CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this study was to identify higher education students' socially constructed motivation regulation
in collaborative learning. This was studied by collecting data of the students' experienced situationspecific social challenges in collaborative learning groups and observing what the students do to
overcome these challenges. Three methodsnamely, the AIRE, video-tapings, and group interviews
were used for reaching the individual- and group-level perspective on those situations that the stu- dents
felt were challenging and thus possibly activated shared regulation of motivation. In this study, it was
asked what kind of challenges the stu- dents have in collaborative learning. The cross-data summary
sums up the different data and shows that the students experienced more chal- lenges because of
different personal priorities in the beginning of the collaborative work, whereas collaboration challenges
increased toward the end. Challenges in teamwork were experienced throughout all three tasks.
However, it should be noticed that this study did not explicate how the change in the experienced
challenges was related to the differences between the differently structured tasks in addition to the
experience to work together, which increased from the beginning of the first collabora- tive task until to the
end of the last task.
It was also asked what the students do to overcome these challenges. The results show that socially
constructed self-regulation emerged when students worked in collaborative learning groups and made
consistent efforts to regulate their learning and engagement. Also, Kempler and Linnenbrink-Garcia
(2007) found evidence of group self-regulation when sixth-grade students worked on group activities. In
this study, it was seen that the students activated a variety of socially shared motivation reg- ulation
strategies, of which social reinforcement and task structuring were the most common. It was also found
that the students shaped their use of motivation regulation strategies to fit the specific situated challenges. The findings support the application of motivation regulation strategies to collaborative learning
but suggest that socially shared self-regulation has some specific features, such as that the group's
motivation may have to be observed through the reciprocal interactions of the group members. This study
shows that motivation regulation can be identified as a socially constructed activity. However, in an
attempt to evolve our thinking of how motivation is socially constructed, methodological solu- tions play a
major role. There is significant research literature (eg, Boekaerts, 1996) indicating that cognitive and
motivation strategies are intertwined aspects of self-regulated learning. When regulation of moti- vation is
studied in real-life situations, each person's purpose for using the strategy is an inseparable part of the
regulation process, and thus, data of each person's situation-specific cognitive actions may give more
accurate information about the students' motivation regulation. There is, though, a danger that conceptual
accuracy of motivation and cognition will be blurred.
Many studies have reported higher education students' regulation of effort and persistence in academic
tasks (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990), interest regulation (Sansone, Weir, Harpster, & Morgan,
1992), or regulation of goals (Wolters & Rosenthal, 2000). However, most of the earlier empirical findings
deal with motivation regulation in individual learning situations. Currently, the discussion about the social
in motiva- tion and self-regulated learning is becoming active among researchers (eg, Hadwin & Oshige,
2006). Jrvel et al. (2010) argued that in social learning, contextual motivation is an outcome but also
generated as a coregulated feature. Regulation of motivation is crucial in socially self- regulated learning
because motivation is constantly shaped and reshaped as the activity unfolds. This phenomenon, though,
is not easy to provide evidence for empirically. The earlier findings dealing with motivation and selfregulation have mainly been received from quantitative self- reports, which may limit the ways in which
students are able to focus on the dynamic processes of motivation regulation in a learning context
(Murphy & Alexander, 2000). The students have been asked to think about challenging situations while
they study and rate their possible moti- vation regulation strategy, but their actual challenge and their
activated strategy have not been matched. Because students' self-report about their behavior can be
inaccurate, data are required about actual behavior to confirm what students self-report (Pintrich, 2003).

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Finnish Science Academy research Grant No. 110734. We thank the two
anonymous reviewers for their valuable critiques of earlier versions of this manuscript.
370 Teachers College Record

