nt4 - self and social regulation in learning contexts an integrative

8/16/2019 NT4 - Self and Social Regulation in Learning Contexts an Integrative.

1/13

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile]

On: 1 September 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 906706830]

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Psychologist

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653642

Self and Social Regulation in Learning Contexts: An Integrative

Perspective

SIMONE VOLETa; MARJA VAURASb; PEKKA SALONENba School of Education, Murdoch University, Australia b Department of Teacher Education and Centrefor Learning Research, University of Turku, Finland

To cite this Article VOLET, SIMONE , VAURAS, MARJA and SALONEN, PEKKA(2009) 'Self- and Social Regulation inLearning Contexts: An Integrative Perspective', Educational Psychologist, 44: 4, 215 — 226

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00461520903213584

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213584

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653642http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213584http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213584http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653642


2/13

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 44(4), 215–226, 2009

Copyright C Division 15, American Psychological Association

ISSN: 0046-1520 print / 1532-6985 online

DOI: 10.1080/00461520903213584

Self- and Social Regulation in LearningContexts: An Integrative Perspective

Simone Volet

School of Education

Murdoch University, Australia

Marja Vauras and Pekka Salonen

Department of Teacher Education and Centre for Learning Research

University of Turku, Finland

This article outlines the rationale for an integrative perspective of self- and social regulation

in learning contexts. The role of regulatory mechanisms in self- and social regulation models

is examined, leading to the view that in real time collaborative learning, individuals and social

entities should be conceptualized as self-regulating and coregulated systems at the same time.

Living systems theory provides support for the claim that although all forms of regulation have

an adaptive function, the distinct, regulatory processes occurring at different systemic levels

(e.g. individual, social) are concurrent and interdependent. Challenges for future research from

an integrative perspective are discussed.

In this article we argue that current concepts and models

of regulation, both individual (self-regulation) and social

(coregulation), need added conceptual and empirical scrutiny

to allow us to better understand learning in real-life, time-

framed collaborative activities among peers. Our claim is that

although the necessity to account for the inherently social na-

ture of learning and motivation is widely accepted in the so-

ciocultural, sociocognitive, and situative literature, it remains

unclear how self- and social regulatory mechanisms interre-

late and might cocontribute to explain individual and group

engagement in collaborative activities as these unfold in real

time. We outline our rationale for an integrative perspec-

tive and more holistic analyses of the dynamic psychological

and social nature of self- and coregulation, and examine the

critical question of reductionism in the pursuit of buildingmodels of regulation that have strong exploratory and pre-

dictive power. Our argument for an integrative perspective is

based on the view that different regulatory constructs share

a common adaptive function, yet each with a distinct applied

focus. This justifies the proposal for a concurrency princi-

ple that stresses the interdependent nature of all regulatory

mechanisms.

The article is divided into four sections. The first exam-

ines the role of regulatory mechanisms in self-regulation and

Correspondence should be addressed to Simone Volet, School of Educa-

tion, Murdoch University, South Street, Murdoch 6150, Australia. E-mail:

[email protected]

social regulation models. Accordingly, we take a systemic,

cross-level approach to review, in turn, the role of social

regulatory mechanisms in self-regulation models and recip-

rocally, the place of self-regulation in social regulation mod-

els. The second section reconsiders the notion of regulation

in learning contexts, pointing out the danger of reduction-

ism and presenting our case for an integrative perspective.

After referring to living systems theory, which treats self-

and coregulatory mechanisms as interdependent, fundamen-

tal adaptive mechanisms of any self-organizing system, we

discuss the common function and distinct foci of regulatory

constructs, concluding with an examination of the critical

role of agency. The third section briefly comments on the

conceptual value of an integrative perspective in regard to

regulation of motivation and emotion in learning. We con-clude by discussing some challenges for future research from

an integrative perspective.

THE ROLE OF REGULATORY MECHANISMSIN SELF-REGULATION AND SOCIAL

REGULATION MODELS

The significance of regulation (self-, other- and coregula-

tion) for effective cognitive performance, identified in the

developmental literature and stressed both in sociocognitive


3/13

216 VOLET, VAURAS, SALONEN

psychology and sociocultural perspectives, has had a major

impact on recent research related to learning and instruction.

The seminal work of John Flavell and Ann Brown in the

1970s and 1980s (Brown, 1978; Flavell, 1976) on metacog-

nition and self-regulation stimulated a rethinking of the

components of effective learning and how it is best pro-moted through instruction. This led to an explosion of in-

tervention studies theoretically grounded in the Vygotskian

(1930/1978) notions of Zone of Proximal Development and

scaffolded guidance from other-regulation to self-regulation.

These interventions, which contributed to the development

of the individual-in-context perspective for understanding

learning in real-life situations within sociocognitive theory

(Pintrich, 2000), occurred concurrently with the emergence

of the situated and distributed cognition movements (Collins,

Brown, & Newman, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Salomon,

1993), as well as sociocultural and situative perspectives

on learning and development (Greeno, 1998; 2006; Hickey,

2003; McCaslin & Hickey, 2001; McCaslin, 2009; Nolen &

Ward, 2008; Rogoff, 2003).

Across perspectives, regulatory constructs have been used

to explain individual and social processes of adaptation, en-

gagement, participation, learning, and development. Self-

regulation focuses on the cognitive and metacognitive reg-

ulatory processes used by individuals to plan, enact, and

sustain their desired courses of action, whereas social reg-

ulation captures how individuals reciprocally regulate each

other’s cognitive and metacognitive processes and sometimes

engage in genuinely shared modes of cognitive and metacog-

nitive regulation. The power of regulatory constructs lie in

their capacity to highlight two often overlooked aspects of human adaptive behavior, dynamics (i.e., the continuous sit-

uational and developmental adjustments of an individual’s

behavior to environmental changes) and relationality (i.e.,

the functional relatedness of an individual’s behavior to the

behavior of others and to the characteristics of environmen-

tal objects; Fogel, 1993; Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1987).

On the one hand, scholars interested in the development of

self-regulation have stressed the significance of individual’s

metacognitive and scaffolded experiences in naturalistic or

instructional learning environments, occasionally using the

term coregulation to represent the transitional process in the

development of self-regulation. On the other hand, schol-

ars interested in the importance of coregulatory mechanisms

have stressed the significance of the social systems that indi-

viduals are an integral part of, and which stretch beyond

teacher–learner interactions. This latter perspective, thus,

considers individual adaptation as the outcome of enabling

coregulatory processes.

Overall, while both perspectives recognize the other en-

tity, self or social, their relation to the “unstressed” en-

tity is not always adequately defined. According to Bailey

(2006, p. 293), cross-level analyses (in this case, analyses

that combine individual and social levels) are very impor-

tant but not often undertaken since “intimidating” and re-

quiring “intellectual courage.” In our view, the challenge

may be because of the difficulty of theoretically integrating

the self-regulatory mechanisms, assumed to explain indi-

vidual adaptation from the person’s subjective perspective,

with the coregulatory mechanisms, assumed to explain in-

dividual adaptation from a social system perspective. As aconsequence, the concurrent and interdependent nature of

self-regulatory and coregulatory processes has been over-

looked. We argue that this presents major limitations for un-

derstanding the complex regulatory processes operating in

real-time collaborative learning activities, such as inquiry-

based projects or problem-based learning.

To provide a basis to our argument for an integrative per-

spective, we take a systemic, cross-level approach to consider

the ways in which self-regulation models and social coreg-

ulation models have conceptualized the interdependency of

self- and coregulatory processes. This is done first through

reviewing the role of social regulatory mechanisms in self-

regulation models and second through examining the place

of self-regulation in social models of regulation. The pur-

pose of taking a systemic, cross-level approach is intended

to avoid dichotomizing the regulatory constructs and instead

highlighting the diverse ways in which they have been related

to each other in various bodies of literature.

The Role of Social Regulatory Mechanismsin Self-Regulation Models

Self-regulation models can be found in developmental psy-

chology, cognitive psychology, and research on learning and

instruction. The self-regulation models found in develop-mental psychology have been used to explain how young

children gradually develop autonomy and control of their ac-

tions (i.e., self-regulation) in interaction with others. From

a developmental perspective, the roots of self-regulation can

be found in the intentional actions of infants (Bandura, 1986;

Borkowski, 1996; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997) as they in-

teract with significant others. This position contrasts some-

what with the Piagetian view (DeVries, 2000; Inhelder &

Piaget, 1958) of loosely age-related cognitive progressions

toward greater independence from immediate sensory stimuli

and concrete situational objects to abstract formal reasoning.

The significance of reciprocal interactions between individ-uals aiming at self- and social regulation provided by the

environment is common in developmental research, where,

if not coregulation then other-regulation is seen to play an

essential role in the growth of self-regulation capacities and

skills.

A significant body of research focusing on infant–

parent transactions has suggested that describing person–

environment relationships in infancy as more “other-

regulated” or “bound to immediate stimuli” does not

adequately reflect early development (cf., e.g., Beebe &

Lachmann, 1998). This research has revealed that the so-

cial is already present in the early stage of the development


4/13

SELF- AND SOCIAL REGULATION 217

of self-regulation. At around 6 to 12 months of age, infants

begin to increasingly show participation in coregulation with

both caregivers and shared external objects (Bakeman &

Adamson, 1984; Fogel & Thelen, 1987). Through such social

mediation, the infant becomes distanced from the immedi-

acy of sensorystimuli, firstthrough dyadiccoordinations, and then through “triadic” coordinations, as the infant embeds his

or her object-focused attention into social contexts (Bakeman

& Adamson, 1984). Along with the growing understanding

of others as intentional agents like themselves, infants not

only begin to accommodate to other-regulations but also par-

ticipate and actively initiate cocoordinated actions related

to caregivers and to shared objects (Fogel & Thelen, 1987;

Tomasello & Haberl, 2003). In these self-regulation models,

therefore, elementary forms of other-, self-, and coregulatory

functions seem to work in concert even in such early coordi-

nations, and as such, developmental “causal primacy” cannot

be assigned to any of them (Fogel & Thelen, 1987).

In contrast, the self-regulation models that emerged

from cognitive psychology in the 1970s have tended—until

recently—to focus on individuals’ unique capacity to reg-

ulate their own endeavors. Since Flavell’s (1976) pioneer-

ing work, metacognition, that is, “cognition about cognition”

and “regulation of cognition,” has been recognized as a cru-

cial concept in understanding the human mind. In general,

metacognition has referred to the awareness that individ-

ual learners have about their general cognitive strengths and

weaknesses, and of the cognitive resources they apply to meet

the demands of particular tasks, as well as their knowledge

and skills about how to regulate engagement in tasks, to adapt

to situational demands, or to optimize learning processes and outcomes (cf., e.g., Winne & Perry, 2000).

Once applied to the field of learning and instruc-

tion, the concept of self-regulation has been transformed

into self-regulated learning (SRL; Boekaerts, Pintrich, &

Zeidner, 2000; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997, 2008; Zimmer-

man, 2000), with a suggestion that SRL may be a special case

of self-regulation applied to academic endeavors (Dinsmore,

Alexander, & Loughlin, 2008). SRL refers to the skill or

executive aspect of metacognition, understood as individual

dynamic awareness, monitoring and regulation of cognitive

processes during engagement in academic tasks, that is, any

cognitive activities endorsed in learning environments (e.g.,

writing, reading comprehension, problem solving; Brown,

1987; Flavell, Miller, & Miller, 1993). Self-regulated learn-

ers are viewed as capable of generating internal feedback

from their cognitive processing (Butler & Winne, 1995) as

well as being adept at modifying their learning behaviors

in response to shifting situational demands or conditions

(Zimmerman, 1989), thus possessing agency of their own

actions. An important aspect of the self-regulation models

grounded in cognitive psychology is, therefore, the adjust-

ment of one’s ongoing action to perceived (current) or an-

ticipated (future) changes in the affordances and constraints

of the environment. This, according to Fogel (1992), may

involve counteracting inertia, the natural tendency to con-

tinue the existing direction and intensity of behavior. Rec-

ognizing that the environment creates affordances and con-

straints for individual self-regulation, however, explicitly

points to external coregulatory elements in the self-regulation

process. The significance of others in the development of self-regulation is explicit in the seminal work of both Piaget and

Vygotsky (Fox & Risconscente, 2008).

Research on SRL in the classroom has highlighted

these phenomena, with findings that young children’s ef-

forts to self-regulate during task performance is not merely

determined by personal processes but rather influenced

by environmental and behavioral variables in a reciprocal

way (Meyer & Turner, 2002; Patrick & Middleton, 2002;

Zimmerman, 2000). Over the years, many interventions

aimed at fostering the development of self-regulation have

therefore incorporated reciprocal regulatory processes in

their instructional design (Bearison, Dorval, & LeBlanc,

2001; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Pressley, 1995). Most of

this research is theoretically grounded in the Vygotskyan

(1930/1978) view of a gradual shift from other- to self-

regulation of the mediational processes. Individual appropri-

ation of the regulatory control processes is viewed as taking

place through structured interactions with a more able other

(e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1984) or through joint problem

solving with peers (e.g., Artzt & Armour-Thomas, 1997).

Hadwin, Wozney, and Pontin’s (2005) recent work labeled

the gradual shift in regulatory control from teacher regulation

to learner self-regulation as a temporary process of coregu-

lation, which was operationalized in their study as evidence

of teacher indirect and learner indirect regulation. Hadwinet al.’s approach can be treated as hybrid in nature because

it recognizes explicitly the contribution of social regulatory

processes in individual’s development of self-regulation.

Overall, the cognitive models of self-regulation have

tended to privilege the self as a rational, thinking agent with

goals and strategies at the expense of reciprocal regulatory

processes in social activities. Matusov (1998) criticized this

approach, however, arguing that such models are ethnocen-

tric because of their limited power “for analyzing develop-

ment in diverse socio-cultural practices where participants’

solo activities are not necessarily privileged and emphasized”

(p. 326). Others, like the developmental and the learning and

instruction models of self-regulation, have incorporated so-

cial regulatory elements as instrumental to the development

of self-regulation. Many of the criticisms expressed by so-

ciocultural theorists, like Valsiner (1991, 2002), Matusov

(1998), Wenger (1998), Rogoff (2003), and Hickey (2003),

have therefore been directed at models of self-regulation in

the strict cognitive tradition, which are perceived as overem-

phasizing individual agency and treating individuals and col-

lectivities as separate entities instead of mutually constituted.

In sum, and consistent with their grounding in devel-

opmental and cognitive psychology, self-regulation mod-

els have been conceptualized mainly with a focus on


5/13


individuals’ (conscious or unconscious) processes of adapta-

tion to personal and contextual aspects. None of these mod-

els, however, have totally ignored the cocontribution of social

regulatory processes in enabling the development of self-

regulation. Although the idea that self-regulation takes place

in social systems where self-regulating individuals inevitablyinfluence each other would not be contested, an integration

of self- and social regulatory processes as interdependent

and concurrent to understand real-life time-framed collab-

orative learning activities has not yet emerged within the

self-regulation literature. Furthermore, the idea that individ-

uals may be conceived as self-regulating systems like any

other living systems, but with added metacognitive capac-

ity, has not yet been put forward. The idea, based on living

systems theory (Miller, 1978), that individuals represent one

type of living systems among others is elaborated further as

part of our theoretical argument for an integrative perspective

of self and social regulation. We now turn to social regulation

models, which have taken as their focus social entities and

stressed coregulatory processes.

The Place of Self-Regulation in SocialRegulation Models

The identification of social regulation models is not easy

because the field is still emerging, messy, and in constant

flux. Most models tend to be underdeveloped with limited

empirical validation, which is reflected in the diverse ways

in which social regulation has been conceptualized. The pic-

ture is further complicated by various appropriations of the

term sociocultural in the literature (cf. Nolen & Ward, 2008),a perspective commonly claimed as theoretical grounding

for social regulation. In this section, we nevertheless attempt

to present several models of social regulation, as they have

emerged from three theoretical perspectives—sociocultural,

sociocognitive, and situative—remaining fully aware that re-

searchers’ interpretations of these perspectives do not al-

ways converge. Following Nolen and Ward, we distinguish

them by the ways in which each of them has construed the

relationship of individual and context, namely, individuals’

internalization process of social and cultural influences (so-

ciocultural), individuals’ cognitions and interpretations of

contexts that afford or constrain engagement and participa-tion (sociocognitive), or whole activity systems that allow

coconstruction and negotiation of meaning (situative). Com-

mon across most social regulation models is the focus on

social entities as the object of analysis, the key role given to

the notion of coregulation, and the limited articulation with

the concept of self-regulation. Consistent with the distinct

theoretical groundings, the conceptualization and use of the

term coregulation varies, which provided a useful focus for

our analysis of the various models of social regulation.

Within the sociocultural perspective represented by

Hickey and McCaslin (Hickey, 2003; McCaslin, 2004, 2009;

McCaslin & Hickey, 2001), coregulation refers to the overall

dynamic regulatory process by which the social environment

supports individuals’ internalization of social and cultural

influences. Within this perspective, coregulation is not di-

rected at the achievement of explicit individual or collective

goals (which would provide a direct link to self-regulation)

but aimed at productive coparticipation in a social activity,with impact on individual development in the broad sense

(e.g., identity development in McCaslin, 2009).

The place given to the individual within these socio-

cultural models of regulation varies, the emphasis being

on coregulated social activities that provide opportunities

and constraints for individuals to participate and develop

(which includes side references to the development of self-

regulation; e.g. McCaslin & Good, 1996). Hickey’s (2003)

most socially focused model of coregulation stresses the

“mutual constitution” (cf. Wenger, 1998) of individuals and

collectivities and pays little attention to individual psycho-

logical processes, and in particular the personal agency un-

derlying self-regulatory processes. According to McCaslin

(2009), however, it is through engagement in activities and

emergent interactions that individuals come to internalize or

alternatively resist social and cultural influences, and thus de-

velop as individuals. Her model gives personal dispositions

and readiness a mediating role in the process but the notion

of personal choice, a key feature of self-regulation, is also

played down. For McCaslin, opportunity supports personal

strivings or, alternatively, leads individuals to reconsider their

goals, struggle through conflict and eventually settle for an

outcome that accommodates the multiple coregulatory pres-

sures.

Furthermore, and in contrast to Hickey (2003), the ideathat participation ultimately leaves some “cognitive residue”

(Salomon, 1993, p. 133) for subsequent improved individ-

ual participation is given some recognition in McCaslin’s (in

press) model. Consistent with the sociocultural grounding,

however, this learning is not conceptualized as metacogni-

tive knowledge that could be accessed in abstraction for self-

regulatory purposes. Instead, it represents a form of knowing

which gets embedded in the individual’s personal dispositions

that may mediate subsequent opportunity. How learning envi-

ronments as social systems create opportunity and coregulate

participants is no doubt a powerful explanatory perspective

at the macro level of development. But the extent to which

sociocultural models of social regulation can contribute to

explaining development and learning at the more microlevel

remains to be established. This might depend on how mod-

els, such as McCaslin’s (2009), will be able to address and

integrate the dynamics of real-time regulatory processes that

take place in actual social learning activities. It may be at

that level that an explicit articulation with individual self-

regulatory processes becomes critical.

Other references to coregulation from a sociocultural per-

spective can be found in Hadwin et al.’s (2005) research.

Their hybrid approach was, however, reviewed in the previ-

ous section as a self-regulation model due to the authors’ own


6/13


framing of their work within a “sociocultural perspective of

self-regulated learning” (p. 413). Hadwin et al.’s work repre-

sents an interesting example of overlapping perspectives, as it

considers self-regulation along a gradual process of appropri-

ation where social regulation (coregulation) plays a key role

while it maintains the ultimate focus on the self-regulatingindividual.

In contrast to sociocultural views, coregulation from a so-

ciocognitive perspective (Beebe & Lachmann, 1998; Iiskala,

Vauras, & Lehtinen, 2004; Järvelä & Järvenoja, in press;

Vauras, Iiskala, Kajamies, Kinnunen & Lehtinen, 2003) has

been used to understand how individuals interact with oth-

ers in a joint activity. From this perspective, coregulation

refers to the dynamic processes of coconstructed knowledge,

shared problem solving or other forms of collaborative learn-

ing. The emphasis on individual learning and development

as the outcome of participation in coregulated learning pro-

cesses highlights that this perspective has emerged out of the

cognitive, person-in-context perspective (Pintrich, 2000) and

repeated calls for a conceptual shift toward understanding

learning, motivation, and development within social activi-

ties and real time.

A number of empirical studies of coregulation from a so-

ciocognitive perspective have been carried out at microlevels

(e.g., Iiskala et al., 2004; Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2005; Salonen,

Vauras, & Efklides, 2005; Vauras et al., 2003) and mesolevels

(e.g., Nolen et al., 2009) levels of learning and development,

and with a focus on social activities that take place in real

time. These studies have shown how peers play a mediat-

ing role in the participation and learning of others, through

bidirectional, reciprocal, or mutual modes of coregulation.These concepts are used to distinguish between strength

of reciprocity, where “mutual” characterizes the strongest

degree of sharing and symmetry between participants. The

term shared regulation has also emerged from the analysis

of highly able peers’ consensual monitoring and regulating

joint cognitive processes in demanding joint problem-solving

situations (Iiskala et al., 2004; Vauras et al., 2003). This phe-

nomenon is considered the most profoundly social mode of

regulation, because it refers to individuals’ metacognitive

processes that operate as a genuine social entity, aimed at a

single direction, that is, the fully shared goal for the activity.

In this mode, regulation is not reducible to individual activity

but is explained by the activity of the social entity. This is re-

flective of Salomon andGloberson’s (1987) notion that a team

is a social system, a qualitatively different entity than a group

of individuals working side-by-side. The metacognitive na-

ture of such productive coregulation processes (in contrast

to the pragmatic nature of other coregulatory processes, cf.

