Validating the concept of immediacy of strategy use for the regulation of collaborative learning: Results from an expert study

IF 2.3 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Laura Spang, Martin Greisel, Ingo Kollar
{"title":"Validating the concept of immediacy of strategy use for the regulation of collaborative learning: Results from an expert study","authors":"Laura Spang,&nbsp;Martin Greisel,&nbsp;Ingo Kollar","doi":"10.1016/j.newideapsych.2025.101155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>During collaborative learning, different types of regulation problems such as cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and emotional problems between group members may hinder the learning process. Once groups have noticed a problem, they need to apply a regulation strategy for the problem to alleviate it. Yet, so far, it is unclear which regulation strategies to use in the light of what problem. Therefore, we propose the concept of <em>immediacy of strategy use</em>: A regulation strategy is considered immediate for a problem if it can solve this problem without further strategies necessary. In this study, we tested the content validity of this immediacy concept by using an expert study methodology. We explored (a) which regulation strategies experts regard as immediate for which problems, (b) to what extent they agree in their immediacy ratings, and (c) whether they distinctly categorize regulation strategies into immediate and non-immediate strategies for specific problems. <em>N</em> = 59 experts rated the immediacy of 27 regulation strategies for eight social regulation problems. Our results indicate that experts can concordantly identify an immediate regulation strategy for regulation problems. The only exceptions were the regulation problems “Incompatible Working Methods” and “Unfair Distribution of Work Load”. Additionally, for each problem, we could clearly differentiate between various immediate and non-immediate regulation strategies. In summary, our findings strongly support the content validity of the immediacy concept. Future research could implement and investigate the immediacy concept in educational practice to support immediate strategy use for problem regulation during collaborative learning.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51556,"journal":{"name":"New Ideas in Psychology","volume":"78 ","pages":"Article 101155"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Ideas in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732118X2500011X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During collaborative learning, different types of regulation problems such as cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and emotional problems between group members may hinder the learning process. Once groups have noticed a problem, they need to apply a regulation strategy for the problem to alleviate it. Yet, so far, it is unclear which regulation strategies to use in the light of what problem. Therefore, we propose the concept of immediacy of strategy use: A regulation strategy is considered immediate for a problem if it can solve this problem without further strategies necessary. In this study, we tested the content validity of this immediacy concept by using an expert study methodology. We explored (a) which regulation strategies experts regard as immediate for which problems, (b) to what extent they agree in their immediacy ratings, and (c) whether they distinctly categorize regulation strategies into immediate and non-immediate strategies for specific problems. N = 59 experts rated the immediacy of 27 regulation strategies for eight social regulation problems. Our results indicate that experts can concordantly identify an immediate regulation strategy for regulation problems. The only exceptions were the regulation problems “Incompatible Working Methods” and “Unfair Distribution of Work Load”. Additionally, for each problem, we could clearly differentiate between various immediate and non-immediate regulation strategies. In summary, our findings strongly support the content validity of the immediacy concept. Future research could implement and investigate the immediacy concept in educational practice to support immediate strategy use for problem regulation during collaborative learning.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.80%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: New Ideas in Psychology is a journal for theoretical psychology in its broadest sense. We are looking for new and seminal ideas, from within Psychology and from other fields that have something to bring to Psychology. We welcome presentations and criticisms of theory, of background metaphysics, and of fundamental issues of method, both empirical and conceptual. We put special emphasis on the need for informed discussion of psychological theories to be interdisciplinary. Empirical papers are accepted at New Ideas in Psychology, but only as long as they focus on conceptual issues and are theoretically creative. We are also open to comments or debate, interviews, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信