collaborative problem solving roles

How to ace collaborative problem solving

April 30, 2023 They say two heads are better than one, but is that true when it comes to solving problems in the workplace? To solve any problem—whether personal (eg, deciding where to live), business-related (eg, raising product prices), or societal (eg, reversing the obesity epidemic)—it’s crucial to first define the problem. In a team setting, that translates to establishing a collective understanding of the problem, awareness of context, and alignment of stakeholders. “Both good strategy and good problem solving involve getting clarity about the problem at hand, being able to disaggregate it in some way, and setting priorities,” Rob McLean, McKinsey director emeritus, told McKinsey senior partner Chris Bradley  in an Inside the Strategy Room podcast episode . Check out these insights to uncover how your team can come up with the best solutions for the most complex challenges by adopting a methodical and collaborative approach. 

Want better strategies? Become a bulletproof problem solver

How to master the seven-step problem-solving process

Countering otherness: Fostering integration within teams

Psychological safety and the critical role of leadership development

If we’re all so busy, why isn’t anything getting done?

To weather a crisis, build a network of teams

Unleash your team’s full potential

Modern marketing: Six capabilities for multidisciplinary teams

Beyond collaboration overload

MORE FROM MCKINSEY

Take a step Forward

Collaborative problem solvers are made not born – here’s what you need to know

Professor of Cognitive Sciences, University of Central Florida

Disclosure statement

Stephen M. Fiore has received funding from federal agencies such as NASA, ONR, DARPA, and the NSF to study collaborative problem solving and teamwork. He is past president of the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research, currently a board member of the International Network for the Science of Team Science, and a member of DARPA's Information Science and Technology working group.

View all partners

Challenges are a fact of life. Whether it’s a high-tech company figuring out how to shrink its carbon footprint, or a local community trying to identify new revenue sources, people are continually dealing with problems that require input from others. In the modern world, we face problems that are broad in scope and great in scale of impact – think of trying to understand and identify potential solutions related to climate change, cybersecurity or authoritarian leaders.

But people usually aren’t born competent in collaborative problem-solving. In fact, a famous turn of phrase about teams is that a team of experts does not make an expert team . Just as troubling, the evidence suggests that, for the most part, people aren’t being taught this skill either. A 2012 survey by the American Management Association found that higher level managers believed recent college graduates lack collaboration abilities .

Maybe even worse, college grads seem to overestimate their own competence. One 2015 survey found nearly two-thirds of recent graduates believed they can effectively work in a team, but only one-third of managers agreed . The tragic irony is that the less competent you are, the less accurate is your self-assessment of your own competence. It seems that this infamous Dunning-Kruger effect can also occur for teamwork.

Perhaps it’s no surprise that in a 2015 international assessment of hundreds of thousands of students, less than 10% performed at the highest level of collaboration . For example, the vast majority of students could not overcome teamwork obstacles or resolve conflict. They were not able to monitor group dynamics or to engage in the kind of actions needed to make sure the team interacted according to their roles. Given that all these students have had group learning opportunities in and out of school over many years, this points to a global deficit in the acquisition of collaboration skills.

How can this deficiency be addressed? What makes one team effective while another fails? How can educators improve training and testing of collaborative problem-solving? Drawing from disciplines that study cognition, collaboration and learning, my colleagues and I have been studying teamwork processes. Based on this research, we have three key recommendations.

How it should work

At the most general level, collaborative problem-solving requires team members to establish and maintain a shared understanding of the situation they’re facing and any relevant problem elements they’ve identified. At the start, there’s typically an uneven distribution of knowledge on a team. Members must maintain communication to help each other know who knows what, as well as help each other interpret elements of the problem and which expertise should be applied.

Then the team can get to work, laying out subtasks based upon member roles, or creating mechanisms to coordinate member actions. They’ll critique possible solutions to identify the most appropriate path forward.

Finally, at a higher level, collaborative problem-solving requires keeping the team organized – for example, by monitoring interactions and providing feedback to each other. Team members need, at least, basic interpersonal competencies that help them manage relationships within the team (like encouraging participation) and communication (like listening to learn). Even better is the more sophisticated ability to take others’ perspectives, in order to consider alternative views of problem elements.

Whether it is a team of professionals in an organization or a team of scientists solving complex scientific problems , communicating clearly, managing conflict, understanding roles on a team, and knowing who knows what – all are collaboration skills related to effective teamwork.

What’s going wrong in the classroom?

When so many students are continually engaged in group projects, or collaborative learning, why are they not learning about teamwork? There are interrelated factors that may be creating graduates who collaborate poorly but who think they are quite good at teamwork.