Salonen et al., 2005) brings metacognitive coregulation of

learning close to the notion of effective self-regulated learn-

ing, but at the level of the social entity (cf. thus the notion of

coordinated self-regulations) ratherthan the individual entity.

Consistent with the cognitive theoretical underpinning,

participants in the aforementioned studies are implicitly con-

ceptualized as multiple self-regulating agents who coregulate

each other’s engagement and learning, and at times oper-

ate as a social entity or system that is not reducible to ag-

gregated individual metacognitions. Sociocognitive perspec-

tives of coregulation thus acknowledge the mediating role

of individuals’ metacognitive experiences and subsequentactions in time-framed coregulated activities, an aspect un-

derdeveloped in sociocultural perspectives of coregulation

(e.g., Hickey, 2003; McCaslin, 2004, 2009). But the extent to

which aggregate measures of group members’ self- or other-

regulated learning processes lead and contribute to effective

metacognitive coregulation of the group as a whole remains

speculative, as it has not yet been scrutinized analytically on

the basis of empirical evidence.

Finally, the concept of coregulation is also found in re-

search from a situative perspective. This perspective, artic-

ulated by Greeno (1998, 2006) and Nolen and colleagues

(e.g., Nolen & Ward, 2008) calls for whole activity systems

as the prime units of analysis on the ground that systems

need to be understood before claims can be made about the

individuals who constitute them (Greeno, 2006). Accord-

ing to Nolen and Ward (2008), studying “the joint activity

of individuals, materials, and anything else that is imbued

with meaning in a social and physical space” using multiple

methodologies (e.g., cognitive tools, ethnographic analyses)

has the potential to provide insight into the “on-going devel-

opment of individuals, classroom communities and schools”

as they engage in meaningful socially organized work

(p. 16). Although the term coregulation is not commonly

used in empirical work from a situative perspective (one

exception is Volet, Summers, & Thurman, 2009), the no-tion of social regulation is omnipresent through references

to “discourse practices co-constructed by the community’s

participants” (Nolen & Ward, 2008, p. 450) or ways of inter-

acting being “co-constructed by the individual and others in

the group” (Greeno, 2006, p. 88).

Like the sociocultural perspective, the situative perspec-

tive appears to pay limited attention to the development of

mental representations of knowledge and instead stresses

the processes of negotiation and coconstruction of mean-

ing that individuals cocontribute to developing in interaction

(Greeno, 1998). Similarly, the relation between coregulatory

and self-regulatory processes has not been elaborated upon

within the situative perspective.

In sum, and across sociocultural, sociocognitive, and situ-

ative perspectives, the notion of coregulation is conceptually

attractive, because it stresses the mutuality and sharing em-

bedded in social regulation within group and collaborative

learning settings. Coregulation highlights the significance

of affordances and constraints for individual participation

that are created in social learning environments, and where

individuals’ sociohistorical and current processes, artifacts

and other environmental aspects cocontribute to engagement

and participation. Yet, despite recognition of the mediating

role of individuals in the overall process of coregulation


7/13


(sociocultural perspective), of reciprocal and mutual pro-

cesses of regulation (sociocognitive perspective), and of in-

dividual regulation within the group (situative perspective),

there still appears to be limited integration of self- and so-

cial regulatory processes as interdependent and concurrent

within the social regulation literature.

REGULATION IN LEARNING CONTEXTSRECONSIDERED: THE CASE FOR AN

INTEGRATIVE PERSPECTIVE

Our understanding of how self-regulation and coregulation

cross-fertilize each other in real-life collaborative learning

situations to create adaptive learning and development is

still in its infancy. There is, however, growing conceptual

agreement in the literature from both sociocultural and so-

ciocognitive perspectives that both self and social forms

of regulation are needed to understand regulation in actual

learning activities. For example, sociocultural theorists, like

Wertsch (1994), Matusov (1998), and Valsiner (2001) have

argued that both solo and joint activities are inherently social.

McCaslin’s (2009) model of coregulation also acknowledges

the potentially mediating role of personal dispositions, in in-

teraction with social and cultural sources of influences, on

emerging identity and adaptive learning. From a sociocogni-

tive perspective, effective coregulation of learning is assumed

to be goal directed and aimed at participants’ coconstruction

of knowledge and cognitive growth for all partners. How-

ever, the role of the self and the social is given different

weight and lucidity depending on the perspective. Movingfrom the macrolevel and cultural and social angle, sociocul-

tural theorists have not yet elaborated the self in relation tothe

social . One exception is Martin’s (2007) compelling case that

selfhood had to be conceptualized as “social and intersubjec-

tive” in nature” but also displaying a “socially engendered

reactivity that displays an always present agentic quality”

(p. 87). Vice versa, moving from the individual, psychologi-

cal angle, sociocognitive theorists have not yet well concep-

tualized the social in relation to the self . We have argued

(Vauras, Salonen, & Kinnunen, 2008) that a group is a social

system, a qualitatively different entity from individuals work-

ing side by side (Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1987; Salomon& Globerson, 1987), and therefore conceptualizations, which

avoid reducing the group’s motivational and interrelational

characteristics and functioning to its individuals’ character-

istics, are needed to understand group dynamics as a com-

plex situational interplay across different systemic levels.

The latest developments of sociocognitive and situative per-

spectives, where the focus is on interpersonal systems with

flexible shifting of agency (e.g., Vauras, Salonen, Lehtinen &

Kinnunen, 2009), cognitive-interactional synthesis (Greeno,

2006; Volet et al., 2009) or continual coconstruction and ne-

gotiation of meaning (Nolen & Ward, 2008), may lead in this

direction.

An integrative model, therefore, which could accommo-

date the unique capacity of individuals to reflect upon, feel

about, and act on their experience as they actually partici-

pate in coregulated social activities would have significant

potential to further advance our understanding of learning

and development. We argue that by treating both individualsand social entities as self-regulating and coregulated living

systems at the same time, one can avoid the danger of reduc-

tionism of regulatory functions to either the individual or the

social level of analysis. Conceptualizations of regulation that

ignore the interdependence of self and social levels of analy-

sis are faced with a number of neglected aspects. These can

be addressed through avoiding reductionism of regulatory

functions and adopting a concurrency principle.

Danger of Reductionism and Need

for a Concurrency Principle

One of the main grounds obscuring current conceptualiza-

tions of regulatory constructs has been the tendency toward

reducing the complex interplay of regulations at different

systemic levels to the impact of one single systemic level.

The danger of reductionism can be in two opposite direc-

tions: reduction to the individual or reduction to the social.

Reduction to the individual, on one hand, can be seen in most

cognitive self-regulation models that have been formulated

merely in individualistic terms, with little consideration of

the “vertical” infiltrations from higher systemic levels (i.e.,

interpersonal interactions, relationships, social structure, so-

ciocultural structure), a point made by Hinde and Stevenson-Hinde (1987). Reduction to the social, on the other hand, is

exemplified in some models grounded in a sociocultural per-

spective. Although conceptualizing participantsand theirdis-

positions through sociocultural participation structures and

social mediation, these models underestimate the simultane-

ous effects arising from the interactions and regulations dis-

played at other systemic levels (e.g., genetic, physiological,

intrapsychological, interpersonal; cf. Hinde & Stevenson-

Hinde, 1987, p. 17).

