Monitoring makes a difference: quality and temporal variation in teacher education students’ collaborative learning

References

• Arrow, H., Poole, M. S., Henry, K. B., Wheelan, S., & Moreland, R. (2004). Time, change and development: The temporal perspective on groups. Small Group Research, 35(1), 73–105. doi: 10.1177/1046496403259757
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, M. (2002). Forms of cooperation in dyadic problem-solving. In P. Salienber and H. Benchekroun (Eds.), Cooperation and complexity (pp. 587–620). Paris: Hermés.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R., & Traum, D. (1999). The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 31–64). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barron, B. J., Pea, R., & Engle, R. E. (2013). Advancing understanding of collaborative learning with data derived from video records. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O'Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 203–219). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinn, C. A., O'Donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 77–97. doi: 10.1080/00220970009600650
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9206-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Fransen, J., Weinberger, A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Team effectiveness and team development in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 9–24. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.747947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 193–223. doi: 10.1023/A:1016209010120
   Google Scholar
• Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hadwin, A., 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.
   Google Scholar
• Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072–1088. doi: 10.1002/tea.10121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hämäläinen, R., & Arvaja, M. (2009). Scripted collaboration and group-based variations in a higher education CSCL context. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(1), 1–16. doi: 10.1080/00313830802628281
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266. doi: 10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hmelo-Silver, C., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48–94. doi: 10.1080/07370000701798495
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan, K. (2001). Collective metacognition: the interplay of individual, social, and cultural meanings in small groups’ reflective thinking. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology research, Vol. 7 (pp. 199–239). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
   Google Scholar
• Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurme, T-R., Palonen, T., & Järvelä, S. (2006). Metacognition in joint discussions: An analysis of the patterns of interaction and the metacognitive content of the networked discussions in mathematics. Metacognition and Learning, 1(2), 181–200. doi: 10.1007/s11409-006-9792-5
   Google Scholar
• Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., and Salonen, P. (2011). Socially shared metacognition of dyads of pupils in collaborative mathematical problem-solving processes. Learning and Instruction, 21, 379–393. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. (2013). New frontiers: regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.748006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., & Näykki, P. (2013). Analyzing regulation of motivation as an individual and social process – A situated approach. In S. Volet & M. Vauras (Eds.), Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation: Methodological advances (pp. 170–187). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., & Kinzer, C. (2008). Sensitivities to early exchange in synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) groups. Computers and Education, 51(1), 54–66. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khosa, D., & Volet, S. (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. doi: 10.1007/s11409-014-9117-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Laru, J., Näykki, P., & Järvelä, S. (2012). Supporting small-group learning using multiple web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher education context. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 29–38. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laru, J., Näykki, P., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Four stages of research on the educational Use of ubiquitous computing. Learning Technologies, IEEE Transactions, 8(1), 69–82. doi: 10.1109/TLT.2014.2360862
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, A., O'Donnell, A. M., & Rogat, T. K. (2014). Exploration of the cognitive regulatory sub-processes employed by groups characterized by socially shared and other regulation in a CSCL context. Computers in Human Behavior. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leinonen, P., Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2005). Conceptualizing awareness of collaboration: A qualitative study of a global virtual team. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 14(4), 301–322. doi: 10.1007/s10606-005-9002-z
   Google Scholar
• Mäkitalo-Siegl, K. (2008). From multiple perspectives to shared understanding: A small group in an online learning environment. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(1), 77–95. doi: 10.1080/00313830701786677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59. doi: 10.1080/10508400701793182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyake, N. (1986). Constructive interaction and the iterative process of understanding. Cognitive Science, 10, 151–177. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1002_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molenaar, I., & Järvelä, S. (2014). Sequential and temporal characteristics of self and socially regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 9(2), 75–85. doi: 10.1007/s11409-014-9114-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Näykki, P., & Järvelä, S. (2008). How pictorial knowledge representations mediate collaborative knowledge construction in groups. In C. Angeli (Ed.), Special issue: Distributed cognition approaches on technology in teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(3), 359–387. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2008.10782512
   Google Scholar
• Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P., & Järvenoja, H. (2014). Socio-emotional conflict in collaborative learning – A process-oriented case study in a higher education context. International Journal of Educational Research, 68, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2014.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reimann, P. (2009). Time is precious: Variable and event-centered approaches to process analysis in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 239–257. doi: 10.1007/s11412-009-9070-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogat, T. K., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2011). Socially shared regulation in collaborative groups: An analysis of the interplay between quality of social regulation and group processes. Cognition and Instruction, 29(4), 375–415. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2011.607930
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0203_1
   Google Scholar
• Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36(4), 321–350. doi: 10.1007/s11251-007-9034-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Efklides, A. (2005). Social interaction - What can it tell us about metacognition and coregulation in learning? European Psychologist, 10(3), 199–208. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.10.3.199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shirouzu, H., Miyake, N., & Masukawa, H. (2002). Cognitively active externalization for situated reflection. Cognitive Science, 26, 469–501. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2604_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Son, L. K., & Schwartz, B. L. (2002). The relation between metacognitive monitoring and control. In T. J. Perfect & B. L. Schwartz (Eds.), Applied metacognition (pp. 15–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers and Education, 46, 29–48. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veenman, S., Denessen, E., van den Akker, A., & van der Rijt, J. (2005). Effects of a cooperative learning program on the elaborations of students during help seeking and help giving. American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 115–151. doi: 10.3102/00028312042001115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Volet, S., & Summers, M. (2013). Interpersonal regulation in collaborative learning activities: Reflections on emerging research methodologies. In S. Volet & M. Vauras (Eds.), Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation: Methodological advances (pp. 204–220). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Volet, S., & Vauras, M. (2013). Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation: Methodological advances. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Volet, S., Vauras, M., Khosa, D., & Iiskala, T. (2013). Metacognitive regulation in collaborative learning: Conceptual developments and methodological contextualizations. In S. Volet and M. Vauras (Eds.), Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation: Methodological advances (pp. 67–101). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Wong, J., Fernandez, C. H., Shin, N., & Turrou, A. C. (2014). Engaging with others’ mathematical ideas: interrelationships among student participation, teachers’ instructional practices, and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 79–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 406–423. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winne, P. H., Hadwin, A. F., & Perry, N. E. (2013). Metacognition and computer-supported collaborative learning. In C. Hmelo-Silver, A. O'Donnell, C. Chan, & C. Chinn (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 462–479). New York: Taylor and Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345–376. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2404_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar