Socially Shared Regulation in Collaborative Groups: An Analysis of the Interplay Between Quality of Social Regulation and Group Processes

By Toni Kempler Rogat, Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia. 2011

316 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ebe8abc94ec04d1fb1befca75a17e695029a64a7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Socially shared regulation of learning and participation in social interaction in collaborative learning (2017, result): “These results bear resemblance to the findings by Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia (2011) who noted that interaction in a group with high quality social regulationwas predominantly collaborative rather than non-collaborative, i.e., the group shared ideas and worked jointly.”
Seven Affordances of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: How to Support Collaborative Learning? How Can Technologies Help? (2016, unknown): “Collaboration brings in an added dimension of complexity in regulation because the process needs to be shared and coordinated among group members (J € arvel € a & Hadwin, 2013; Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011).”
How Individual Self-Regulation Affects Group Regulation and Performance (2015, background): “(p. 28) This shared regulation is crucial for success (e.g., DiDonato, 2013; Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011) and is carried out with respect to the cognitive, motivational, and emotional aspects of learning.”
Capturing temporal and sequential patterns of self-, co-, and socially shared regulation in the context of collaborative learning (2017, background): “…(Iiskala et al., 2011; Khosa & Volet, 2014) and processes of socially shared regulation (Hadwin & Oshige, 2011; Malmberg et al., 2015; Kempler-Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011), and have explicated the role of the individual within the group by identifying forms of regulation, such as self-,…”
Understanding Regulated Learning in Situative and Contextual Frameworks (2015, background): “Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia (2011), for example, studied social regulation in collaborative groups.”
Striking a balance: Socio-emotional processes during argumentation in collaborative learning interaction (2017, background): “…ignoring, and discouraging participation, which may trigger further negative emotions and lead to non-engagement (Chiu & Khoo, 2003; LinnenbrinkGarcia, Rogat, & Koskey, 2011; Näykki, Järvelä, Kirschner, & Järvenoja, 2014; Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011; Webb, Ing, Kersting, & Nemer, 2006).”
Cognitive and Socio-Emotional Interaction in Collaborative Learning: Exploring Fluctuations in Students’ Participation (2020, methodology): “The criteria for identifying the types of interactions were based on prior research on cognitive interaction (Dillenbourg et al., 1995; Roschelle, 1992) and socio-emotional interaction in collaborative learning (Bakhtiar et al., 2017; Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011).”
New Frontiers: Regulating Learning in CSCL (2013, background): “In sum, ﬁndings illuminate socially shared regulation as a complex and extraordinary process that plays a central role in collaborative success (Kempler Rogat & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2011).”
Social Regulation of Learning During Collaborative Inquiry Learning in Science: How does it emerge and what are its functions? (2015, background): “a study with upper elementary students (aged 10) from the USA, Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia (2011) found students’ use of social regulation processes (i.”
Regulation During Cooperative and Collaborative Learning: A Theory-Based Review of Terms and Concepts (2015, methodology): “Directive regulation toward group goals might be a good starting point to develop socially shared regulation, but this issue has to be clarified empirically; Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia’s (2011) results indicate that this mode of regulation had a negative socioemotional effect on the group.”