Socially Shared Metacognition in CSCL Planning

Socially Shared Metacognition:Convergence & Divergence in CSCL

Planning

Allyson Fiona Hadwin, Mariel Miller, Elizabeth WebsterUniversity of Victoria, BC, Canada

Philip H. WinneSimon Fraser University, BC, Canada

University of Victoria Technology Integration & Evaluation Research Lab

Research was funded by a SSHRC Standard Research Grant 410-2008-0700 (A. Hadwin)

1

Socially Shared Metacognition:Convergence & Divergence in CSCL Planning

Purpose:

Explore theory driven methods for measuring socially shared regulation in collaborative tasks

Objectives

Define socially shared regulation (SSRL)

Introduce SSRL Negotiation Index for scoring aspects of socially shared regulated learning in collaborative tasks

Test viabiliy of this index on test cases representing different patterns of SSRL

Pilot index in four cases of group planning in an undergraduate collaborative task

2

What is Collaboration?

Coordinated and mutually interdependent work Moving toward a shared goal - joint task Leverages individual’s unique & distributed

knowledge/expertise Achieves something beyond what any individual could

achieve alone

(Dillenbourg, 1999; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Rochelle & Teasley, 1995, etc)

3

Theoretically Successful Collaboration Involves

4

CORLSRL

SSRL

CoRL

Self-Regulated Learning (SRL)

Each team member regulates his/her strategic

engagement

Socially Shared Regulation (SSRL)Interdependent or

collective regulation of group processes and

successful coordination of strategies

Builds on Winne & Hadwin, 1998 model of SRL

Planning involves:5

Phase 1: Developing task perceptionsWhat & Why

Phase 2: Constructing Goals/Standards

Students SRLBy constructing

These perceptions & goals

Students SSRLBy negotiating perceptions &

goals

Theoretically,Planning (Task perceptions & Goals) should...

Set students up for regulatory success Create standards for monitoring and regulating

collaboration Leverage distributed expertise Extend distributed expertise

6

Example Task PerceptionThe purpose of this collaborative writing assignment is…

Negotiated Team Perception• use what we have learned in the course so far• construct thesis statement• incorporate logical arguments• learn to collaborate as a group

Student 2a. use what we have learned in the coursec. Incorporate logical arguments

Student 3a. use what we have learned in the coursee. Justify with clear examples

Student 1a. use what we have learned in the courseb. Construct thesis statement

7

Evaluating SSRL





8

Convergence# of idea units in individuals’ perceptions that teams include in the

shared group perception via negotiation

Evaluating SSRL9





Divergence# of idea units in individuals’ answers not included in teams’ shared

perceptions and not included in the negotiation process

Evaluating SSRL10





Emergence# of idea units in team shared perceptions that appear during

negotiation and are not included individuals’ perceptions

SSRL Negotiation Index

C - D N

+( ) E

KNumber of idea units in shared team perceptions

Emergence = Σ idea units in team shared perceptions that appear during negotiation and are not included individuals’ perceptions

Divergence = Σ idea units in individuals’ answers not included in teams’ shared perceptions and not included in the negotiation process

Convergence = Σ idea units in individuals’ perceptions that teams include in the shared group perception via negotiation