Systemic approaches, as exemplified by living systems

(Bailey, 2006; Miller, 1978; Weiss, 1969) and dynamic sys-

tems (Lewis, 2000) that are widely applying regulation con-cepts, avoid the danger of reductionism through considering

the unique contribution and relative independence of each

systemic level but also the interdependence of systemic lev-

els (Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1987). The systemic view is

elaborated, for example, in infant research. Beebe and Lach-

mann (1998) discussed systems thinking in this research area

(Fogel, 1992; Sander, 1995; Tronick, 1989), and bring forth

the argument of self- and interactive regulation as concurrent

and reciprocal processes, which are viewed as simultaneous,

complementary, and optimally in dynamic balance. The self-

regulation process and the relational process therefore simul-

taneously affect the success of the other, with the possibility


8/13


of imbalanceand lack of symmetry in participants’ respective

engagement in bidirectional coregulatory processes.

To date, the advantage of systemic theories and their im-

plications have not yet been taken up in educational research.

Most empirical work on regulatory processes in educational

contexts tends to focus on level-specific (“horizontal”) regu-lations and ignores the simultaneous, cross-level (“vertical”)

interactions that may contribute to the developmental and

contextual-processual (dis)continuities (Hinde & Bateson,

1984; Miller & Miller, 1995). In our view, the tendency to

reduce to either the individual or the social leads to level-

specific systemic conceptualizations that are characterized

by the neglect of the following four important aspects of

actual learning settings:

1. The real time multimodal and multilevel processes (e.g.,

the situational interplay of concurrent physiological, psy-

chological and interpersonal processes, i.e. concurrency

principle).

2. The context (e.g., situational cues triggering differential

appraisals and regulatory patterns in persons with differ-

ent response tendencies).

3. The developmental history and individual psychological

organization (e.g., differential cognitive-developmental

structures, cognitive-metacognitive skills, motivational

belief-systems).

4. The developmental history of interpersonal organization

(e.g., participant’s differential sociocognitive response

tendencies in different dyadic or group settings).

These points, we believe, contribute to making a strongcase for the adoption of an integrative perspective on self- and

social regulation that recognizes that distinct regulatory pro-

cesses occur concurrently at different systemic levels (e.g.,

individual, social) and that these levels are interdependent

and continually effecting each other.

Argument for an Integrative Perspective

In this section, we outline our argument for an integrative

and concurrent conceptualization of regulatory constructs to

explain adaptive learning in actual, time-framed collabora-tive learning contexts. First, we examine the interdependent

role of regulatory mechanisms in living systems more gen-

erally. We consider that this is necessary to provide broader

theoretical support for the need to integrate self- and coregu-

latory constructs. Second, we argue that in regard to learning

anddevelopment, both self- andcoregulation processes play a

commonadaptive function,each with a distinct applied focus,

which highlights their complementary explanatory capacity.

Third, we briefly discuss the relationship between self- and

coregulatory functions to understand learning and develop-

ment in real-life learning contexts and tease out the critical,

dynamic role of agency.

Interdependent role of regulatory mechanisms in living systems. Our theoretical case for an integrative

perspective of self- and coregulation constructs is supported

by living systems theory. Living systems are defined as self-

organizing systems that have the characteristics of life and

that experience interactions and exchange with their environ-ment to adapt and self-maintain (Bailey, 2006; Miller, 1978).

Living systems can be individual systems, but also biological

or social systems, thus representing a range of disciplines,

for example, genetics, biology, medicine, psychology, man-

agement, sociology, social policy, and political science, to

name just a few.

Although Miller’s (1978) living systems theory does not

explicitly use the terms self- and coregulation to describe how

living systems maintain themselves and adapt in interaction

with the environment, these terms are widely used across

disciplines dealing with living systems. Self-regulatory pro-

cesses are mentioned consistently as fundamental adaptive

mechanisms of living systems, regardless of whether the sys-

tem is a simple cell or organ like in biology or a large and

complex social organization like in social policy or political

science. Through interactions with their environment, self-

organizing systems are described as experiencing stress and

pressures that threaten their operations. In response, sponta-

neous regulatory mechanisms are activated to self-adjust and

maintain functioning.

In turn, coregulatory processes are used to describe the

pull–push mechanisms that force living systems to adapt as

they interact and reciprocally influence each other. Coreg-

ulatory processes refer to the distributed, uncoordinated,

and reciprocal influences of interacting systems that are lo-cated at similar or different hierarchical levels in relation

to each other. Although references to both self-regulatory

and coregulatory mechanisms are common across disciplines

to explain adaptation of living systems, we were unable to

locate any theoretical integration of these two regulatory con-

structs. Across disciplines, self-regulatory and coregulatory

processes tend to be called upon separately to explain a par-

ticular regulatory phenomenon, even though the overarching

function of both forms of regulation is adaptation.

This brief examination of regulatory mechanisms in living

systems more generally, provides a broader theoretical per-

spective for an integrative and concurrent conceptualizationof regulatory constructs. Most important, it puts a stronger

emphasis on the “regulatory” component of self-regulation,

at the expense of the “self,” which loses some of its individ-

ual emphasis once it is treated as any living system, aiming

at self-maintenance and adaptation.

Common function and distinct foci of regulatory constructs. To further strengthen our case for an integrative

perspective of self- and coregulation processes, we argue

that in regard to learning and development, both regulatory

processes play an adaptive function but each with a dis-

tinct applied focus, which highlights their complementary


9/13


explanatory capacity. Our analysis of the concurrent psycho-

logical and social nature of self- and coregulation points to

the view that the essence of regulatory activity is a (indi-

vidual, group, or community) system’s adaptive adjustment .

Regardless of whether that system represents an individual

or a collectivity, adaptive adjustment includes corrective ma-neuvers, with the goal of maintaining or re-establishing the

dynamic system-environment fit. Taking as point of refer-

ence the person(s) in actual contexts of learning, the value

of theoretical constructs, such as self- and coregulation, is

based in part on their capacity to tap into the essential phe-

nomena, relationships and transactions displayed in actual

self-governed, guided and joint learning.

Derived from this general definition, a distinction is made

between self-, other- and coregulation, based on the different

foci of the regulatory activity. In the case of self-regulation,

the actor’s corrective perception-action loops are based on

internal reference values or norms and tend to change the

state or direction taken by the actor’s own self-system (i.e.,

self-focused metacognitive awareness – metacognitive con-

trol; see Fogel, 1992). In other-regulation, a participant’s

perceptions and corrective efforts are also based on inter-

nal reference values or norms, but focus on another partici-

pant’s activity (i.e., other-focused metacognitive awareness –

metacognitive control). In coregulation, conceptualized from

a sociocognitive perspective, several participants, relating to

a joint task and goal of an activity, use shared referencevalues

and norms to maintain a joint space of activity and mutually

correct deviations at the dyadic or group level (i.e., “we”-

focused metacognitive awareness – metacognitive control).

Although coregulation from a sociocultural perspective (Mc-Caslin, 2009) is taking a more macrolevel perspective, it also

stressed the coregulating influences of sociocultural struc-

tures, activities, and expectations on individual participation

and adaptive learning. Although all forms of regulation have

the common function of maintaining or restoring adaptive

learning, each form is directed at a distinct social learning

system (self, other, group) and therefore has its unique role

and characteristics. As argued in our section on the danger of

reductionism and need for a concurrency principle, research

that limits itself to “horizontal” or level-specific regulations

(i.e., individual or social level) would be neglecting the sig-

nificance of multimodal and multilevel processes, the impor-

tance of context, and the criticality of individual as well as

interpersonal developmental history.

