English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In collaborative learning situations, monitoring is needed to maintain common progress toward shared goals. The present study aimed to analyze group-level monitoring events, as well as groups’ reactions to these events, to identify instances of adaptive regulation and maladaptive behavior. Three dimensions of monitoring events were qualitatively coded from video data: the monitoring target, valence, and phase, which provided insight into identifying critical moments during the collaborative process when regulation is needed. By looking at what kind of monitoring the groups engaged in, and how the groups progressed after the need for regulation arose, different types of adaptive regulation and maladaptive behavior were distinguished. In addition, group-level physiological state transitions in the heart rate were explored to see whether changes in regulation (adaptive regulation and maladaptive behavior) were reflected in the state transitions. Nine groups of three students each participated in a collaborative exam for an advanced high school physics course, during which video and heart rate data were collected. The results showed that on-track sequences were the most common, followed by adaptive sequences. The temporality of these sequences was examined, and four categories of group progress are described with case examples. A correlation analysis showed that physiological state transitions were positively correlated with on-track sequences. The opportunities and limitations of using three dimensions of monitoring and heart-rate based physiological state transitions to study adaptive regulation are discussed.

How does monitoring set the stage for adaptive regulation or maladaptive behavior in collaborative learning?