Number of team members

11

We hypothesize that…

Low SSRL NegotationIndex for Task Perceptions

Low SSRL Negotiation Index for

Team goals

Limited opportunities for Monitoring, evaluating &

regulating team strategies

Weaker Team Task Performance

12

Negotiation Index: Theoretical Examples

Team Response

Member 1

Member 2

Member 3

A abcde abcde abcde

A b c d

ABD abcde abde abcde

AB c d e

ABCD ab cd ad

ABCDE a b c

ABCD abcd ab cd

ABDE abe ab abcde

ABDE abde abde abde

ABCDE abcde abcde abcde

ABCDE abd abd abd

EmergenceDivergenceConvergence

13

11 theoretical examples of individual vs. group responses in SSRL planning

Each letter represents 1 idea unit

Negotiation Index: Theoretical Example14


Team Response

Member 1

Member 2

Member 3

CON

A abcde abcde abcde 1+1+1

A b c d 0

ABD abcde abde abcde 3+3+3

AB c d e 0

ABCD ab cd ad 2+2+2

ABCDE a b c 1+1+1

ABCD abcd ab cd 4+2+2

ABDE abe ab abcde 3+2+4

ABDE abde abde abde 4+4+4

ABCDE abcde abcde abcde 5+5+5

ABCDE abd abd abd 3+3+3



Team Response

Member 1

Member 2

Member 3

CON DIV

A abcde abcde abcde 1+1+1 4+4+4

A b c d 0 1+1+1

ABD abcde abde abcde 3+3+3 2+1+2

AB c d e 0 1+1+1

ABCD ab cd ad 2+2+2 0

ABCDE a b c 1+1+1 0

ABCD abcd ab cd 4+2+2 0

ABDE abe ab abcde 3+2+4 1

ABDE abde abde abde 4+4+4 0

ABCDE abcde abcde abcde 5+5+5 0

ABCDE abd abd abd 3+3+3 0



Team Response

Member 1

Member 2

Member 3

CON DIV EMER

A abcde abcde abcde 1+1+1 4+4+4 0

A b c d 0 1+1+1 1

ABD abcde abde abcde 3+3+3 2+1+2 0

AB c d e 0 1+1+1 2

ABCD ab cd ad 2+2+2 0 0

ABCDE a b c 1+1+1 0 2

ABCD abcd ab cd 4+2+2 0 0

ABDE abe ab abcde 3+2+4 1 0

ABDE abde abde abde 4+4+4 0 0

ABCDE abcde abcde abcde 5+5+5 0 0

ABCDE abd abd abd 3+3+3 0 2



Team Response

Member 1

Member 2

Member 3

CON DIV EMER Index

A abcde abcde abcde 1+1+1 4+4+4 0 -3.00

A b c d 0 1+1+1 1 0.00

ABD abcde abde abcde 3+3+3 2+1+2 0 0.44

AB c d e 0 1+1+1 2 0.50

ABCD ab cd ad 2+2+2 0 0 0.50

ABCDE a b c 1+1+1 0 2 0.60

ABCD abcd ab cd 4+2+2 0 0 0.67

ABDE abe ab abcde 3+2+4 1 0 0.75

ABDE abde abde abde 4+4+4 0 0 0.92

ABCDE abcde abcde abcde 5+5+5 0 0 1.00

ABCDE abd abd abd 3+3+3 0 2 1.00

Now lets look at a real case example

Research Context Undergraduate course (ED-D 101) support students in

becoming self-regulated learners. Coursework included Major Collaborative Assignments

Strategy Library Assignment: Co-construct 5 strategies, justify with course concepts, experiment & evaluate strategies in real learning activities

18

Participants

12 undergraduate students (ED-D 101) 7 male, 5 female; Mean age = 19.2; SD = 2.02 4 collaborative course assignment groups (n=3)

19

Personal Planning Tool (PPT) Shared Planning Tool (SPT)

Individual Planning Collaborative task What are we being asked to do? What is the purpose of this

assignment? What is my goal for this assignment

Measures & Data Collection

Team Planning for current collaborative task What are we being asked to do? What is the purpose of this

assignment? What is our goal for this assignment

20

SSRL negotiation index

Profiles of strengths and weaknesses within a group in terms of their negotiation of shared regulation

Overall these index scores were good (all positive)

What?

SSRL –TP

Index

Why?

SSRL-TP Index

Goals

SSRL Index

Total

Planning

Index

Task Performance

(100)

Team 1 .91 .83 .83 2.57 90.0

Team 2 1.00 .67 .50 2.17 68.52

Team 3 .92 .91 1.00 2.83 81.48

Team 4 .78 .67 .78 2.23 46.29

Table 1. SSRL negotiation scores and task performance for each group

21

Team negotiation of Task Purpose Perceptions

22

Group Response

Member 1

Member 2

Member 3

CON DIV EMER Index

1 ABCD abc bcd abcd 4+3+4 0+0+0 0 .833

2 ABCD bc bc abcd 2+2+4 0+0+0 0 .667

3 ABCD abcd abc abcd 4+3+4 0+0+0 0 .917

4 ABCD bc bd abcd 2+2+4 0+0+0 0 .667


Strong positive negotiation scores occur when there is high convergence (and/or emergence) and an absence of divergence from individual to shared perceptions

All 4 groups converge on the same task perception, Within groups there was distributed TP expertise each member brought

to team negotiations

Task Perceptions:–Team 1Why are you being asked to do this?

