S. & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. In B.Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.). Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (pp. 65-84). New York: Routledge.Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2005). How students describe the sources of their emotional and motivational experiences during thelearning process: A qualitative approach. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 465–480. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.012Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do students regulate emotions evoked bysocial challenges? The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 463–481. doi:10.1348/000709909X402811Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly,42(3), 530–557.Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy ofManagement Review, 23(3), 531–546.Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborativelearning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335-353.Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Rogat, T. K., & Koskey, K. L. K. (2011). Affect and engagement during small group instruction. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 36(1), 13–24. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.09.001Williams, M. (2007). Building genuine trust through interpersonal emotion management: A threat regulation model of trust andcollaboration across boundaries. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 595–621. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.24351867Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.),Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 371.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: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.Wosnitza, M., & Volet, S. (2005). Origin, direction and impact of emotions in social online learning. Learning and Instruction, 15(5),449–464. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.009Findings• 175 students in a first-year undergraduate course designed to help students developSRL knowledge and skills (ED-D 101: Learning Strategies for University Success)• Assigned to groups of 3-5 to complete two CSCL problem-solving tasksResearch funded by a SSHRC Standard Research Grant 435-2012-0529 (A. Hadwin)and SSHRC Doctoral Fellowship (E. Webster)Theoretical Framework• Successful collaboration involves self-regulation (SRL), co-regulation (coRL), andsocially shared regulation of learning (SSRL; Hadwin et al., 2011).• Winne and Hadwin’s (1998, 2008) model of SRL describes regulation as a four-phased recursive process.• Emotions occur as conditions and products within each phase.• Emotions can also be a target of these regulatory processes.Monitoring&EvaluatingTaskPerceptionsGoals &PlansTaskEnactmentLargeScaleAdaptationEMOTIONSSRLCoRL SSRLWinne & Hadwin (1998, 2008)n M (SD)ED-D 101 grade (9-point scale) 170 5.7 (2.4)Age in years 166 18.6 (2.6)0255075100125150175Gender Faculty YearFrequencyFemaleMaleSocial Science / HSD/ EducationScience / EngineeringHumanities / Fine ArtsBusinessFirstSecondThird +Collaborative Macro ScriptGroupCoordinatedIndividualExpertiseSoloPlanningGroupPlanningJointChallengeSoloReflectionGroupCoordinatedIndividualExpertiseSoloPlanningGroupPlanningJointChallengeSoloReflectionCSCL Assignment 2CSCL Assignment 1Figure 1. Frequencies of positive and negative emotions duringCSCL Session 1.0255075100125150175Beginning Middle EndFrequencyTimeNegativePositiveStudents generally felt positive aboutthe collaborative experienceType of Emotionexcitedoptimisticconfidenthappyfocusedcalmanxiousworriedstresseddoubtfulfrustrated/angrydisappointedotherIntensity ofEmotionvery strongstrongmoderateweakvery weakEvaluationof EmotiongoodbadEmotionRegulation Goalincreasedecreaseswitchmaintaindo nothing aboutEmotion Regulation Strategyfocusing on the taskcreating a good planchanging the plan or approachchanging thoughts or beliefsthinking positivelytalking to others in the grouptaking deep breaths and/or relaxingaccepting it and carrying ondoing nothingotherType ofEmotionRegulationSource ofEmotion050100150200250Positive NegativeFrequencyType of EmotionDo NothingSwitchDecreaseIncreaseMaintainStudents intended toregulate both positive andnegative emotionsFigure 2. Students’ goals for regulating positive and negativeemotions in CSCL Session 1.020406080100120140Maintain Increase DecreaseFrequencyRegulation GoalChange thoughtsOtherDo nothingAccept itChange planBreathe/relaxTalk to groupCreate planThink positivelyFocusFigure 3. Students’ strategies for achieving regulation goals (top) andover time (bottom) in CSCL Session 1.Evidence of strategicallyselecting strategiesERATBeginningERATMiddleERATEnd020406080100120140160180200Beginning MiddleFrequencyTimeChange thoughtsOtherDo nothingAccept itChange planBreathe/relaxTalk to groupCreate planThink positivelyFocusChanges from CSCL Session 1 to CSCL Session 2• Overall, similar patterns from Session 1 to Session 2.• Emotions: Students reported more positive emotions at thebeginning and middle of Session 2 than in Session 1.• Strategies: Students selected focusing on the task morefrequently and thinking positively less frequently in Session 2than in Session 1.• Regulation: Students indicated thinking positively should beenacted by the whole group more frequently in Session 2 thanin Session 1.020406080100FrequencyStrategyCoRLSRLSSRLStudents view emotionregulation as something todo togetherFigure 4. Students’ intentions for self-, co-, and shared regulation ofemotions in CSCL Session 1.DiscussionPositive emotions dominated students’ reports:• This findings highlights the need to consider not just negative emotions thatmay interfere with progress, but also positive emotions that may facilitateprogress. Understanding positive experiences could help to develop instructionand strategies for students who feel negatively about the process.• We could speculate that one reason for students’ positive experience was themacro and micro scripting provided to guide students through the collaborativeprocess. However, a control group is necessary to substantiate this claim.• From the first CSCL session to the second, the proportion of positive emotionsat the beginning and middle grew. This shift could be due to (a) students’positive experience in the first session, (b) students having a better idea ofwhat to expect in the second session, and/or (c) students regulating theiremotions better the second time around. All of these reasons would beindicative of engaging in fourth phase adaptation (Winne & Hadwin, 1998).Students planned to regulate their emotions:• Regardless of the emotion, the vast majority of students selected a goal forregulating their emotion. Their goals mainly focused on increasing ormaintaining positive emotions and decreasing negative emotions. However,although students’ goals made sense in light of their emotions, this does notnecessarily mean their goals were appropriate in terms of effectivecollaboration or task engagement.• Students appeared to be strategically selecting strategies on the basis of atleast two factors: (a) their goals for regulation (e.g., the proportions ofstrategies shifted depending on the goal) and (b) the context (e.g., somestrategies were chosen more at the beginning or middle of the session).Students perceived emotion regulation as a shared process:• Students mainly indicated their whole group should enact the strategies. Therewere fewer instances of self-regulation and even fewer instances of co-regulation. These findings support research by Järvenoja and Järvelä (2009).• This finding is important considering emotion regulation is often regarded asan individual process or an other-regulated process (Boekaerts & Niemivirta,2000; Gross, 1999; Williams, 2007). Future research should continue toexamine emotion regulation as a shared process in collaborative contexts to(a) corroborate findings about students’ perceptions and (b) generate evidenceof shared regulatory processes actually occurring during collaboration.Considerations & Future ResearchNo control group:• It is difficult to say (a) how representative our findings are or (b) whether therewas something about this particular group of students or the collaborativedesign that led to these findings. Future research should include a controlgroup of students who have not taken ED-D 101 and/or who are not providedthe same structure for completing the collaborative task.All data were self-report and focused on intentions for regulating emotions:• Due to the nature of these data, we do not know if students followed throughwith their plans for regulating. However, helping students to become aware oftheir own feelings and to think about how they can strategically engage in andadapt to challenging situations is a crucial part of developing better regulatoryskills. Ideally, these self-report data will be triangulated with other evidence ofemotion regulation (e.g., chat log data).Development of ERAT:• Students tended to choose a limited number of responses most often. Someresponse choices could be revised or dropped altogether. For example, thestrategy of focusing on the task was selected most often. This is a relativelybroad strategy that could be implemented in different ways. Although studentsintended to use the strategy, they may not have had a good idea of how toenact it. One option might be to make focusing on the task a general category,with more specific strategies within that category.Future analyses:• Examine patterns over time within individual students, rather than at the whole-class level.• Consider self-, co-, and shared regulation of emotions at the collaborativegroup level via case studies of high- and low-performing groups.ERATMiddleERATEndERATBeginningTime 1ConfidentOptimisticFocusedExcitedCalmHappyTime 2ConfidentOptimisticHappyFocusedExcitedCalmTime 3HappyConfidentOptimisticExcitedCalmFocusedTime 1AnxiousWorriedStressedTime 2StressedAnxiousWorriedFrustratedDoubtfulTime 3AnxiousStressedWorriedDisappointedFrustratedDoubtful