Supporting collaboration with technology: does shared cognition lead to co-regulation in medicine?

The theoretical distinctions between metacognition, self-regulation and self-regulated learning are often blurred which makes the definition of co-regulation in group learning situations even more difficult. We have started to explore co-regulation in the context of decision making in simulated emergencies where medical teams work together to manage patient cases. Our earlier work has described the relationship between collaborative decision-making in this context as well as discourse patterns that emerge in a simulated medical emergency (Lu & Lajoie, 2008). This paper examines the interactions that occur during this simulation that reflect the relationship between co-regulation and medical decision-making. There are two collaborative learning conditions, a traditional situation where the instructor facilitates collaboration by using a whiteboard to document the group’s construction of a medical argument (the traditional whiteboard condition, TW). The second condition uses technology to facilitate the collaboration, where individuals use laptops and an interactive whiteboard (IW) where they can interact with the problem list as it is being created. Our assumption was that the IW would facilitate communication beyond the teacher–student, to include student–student both within and between the various subgroups. The IW group could document their medical arguments by using a structured template for constructing, annotating and sharing arguments. We found that participants in the IW condition differed from the TW condition in that they engaged in more adaptive decision-making behavior early on in the intervention. Similar overall levels of metacognitive activity were found in both conditions but the pattern and timing of metacognitive categories varied. Specifically, the IW group engaged in more planning and orienting than the TW group at the outset of the problem. Early engagement and co-regulation occurred in the IW group which led to shared understandings and subsequently to effective patient management in latter sessions (11.5% vs. 3.6% in TW). Technology supported greater metacognitive activity overall (44% vs 29% in the non supported group). Furthermore, technology facilitated greater planning (23% vs. 10%) and orienting (10% vs 1%) early in the medical problem solving activity. We refer to specific indicators in the discourse that help operationalize the concept of co-regulation.

[1]  A. Inkeles,et al.  International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. , 1968 .

[2]  J. Flavell.  First Discussant’s Comments: What is Memory Development the Development of? , 1971 .

[3]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. , 1982 .

[4]  E. Mandinach,et al.  The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation , 1983 .

[5]  A. Bandura.  Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory , 1985 .

[6]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[7]  B. Zimmerman,et al.  Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. , 1989 .

[8]  B. Zimmerman.  A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. , 1989 .

[9]  P. David Pearson.  Handbook of reading research. , 1990 .

[10]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Learning Together and Alone. Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning. Fourth Edition. , 1991 .

[11]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Assessment of Coordination Demand for Aircrew Coordination Training , 1993 .

[12]  E. Salas,et al.  Shared mental models in expert team decision making. , 1993 .

[13]  G. Klein,et al.  Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods , 1993 .

[14]  P. Winne,et al.  Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis , 1995 .

[15]  H. Wellman,et al.  Children Talk About the Mind , 1995 .

[16]  C. Patterson,et al.  Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. , 1995 .

[17]  Stephanie D. Teasley,et al.  The Construction of Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving , 1995 .

[18]  Setrag Khoshafian,et al.  Introduction to Groupware, Workflow, and Workgroup Computing , 1995 .

[19]  Vincent Yzerbyt,et al.  From Social Cognition to Metacognition , 1998 .

[20]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  Measuring Self-Regulated Learning , 2000 .

[21]  P. Pintrich,et al.  Handbook of self-regulation , 2000 .

[22]  B. Zimmerman,et al.  Self-regulated learning and academic achievement : theoretical perspectives , 2001 .

[23]  Alison H. Paris,et al.  Classroom Applications of Research on Self-Regulated Learning , 2001 .

[24]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. , 2001 .

[25]  B. Zimmerman.  Theories of Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview and Analysis , 2001 .

[26]  Roger Azevedo,et al.  Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? q , 2004 .

[27]  P. Pintrich.  A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning in College Students , 2004 .

[28]  Shawn Van Etten,et al.  Big theories revisited , 2004 .

[29]  M. Vauras,et al.  Social Interaction - What Can It Tell Us about Metacognition and Coregulation in Learning? , 2005 .

[30]  Y. Kanpolat.  Information age publishing. , 2005, Surgical neurology.

[31]  D. P. Baker,et al.  The role of teamwork in the professional education of physicians: current status and assessment recommendations. , 2005, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[32]  Mara Olekalns,et al.  Moments in Time: Metacognition, Trust, and Outcomes in Dyadic Negotiations , 2005, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[33]  Judith Orasanu,et al.  Crew collaboration in space: a naturalistic decision-making perspective. , 2005, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[34]  B. Zimmerman.  Development and Adaptation of Expertise: The Role of Self-Regulatory Processes and Beliefs. , 2006 .

[35]  B. Hout-Wolters,et al.  Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations , 2006 .

[36]  B. V. van Hout-Wolters,et al.  Metacognitive activities in text-studying and problem-solving: Development of a taxonomy , 2006 .

[37]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance , 2006 .

[38]  Susanne P. Lajoie,et al.  Supporting Medical Decision Making with Argumentation Tools. , 2008 .

[39]  Jeffrey Wiseman,et al.  The Deteriorating Patient: a realistic but ‘low‐tech’ simulation of emergency decision‐making , 2008 .

[40]  Susanne P. Lajoie,et al.  Metacognition, Self Regulation, and Self-regulated Learning: A Rose by any other Name? , 2008 .

[41]  Daniel L. Dinsmore,et al.  Focusing the Conceptual Lens on Metacognition, Self-regulation, and Self-regulated Learning , 2008 .

[42]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. , 2008 .

[43]  B. Zimmerman,et al.  Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Applications , 2009 .

[44]  S. Volet,et al.  High-Level Co-Regulation in Collaborative Learning: How Does It Emerge and How Is It Sustained?. , 2009 .

[45]  Douglas J. Hacker,et al.  Handbook of Metacognition in Education , 2009 .

[46]  Roger Azevedo,et al.  A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system☆☆☆ , 2009 .

[47]  E. Petrusa,et al.  Assessing teamwork in medical education and practice: Relating behavioural teamwork ratings and clinical performance , 2009, Medical teacher.

[48]  M. Vauras,et al.  Socially shared metacognition of dyads of pupils in collaborative mathematical problem-solving processes , 2011 .

[49]  Mark Schafer,et al.  Individual and Group Decision Making , 2011 .