References
Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated learning at the junction of cognition and motivation.
European Psychologist, 1, 100112. Boekaerts, M., & Cascallar, E. (2006). How far have we moved toward the
integration of theory and practice in self-regulation? Educational Psychology Review, 18, 199210. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005).
Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 199231. Brown, AL, & Campione, JC
(1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive
theory and practice (pp. 229270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt.
(1990). Anchored instruction and its
relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 210. Corno, L., & Mandinach, EB (2004). What
we have learned about student engagement in the past twenty years. In DM McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big
theories revisited: Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning (Vol. 4, pp. 299328). Greenwich,
CT: Information Age. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P.
Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 119). Amsterdam:
Pergamon. Dillenbourg, P., & Traum, D. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in
multi-modal collaborative problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 121151. Gehlbach, H. (2004). A
new perspective on perspective taking: A multidimensional approach to conceptualizing an aptitude. Educational
Psychology Review, 16, 207234. Hadwin, AF, & Oshige, M. (2006, April). Self-Regulation, co-regulation, and socially
shared reg- ulation: Examining the many faces of social in models of SRL. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Hadwin, AF, Oshige, M., Gress, CLZ, & Winne, PH
(in press). Innovative ways for using gStudy to orchestrate and research social aspects of self-regulated learning.
Computers in Human Behavior. Hadwin, AF, Wozney, L., & Pontin, O. (2005). Scaffolding the appropriation of selfregu- latory activity: A socio-cultural analysis of changes in teacherstudent discourse about a graduate research
portfolio. Instructional Science, 33, 413450. Hurme, TR., & Jrvel, S. (2005). Students' activity in computersupported collaborative problem solving in mathematics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical
Learning, 10, 4973. Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Socially-shared metacognition in peer learning. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 1, 147178. Jrvel, S. (1995). The cognitive apprenticeship model in a
technologically rich learning environment: Interpreting the learning interaction. Learning and Instruction, 5, 237259.
Jrvel, S., Jrvenoja, H., Veermans, M. (2008). Understanding dynamics of motivation in
socially shared learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 122135. Jrvel, S., & Volet, S. (2004).
Motivation in real-life, dynamic and interactive learning environments: Stretching constructs and methodologies. European Psychologist, 9, 193197. Jrvel, S., Volet, S. &
Jrvenoja, H. (2010). Research on motivation in collaborative learn- ing: Moving beyond the cognitive-situative divide
and combining individual and social processes. Educational Psychologist, 45, 1527. Jrvenoja, H., & Jrvel, S.
(2005). How students describe the sources of their emotional and motivational experiences during the learning
process: A qualitative approach. Learning and Instruction, 15, 465480.

Collaborative Learning Groups 371

Karasavvidis, I., Pieters, JM, & Plomp, T. (2000). Investigating how secondary school stu- dents learn to solve
correlational problems: Quantitative and qualitative discourse approaches to the development of self-regulation.
Learning and Instruction, 10, 267292. Kempler, TM, & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2007). Exploring self-regulation in
group con- texts. In CA Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Computer- Supported
Collaborative Learning Conference (pp. 357360). New Brunswick, NJ: International Society of the Learning
Sciences. Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediators of cognition-behavior consistency: Self-regulatory processes and
action versus state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 101
128). New York: Springer-Verlag. McCaslin, M. (2004). Coregulation of opportunity, activity, and identity in student
motiva- tion. In D. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited: Research on sociocultural influences on
motivation and learning (Vol. 4, pp. 249274). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. McCaslin, M., & Hickey, DT (2001).
Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian view. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Selfregulated learning and acade- mic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 227252). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum. Meyer, DK, & Turner, JC (2002). Discovering emotion in classroom motivation research.
Educational Psychologist, 37, 107114. Murphy, P., & Alexander, P. (2000). A motivated look at motivational
terminology.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 353. Mkitalo, K., Hkkinen, P., Jrvel, S., & Leinonen, P. (2002).
The mechanisms of common ground in the Web-based interaction. The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 247265.
Pintrich, PR (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation
in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667686. Resnick, L., Levine, J., & Teasley,
S. (Eds.). (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of
shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In CE O'Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning
(pp. 6997). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Salovaara, H., & Jrvel, S. (2003). Students' strategic actions in
computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning Environments Research, 6, 267285. Sansone, C., Weir, C., Harpster, L., & Morgan,
C. (1992). Once a boring task always a bor- ing task? Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63, 379390. Schunk, DH, & Zimmerman, J. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulation of learning and
performance.
issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schwartz, DL 1995. The emergence of abstract
representations in dyad problem solving.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 321354. Teasley, SD, & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem
space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In SP Lajoie & SJ Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools
(pp. 229258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Thompson, L., & Fine, G. (1999). Socially shared cognition, affect, and
behavior: A review
and integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 278302. Turner, JC (2006). Measuring selfregulation: A focus on activity. Educational Psychology
Review, 18, 293296. Webb, NM, & Palincsar, AS (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In DC Berliner & RC
Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841873). New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.