Dynamic role of agency. Finally, our integrative per-spective also posits that self-, other-, and coregulatory pro-

cesses need to be considered concurrently, on the ground

that these regulatory processes can take place simultaneously,

may fluctuate during an activity, or can even be part of an

activity that explicitly induces shifts in regulation based on

agency. Although weagree that self-governed solo learning is

socially mediated in part through internalized reference val-

ues and norms, its perception-action loops are purely internal

to the self-system and represent self-regulatory activity. On

the other hand, however, there is no reason why naturally

occurring episodes of dyadic and polyadic learning (teacher-

/parent-guided learning, joint learning, collaborative small-

group learning) could not display different configurations of,

and fluctuations between, self-, other-, and coregulation. Weargue that, for example, participants’ changing relative level

of agency may relate to situationally triggered task- or non-

task-focused coping tendencies. This would affect fluctua-

tions between self-, other-, and coregulatory activities within

dyads and small-groups.

Summary of Our Case for an IntegrativePerspective

Our case for an integrative perspective is based on the pro-

posal to combine self-regulation as a fundamental concept

to understanding human adaptation (Labouvie-Vief, 1980;

Piaget, 1977) with coregulation as a fundamental concept

to understanding social instructional environments (Hickey,

2003). We have pointed out how, from a developmental per-

spective, other-, self-, and coregulation seem to work in con-

cert from very early in infancy, and that causal primacy can-

not be attributed to any of them (Fogel & Thelen, 1987).

This orchestration of simultaneous regulations at different

systemic levels is characteristic of any living organism. Al-

though current theories of regulation recognize both entities,

self and social, the other entity often remains insufficiently

addressed and analyzed either at the conceptual or empiricallevel. This has lead to an overlook of the concurrent and in-

terdependent nature of the self and the social in the regulatory

processes that take place in real-time collaborative learning

activities. We argue that an integrative model, which could

accommodate the unique capacity of individuals to reflect

upon, feel about, and act on their experiences, as they partic-

ipate in learning activities, which are also socially regulated

by all the participants, would significantly advance our un-

derstanding of development and learning as it takes place in

real time.

The core idea is that in all real-time learning activities,

from solo to collaborative, the opportunities and constraintscreated in social interactions have to be recognized alongside

the role of agency, andreductionism to eitherthe individual or

the social avoided. This has led to our conclusion that more

powerful explanatory and predictive models of regulation

in real-life learning activities could be developed through a

balance and integration of self- and coregulatory processes.

Before examining the challenges for future research on

regulation in learning contexts, we briefly touch on one im-

portant aspect related to the proposed integrative perspective,

namely, regulation of motivation and emotions in learning.

Regulation of motivation and emotions is briefly discussed

here, with a view to opening our perspective to the pragmatic,


10/13


off-task types of regulation that are frequently observed in

interpersonal interactions during real-life learning.

THE INTEGRATIVE PERSPECTIVE IN

REGARD TO REGULATION OF MOTIVATIONAND EMOTIONS IN LEARNING

Conceptualizing regulation in learning contexts as interac-

tive and dynamic, and involving concurrent self and so-

cial processes naturally brings the construct and its empir-

ical validation into the field of motivation and emotions.

Task-processing regulation carried out as a collaborative

or group learning activity can be challenging because sev-

eral self-regulatory systems must cooperate to generate and

achieve shared learning objectives. The dynamic interplay

of multiple sociocultural worlds can create socioemotional

challenges that interfere with task-processing regulation.

Negative affectivity can emerge from conflicting personal

goals, significant discrepancies in understanding of the task,

dysfunctional relational control among participants, per-

ceived unfairness due to imbalance in participation, or in-

compatible interpersonal differences in styles of communi-

cation and external constraints. The pragmatic process of

regulation of emotions and motivation in collaborative and

group learning activities has received increased attention in

recent years. This research has built upon earlier work on

volitional control (Corno, 1989; for a review see Pintrich,

1999) and more recent attempts to examine the significance

of the regulation of motivation and emotions within a self-

regulation perspective (e.g., Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000;McCann & Garcia, 1999; Wolters, 1999).

Once applied to collaborative learning activities and so-

cially shared learning environments, conceptual and method-

ological challenges have emerged. By nature, the process of

regulation of emotions and motivation within a group cannot

be examined as dissociated from the actual social activity (as

in inventories of regulation process), as it forms an integral

part of the overall situated and dynamic regulation process.

Within an individualistic perspective focusing on the expe-

riential and psychological processes, the social context can

be perceived as the source of emotions and fluctuations in

individual motivated engagement. One person and the groupare expected to cope via self-regulation, and via attempts

to regulate or even scaffold other members’ motivation and

behaviors. In contrast, an integrated perspective of regula-

tion makes it possible to conceptualize the social context

from a process-oriented approach in which the social rep-

resents an (inter)active element that contributes to affording

or constraining members’ participation (Järvelä, Volet, &

Järvenoja, in press). From this perspective, both self- and

social regulation play a unique, concurrent role.

Consequently, regulation of emotions, like regulation of

cognitions, can be conceptualized and investigated as a sin-

gle process that also integrates self-, other- and coregula-

tion (Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2005; Järvenoja, Volet, & Järvelä,

2009). There is growing empirical evidence that in real-life,

collaborative and group learning activity, regulation of emo-

tions and motivation takes a pragmatic, instrumental role in

trying to sustain shared regulation of task-related processing

(Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2005; Salonen et al., 2005; Vauras etal., 2003; Volet & Mansfield, 2006).

The extended conceptual value of an integrative perspec-

tive on the regulation of motivation and emotion in learning

contexts may lead to an overarching, integrative and multi-

dimensional view of the regulation of learning. This would

be consistent with McCaslin’s (2004) general idea that reg-

ulation of affect and cognitive processes cannot be sepa-

rated. Bringing together all regulatory processes, including

metacognitive regulation and regulation of motivation and

emotions, as well as self- and social regulation, would pro-

vide a more comprehensive framework for understanding

adaptive learning in real-life, socially challenging learning

environments.

CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONSFOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Our case for an integrative perspective of self- and social

regulation in learning contexts suggests a number of direc-

tions for future research. First, we briefly discuss two areas

that will require research attention but have not been elab-

orated in our argumentation, namely, the unique challenges

created by virtual learning environments for social regula-

tion and the significance of culture, conceptualized in multiple ways, on regulatory processes. Then we examine in turn

some of the most important challenges emerging from our

integrative proposal, in the context of research on learning

in real-life, time-framed collaborative activities, namely, the

interdependence and independence of regulations at differ-

ent systemic levels, the dynamic role of (multi)agency in

collaborative learning settings, and the phenomena and con-

ditions of shared regulation, from both the situational and

developmental aspects.

The challenges for regulatory activities generated in vir-

tual collaborative learning environments will need special re-

search attention. Virtual learning environments create uniquechallenges for individual and social regulation. These can

be triggered through the limited social and emotional cues

available or through insufficient human scaffolding, some-

times partly delegated to peers or technology. In any case,

collaboration between participants is expected, and it is not

well understood how learners actually regulate each other’s

contribution in the absence of visible emotional cues and a

limited sense of social presence. Furthermore, little is known

about the extent to which metacognitive regulation is facili-

tated, maintained, or alternatively inhibited in such contexts.