A Build collaboration skills & knowledge

B Learn new strategiesC Apply strategies to real

learning• Monitor & Evaluate

strategies

Con = 10 Div = 0 Em = 0 SSRL = .833

a-b-c-d

a-b-c

b-c-d

Member 1

Member 2

Member 3

Team Response

The purpose for this assignment is to engage us in the what we have learned in the course thus far, and use these techniques to construct our own strategies that may be more specific to our ways of learning. It will help us to work collaboratively as a group, as well as help us in other courses and future academic success by using these strategies.

The purpose of this assignment is to encourage us to construct our own learning strategies, test them out, choose between multiple ones and find the one that works best for us, and then apply what we have learned into our school work and improve our learning experience as a whole.

I am being asked to do this assignment so that I can learn to collaborate more effectively within a group. By coming up with my own learning strategies, I am broadening my understanding of basic learning strategies, and more apt to apply them effectively to my own life. Also, I can develop my skills of systematically weighing the pros and cons of each learning strategy to deem it effective or not.

23

Team negotiation of task goals24

Group Response

Member 1

Member 2

Member 3

CON DIV EMER Index

1 ABCE ce ce cdef 2+2+2 0+0+2 2 .83

2 BCEG c bc ceg 1+2+3 0+0+0 0 .50

3 CE ce ce ce 2+2+2 0+0+0 0 1.00

4 CDE ce ce cde 2+2+3 0+0+0 0 .78


Strong positive negotiation scores occur when there is high convergence (and/or emergence) and an absence of divergence from individual to shared perceptions

Breadth of idea units in negotiated team goals varies greatly

Task Goal – Team 2

B. Good grade/ Good Assignment

C. Learn new strategiesE. Experiment /try

strategies strategiesG. Find/create strategies

that work for others

c-e-g

c

b-c

Member 1

Member 2

Member 3

Team Response

I want to learn the best way for me to prepare for tests. Furthermore, I tend find my self cramming for an exam. So, not having to do that and learn how to properly schedule my preparation.

I want to be able to identify different learning strategies and be able to know which situations best fit which strategy. I also want to be able to create a solid sample scenario with my group mates.

From this assignment I want to come up with a great strategy that suit me very well also very effective. In this way, I will know what kind of strategy is best for me and what is not working. Hopefully, the strategy that I find is also effective to others too so that other people can be benefit by using my strategy.

25

Con = 6 Div = 0 Em = 0 SSRL = .50

What is the value of the negotiation index?

Our approach to studying SSRL acknowledges that successful collaborative work involves productively regulating across all 3 forms of regulation (self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation)

Although results are preliminary, SSRL Negotiation Index offers one method of capturing dynamic process of becoming a team Negotiating consensus & co-constructing shared

metacognitive knowledge for the task amongst individuals in a group

Degree to which groups co-construct shared metacognitive planning knowledge may vary in terms of convergence, divergence, emergence

26

What is the value of the negotiation index?

Potential to identify areas of shared-regulation strength and weakness within a group

Trigger design of supports and scripts to help groups refine regulation in those weaker regulatory areas.

27

What is missing?

The index does not account for Accuracy and completeness of negotiated task perceptions Quality of team goal

For example, in the table below, teams identified 3-4 key ideas about the task requirements, however, there were actually 5 key ideas expressed by the teacher

28

Group Response

Member 1

Member 2

Member 3

CON DIV EMER Index


2 ABCD abcd abcd abcd 4+4+4 0+0+0 0 1.00


4 ABC ab ab abc 2+2+3 0+0+0 0 .778

…What is missing?

Treats all divergent ideas as “negative”. What about ideas that are discussed and negotiated to be dropped by the team?

To distinguish those “false divergent” ideas you need to examine the team’s negotiation dialogue

Did the individual not share the idea (divergence) Did they discuss and decide to exclude the idea as a team (a type

of convergence)

29

Future Directions

Validation of SSRL Negotiation Index Larger sample, variety of task contexts Multiple data sources (including chat records) Relationship to factors such as collaborative

challenges, quality of task enactment and performance, change over time

30

END31

[email protected]

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Education

Socially Shared Metacognition in CSCL Planning