372 Teachers College Record

Winne, PH (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30,
173187. Winne, PH, & Hadwin, AF (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In DJ Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & AC
Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Winne, PH,
& Hadwin, AF (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In DH Schunk & BJ Zimmerman (Eds.),
Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297314). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Winne, PH, & Jamieson-Noel, DL (2002). Exploring students' calibration of self-reports
about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551572. Winne, PH, & Perry,
NE (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, PR Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of selfregulation (pp. 531566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Wolters, CA (1998). Self-regulated learning and collage
students' regulation of motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 224235. Wolters, CA (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an
underemphasized aspect of
self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 189205. Wolters, CA, & Rosenthal, H. (2000).
Hubungan antara keyakinan motivasi siswa dan penggunaan strategi regulasi motivasi. International Journal of
Educational Research, 33, 78, 801820. Zimmerman, BJ (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated learning.
Educational
Psychology, 81, 329339. Zimmerman, BJ (2000). Mencapai self-regulation. A social cognitive perspective. In B.
Boekaerts, PR Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 1339). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press. Zimmerman, BJ, & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learn- ing: Relating grade,
sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 5159. Zimmerman, B.,
& Schunk, D. (2008). Motivation, an essential dimension of self-regulated learning. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman
(Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research and applications (pp. 130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Collaborative Learning Groups 373

APPENDIX
Motivation Regulation Strategies in a Socially Shared Learning Situation
Regulation strategy Definition Example
SR Social reinforcing
Students' identification and Self-consequating*
administration of reinforce- ments influencing their moti- vation and shaping their joint behavior.
*Original strategy in Wolters (2003) categorization.
The students make reciprocal suggestions concerning how to plan the poster. Kalle sug- gests his idea, and Mari
com- pletes why don't we add. . . The other two complement the plan with positive sup- port. All are satisfied with
the plan.
G Socially shared goal- oriented
talk Goal-oriented self-talk*
Students using goal-oriented dialogue; thinking about or making salient various rea- sons they have for persisting
with or completing a task.
The group members discuss which topic to take for their poster task. Let's take the topic ' metacognition.' That is
also a good choice for preparing for the exam.
I Interest enhancement
Interest enhancement*
Increase aspects of students' intrinsic motivation or situa- tional interest while complet- ing an activity.
Have you all noticed that this is a brilliant idea! The students begin to express their own concrete examples to
increase their joint interest: I can describe my example. . .
TS (ES)
Task and environmental structuring Environmental structuring*
Decreasing the possibility of off-task behavior by structur- ing the task or the environ- mental conditions.
In a situation in which stu- dents have difficulties mak- ing progress with the task, one student says, Let's make a list
of five most important points.
SH Handicapping of group functioning Self-handicapping*
Manufacture of obstructions before or during a task that make performing the task more difficult.
This text is so complicated... The other group has a much bet- ter poster than we have.
E Efficacy management
Efficacy management*
Students' ability to monitor, evaluate, and purposefully control their own expecta- tions, perceptions of compe- tence,
or self-efficacy for the joint task.
The task is not easy, and this group is not working well or The discussion today has been productive, and we have
pro- gressed well!

374 Teachers College Record

SANNA JRVEL is a professor in education and a head of the Learning and Educational Technology
Research Unit (http://www.let.oulu.fi/) in the Department of Educational Sciences, University of Oulu,
Finland. Her main research interests deal with motivational processes in learning and self-regulated and
computer-supported collaborative learning.
HANNA JRVENOJA is PhD student the Learning and Educational Technology Research Unit
(http://www.let.oulu.fi/) in the Department of Educational Sciences, University of Oulu, Finland. Her
research focuses on motivational and emotional processes in learning.