We also need to extend our understanding of the sig-

nificance of culture, conceptualized in multiple ways, on


11/13


regulatoryprocesses in adaptive learning. It would be particu-

larly useful to investigate the regulatory patterns of teachers

and students, as well as students and students, in cultural

contexts that give more or less importance to autonomy and

collaboration in particular activities. One would also expect

that metacognitive scaffolding and guiding processes might be conceptualized differently depending on beliefs about de-

velopment, and the respective role of teachers and learners.

Multicultural environments generate their own challenges

and this may lead to fruitful questions for research on adap-

tive learning and regulatory processes that relate to the di-

versity of student populations.

To deepen our understanding of processes of individual

and social regulation in real-life, time-framed collaborative

activities, one of the most urgent tasks will be to clarify

the unique contribution and relative independence of each

systemic level (individual, social) in relation to their simul-

taneous interdependence, and in particular, how to concep-

tualize top-down and bottom-up interactions and regulations

at each level. There is a need to pay attention to the fluc-

tuation patterns between forms of regulation that can be

observed in actual real-life learning patterns, with a view

to identifying adaptive pathways that could form the basis

of design experiments. This calls for a search for research

designs, methodologies, data sources, and methods of anal-

yses that would be best suited to examining the complex

relationships between social elements, such as relationships

and sociocultural structures, and individual elements, such as

physiological and intrapsychological processes. Illustrations

of empirical work combining different systemic levels can

be found in developmental research grounded in dynamicsystems theories (e.g., Fogel, 1992; Thelen & Smith, 2006).

For example, Fogel’s work on the coordination of perception

and action during the early formation of infant movement

stresses the coregulations across physiological, psychologi-

cal, and social levels, even with regard to these most elemen-

tary movements. Similarly Thelen and Smith’s research on

understanding learning to reach and grasp objects in infants

provides supportive evidence of the need to combine multiple

levels of the developing system in research designs and anal-

yses. How overall conceptual coherence can be maintained,

if the underlying theoretical assumptions at each level differ,

presents particular challenges in such research.

Another important and promising area for future research

will be to scrutinizefurther the dynamic role of agency,inpar-

ticular the dynamic and coregulatory role of multiple agents

in time-framed collaborative learning settings. Individuals

have a unique capacity to reflect on their experience as it

relates to their engagement in coregulated activities, but to

date, the actual nature of this reflection is not well under-

stood. How perceptions of self-efficacy and collective effi-

cacy interrelate in collaborative learning activities and lead

to specific patterns of regulation needs to be examined. These

issues are consistent with Martin’s (2007) call for consider-

ing more communal conceptualizations of self and agency in

self-regulation research, and educational psychology more

generally.

The phenomena and conditions of shared regulation will

also need further investigation. There is a dearth of empirical

research on how metacognitive and other forms of regulation

interface in constantly evolving socially challenging real-lifesituations. Such understanding is required to investigate how

adaptive learning could be enhanced through metacognitive

instruction that simultaneously addresses regulation of mo-

tivation and emotions. Rare instances of genuine forms of

shared regulation have been observed when individuals en-

gage, as a single mind, in mutual, productive coconstruction

of knowledge. What brings about such episodes of shared

regulation, how do these emerge, and what seems to inhibit

their occurrence are all unanswered questions. If situational,

instructional, or developmental patterns could be identified,

these might guide the design of activities that promote these

productive forms of learning. The emotional and motiva-

tional processes inevitably play a significant role, and these

will need to be included in research designs and analyses.

To conclude, we wish to stress the importance of empiri-

cally scrutinizing the fluctuation patterns between individual

and social forms of regulation, the dynamic role of multiple

agents in the coregulation of collaborative learning, and the

critical events at the microlevel of time-framed learning that

trigger particular cognitive, affective, and motivational pro-

cesses. This calls for multimethod research designs, which

provide a theoretically driven approach for a more coherent

study of the complex, situational, and culturally embedded

processes at both individual and social levels.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by grants No. DP0666993

and No. DP0986867 from the Australian Research Council,

awarded to the first author, and grants No. 201782 and No.

114048 from the Council for Cultural and Social Science

Research, the Academy of Finland, awarded to the second

author.

REFERENCES

Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1997). Mathematical problem solv-

ing in small groups: Exploring the interplay of students’ metacognitive

behaviors, perceptions, and ability levels. The Journal of Mathematical

Behavior, 16 (1), 63–74.

Bailey, K. D. (2006). Living systems theory and social entropy theory. Sys-

tems Research and Behavioral Science, 23, 291–300.

Bakeman, R., & Adamson, L. B. (1984). Coordinating attention to people

and objects in mother–infant and peer–infant interaction. Child Develop-

ment, 55, 1278–1289.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-

cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bearison, D., Dorval, B., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Collaborative cognition:

Children negotiating ways of knowing. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.


12/13


Beebe, B., & Lachmann, F. M. (1998). Co-constructing inner and relational

processes: Self and mutual regulation in infant research and adult devel-

opment. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 15, 480–516.

Boekaerts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: Finding

balance betweenlearning goals and ego-protective goals. In M. Boekaerts,

P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.) Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 417–

450). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of

self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Borkowski, J. G. (1996). Metacognition: Theory or chapter heading? Learn-

ing and Individual Differences, 8(4), 391–403.

Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where and how to remember: A

problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional

psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown, A.L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and

other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.),

Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning:

A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.

Collins,A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship:

Teaching thecraftsof reading, writing, andmathematics. In L. B.Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert

Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Corno, L. (1989). Self-regulated learning: A volitional analysis. In B.

Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.) Self-regulated learning and academic

achievement (pp. 111–142). New York: Springer-Verlag.

DeVries, R. (2000). Vygotsky, Piaget, and education: A reciprocal assimi-

lation of theories and educational practices. New Ideas in Psychology, 18,

187–213.

Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing

the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation and self-regulated

learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 291–409.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B.

Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive development (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Fogel, A. (1992). Co-regulation, perception and action: Reply to reactions.

Human Movement Science, 11, 505–523.

Fogel, A. (1993). Developing through relationships: origins of communica-

tion, self, and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fogel, A., & Thelen, E. (1987). Development of early expressive and com-

municative action: Reinterpreting the evidence from dynamic systems

perspective. Developmental Psychology, 23, 747–761.

Fox, E., & Riconscente, M. (2008). Metacognition and self-regulation in

James, Piaget and Vygotsky. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 373–

389.

Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research.

American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.

Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The

Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Hadwin, A. F., Wozney, L., & Pontin, O. (2005). Scaffolding the appro-

priation of self-regulatory activity: A socio-cultural analysis of changes

in teacher-student discourse about a graduate research portfolio. Instruc-

tional Science, 33, 413–450.

Hickey, D. T. (2003). Engaged participation versus marginal nonparticipa-

tion: A stridently sociocultural approach to achievement motivation. The

Elementary School Journal, 103, 401–429.

Hinde, R. A., & Bateson, P. (1984). Discontinuities versus continuities in

behavioural development and the neglect of process. International Journal

of Behavioral Development, 7 , 129–143.

Hinde, R. A., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1987). Interpersonal relationships and

child development. Developmental Review, 7, 1–21.

Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Sociallyshared metacognition

in peer learning? Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 1, 147–178.

Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from child-

hood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.

Järvelä, S., & Järvenoja, H. (in press). Socially constructed self-regulated

learning in collaborative learning groups. Teacher’s College Record.

Järvelä,S., Volet, S.E.,& Järvenoja, H. (in press). Research on motivation incollaborative learning: Moving beyond the cognitive-situative divide and

combining individual and social processes. Educational Psychologist.

Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2005). How students describe the sources of

their emotional and motivational experiences during the learning process:

A qualitative approach. Learning and Instruction, 15, 465–480.

Järvenoja, H., Volet, S. E., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Investigating students’

regulation of emotion: An instrument to assess dynamics of regulation

processes in socially challenging learning situations. Manuscript submit-

ted for publication.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1980). Beyond formal operations: Uses and limits of

pure logic in life-span development. Human Development, 23, 141–161.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral

participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, M. D. (2000). The promise of dynamic systems approaches for an

integrated account of human development. Child Development , 71, 36– 43.

Martin, J. (2007). The selves of educational psychology: Conceptions, con-

texts and critical considerations. Educational Psychologist, 42, 79–89.

Matusov, E. (1998). When solo activity is not privileged: Participation and

internalization models of development. Human Development, 41, 326–

349.

McCann, E. J., & Garcia, T. (1999). Maintaining motivation and regulating

emotion: Measuring individual differences in academic volitional strate-

gies. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 259–279.

McCaslin, M. (2004). Coregulation of opportunity, activity, and identity

in student motivation. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big

theories revisited (Vol. 4, pp. 249–274). Greenwich, CT: Information

Age.

McCaslin, M. (2009). Co-regulation of student motivation and emergent

identity. Educational Psychologist , 44, 137–146.McCaslin, M., & Good, T. (1996). The informal curriculum. In D. Berliner

& R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 622–673).

New York: Macmillan.

McCaslin, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2001). Educational psychology, social con-

structivism, and educational practice: A case of emergent identity. Edu-

cational Psychologist, 36 , 133–140.

Meyer,D. K., & Turner, J.C. (2002). Using instructional discourseanalysis to

study the scaffolding of student self-regulation. EducationalPsychologist,

37 (1), 17–25.

Miller, J. G. (1978). Living systems. New York: McGraw Hill.

Miller, J. G., & Miller, J. L. (1995). Applications of living systems theory.

Systems Practice, 8(1), 19–45.

Nolen, S. B., & Ward, C. J. (2008). Sociocultural and situative research

on motivation. In M. Maehr, S. Karabenick, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Social

psychological perspective on motivation and achievement. Advances inmotivation and achievement (Vol. 15, pp. 428–460). London: Emerald

Group.

Nolen, S. B., Ward, C. J., Horn, I. S., Childers, S., Campbell, S. S., & Mahna,

K. (2009). Motivation development in novice teachers: The development

of utility filters. In M. Wosnitza, S. A. Karabenick, A. Efklides, & P.

Nenniger (Eds.), Contemporary motivation research:Fromglobalto local

perspectives (pp. 265–278). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of

comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and In-

struction, 1, 117–175.

Patrick, H., & Middleton, M. J. (2002). Turning the kaleidoscope: What

we see when self-regulated learning is viewed with a qualitative lens.

Educational Psychologist , 37 (1), 27–39.


13/13


Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibrium of cognitive

structures. New York: Viking.

Pintrich, P. (1999). Taking control of research on volitional control: Chal-

lenges for future theory and research. Learning and Individual Differ-

ences, 11, 335–354.

Pintrich, P. (2000). Educational psychology at the millennium: A look back

and a look forward. Educational Psychologist, 35, 221–226.Pressley, M. (1995). A transactional strategies instruction Christmas carol.

In A. McKeough, J. Lupart, & A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching for trans-

fer: Fostering generalization in learning (pp. 177–214). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development . New York:

Oxford University Press.

Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals’ cognition: A dy-

namic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions:

Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111–138). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1987). Skill is not enough: The role of

mindfulness in learning andtransfer. International Journalof Educational

Research, 11, 623–637.

Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Efklides, A. (2005). Social interaction: What

can it tell us about metacognition and coregulation in learning? European Psychologist, 10, 199–208.

Sander, L. (1995). Identity and the experience of specificity in a process of

recognition. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 5, 579–593.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulated

competence. Educational Psychologist, 32, 195–208.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated

learning: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Taylor &

Francis.

Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (2006). Dynamic systems theories. In R. M.

Lerner (Ed.), Theoretical models of human development. Handbook of

child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 258–312). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Tomasello, M., & Haberl, K. (2003). Understanding attention: 12- and 18-

month olds know what is new for other persons. Developmental Psychol-

ogy, 39, 906–912.

Tronick, E. (1989). Emotions and emotional communication in infants. American Psychologist, 44, 112–119.

Valsiner,J. (1991). Construction of the mental: Fromthe cognitive revolution

to the study of development. Theory & Psychology, 1, 477–494.

Valsiner, J. (2001). The first six years: Culture’s adventures in psychology.

Culture and Psychology, 7 (1), 5–48.

Valsiner,J. (2002). Mutualities under scrutiny:Dissectingthe complexwhole

of development. Social Development, 11, 296–301.

Vauras, M., Iiskala, T., Kajamies, A., Kinnunen, R., & Lehtinen, E. (2003).

Shared-regulation and motivation of collaborating peers: A case analysis.

Psychologia: An InternationalJournal of Psychology in the Orient, 46 (1),

19–37.

Vauras, M., Salonen, P., Lehtinen, E., & Kinnunen, R. (2009). Motivation in

school fromcontextualand longitudinalperspective. InM. Wosnitza,S. A.

Karabenick, A. Efklides, & P. Nenniger (Eds.), Contemporary motivationresearch: From global to local perspectives (pp. 1–24). Cambridge, MA:

Hogrefe

Vauras, M., Salonen, P., & Kinnunen, R. (2008). Influences of group pro-

cesses and interpersonal regulation on motivation,affect andachievement.

In M. L. Maehr, S. A. Karabenick, & T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Social psycho-

logical perspectives. Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 15,

pp. 275–314). Bingley, UK: JAI Press–Emerald.

Volet, S. E., & Mansfield, C. (2006). Group work at university: Significance

of personal goals in the regulation strategies of students with positive and

negative appraisals. Higher Education, Research and Development, 25 ,

341–356.

Volet, S. E., 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, 128–143.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psycho-logical processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, & E. Souberman, Trans.).

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published

1930)

Weiss,P. A. (1969). Thelivingsystem:Determinism stratified.In A. Koestler

& J. R. Smythies(Eds.), Beyond reductionism: New perspectives in the life

sciences. The Alpbach Symposium 1968 (pp. 3–42). London: Hutchinson.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and iden-

tity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1994). Mediated action in sociocultural studies. Mind, Cul-

ture, and Activity, 1, 202–208.

Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In

M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-

regulation (pp. 531–566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wolters, C. A. (1999). The relation between high school students’ mo-

tivational regulation and their use of learning strategies, effort and classroom performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 281–

299.

Zimmerman,B. J.(1989).A social cognitive viewof self-regulatedacademic

learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive per-

spective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook

of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

nt4 - self and social regulation in learning contexts an integrative

Documents