I suggest students vastly overestimate their collaboration skills due to the dangerous combination of a lack of systematic instruction coupled with inadequate feedback. On the one hand, students engage in a great deal of group work in high school and college. On the other hand, students rarely receive meaningful instruction, modeling and feedback on collaboration . Decades of research on learning show that explicit instruction and feedback are crucial for mastery .

Although classes that implement collaborative problem-solving do provide some instruction and feedback, it’s not necessarily about their teamwork. Students are learning about concepts in classes; they are acquiring knowledge about a domain. What is missing is something that forces them to explicitly reflect on their ability to work with others.

When students process feedback on how well they learned something, or whether they solved a problem, they mistakenly think this is also indicative of effective teamwork. I hypothesize that students come to conflate learning course content material in any group context with collaboration competency.

A prescription for better collaborators

Now that we’ve defined the problem, what can be done? A century of research on team training , combined with decades of research on group learning in the classroom , points the way forward. My colleagues and I have distilled some core elements from this literature to suggest improvements for collaborative learning .

First, most pressing is to get training on teamwork into the world’s classrooms. At a minimum, this needs to happen during college undergraduate education, but even better would be starting in high school or earlier. Research has demonstrated it’s possible to teach collaboration competencies such as dealing with conflict and communicating to learn. Researchers and educators need, themselves, to collaborate to adapt these methods for the classroom.

Secondly, students need opportunities for practice. Although most already have experience working in groups, this needs to move beyond science and engineering classes. Students need to learn to work across disciplines so after graduation they can work across professions on solving complex societal problems.

Third, any systematic instruction and practice setting needs to include feedback. This is not simply feedback on whether they solved the problem or did well on learning course content. Rather, it needs to be feedback on interpersonal competencies that drive successful collaboration. Instructors should assess students on teamwork processes like relationship management, where they encourage participation from each other, as well as skills in communication where they actively listen to their teammates.

Even better would be feedback telling students how well they were able to take on the perspective of a teammate from another discipline. For example, was the engineering student able to take the view of a student in law and understand the legal ramifications of a new technology’s implementation?

My colleagues and I believe that explicit instruction on how to collaborate, opportunities for practice, and feedback about collaboration processes will better prepare today’s students to work together to solve tomorrow’s problems.

• Decision making
• Cooperation
• Problem solving
• Collaboration
• Dunning-Kruger effect
• Wicked problems
• student collaboration
• College graduates
• 21st century skills
• Group decision making
• Collaborative problem solving

Compliance Lead

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Collaborative Problem Solving: What It Is and How to Do It

What is collaborative problem solving, how to solve problems as a team, celebrating success as a team.

Problems arise. That's a well-known fact of life and business. When they do, it may seem more straightforward to take individual ownership of the problem and immediately run with trying to solve it. However, the most effective problem-solving solutions often come through collaborative problem solving.

As defined by Webster's Dictionary , the word collaborate is to work jointly with others or together, especially in an intellectual endeavor. Therefore, collaborative problem solving (CPS) is essentially solving problems by working together as a team. While problems can and are solved individually, CPS often brings about the best resolution to a problem while also developing a team atmosphere and encouraging creative thinking.

Because collaborative problem solving involves multiple people and ideas, there are some techniques that can help you stay on track, engage efficiently, and communicate effectively during collaboration.

• Set Expectations. From the very beginning, expectations for openness and respect must be established for CPS to be effective. Everyone participating should feel that their ideas will be heard and valued.
• Provide Variety. Another way of providing variety can be by eliciting individuals outside the organization but affected by the problem. This may mean involving various levels of leadership from the ground floor to the top of the organization. It may be that you involve someone from bookkeeping in a marketing problem-solving session. A perspective from someone not involved in the day-to-day of the problem can often provide valuable insight.
• Communicate Clearly.  If the problem is not well-defined, the solution can't be. By clearly defining the problem, the framework for collaborative problem solving is narrowed and more effective.
• Expand the Possibilities.  Think beyond what is offered. Take a discarded idea and expand upon it. Turn it upside down and inside out. What is good about it? What needs improvement? Sometimes the best ideas are those that have been discarded rather than reworked.
• Encourage Creativity.  Out-of-the-box thinking is one of the great benefits of collaborative problem-solving. This may mean that solutions are proposed that have no way of working, but a small nugget makes its way from that creative thought to evolution into the perfect solution.
• Provide Positive Feedback. There are many reasons participants may hold back in a collaborative problem-solving meeting. Fear of performance evaluation, lack of confidence, lack of clarity, and hierarchy concerns are just a few of the reasons people may not initially participate in a meeting. Positive public feedback early on in the meeting will eliminate some of these concerns and create more participation and more possible solutions.
• Consider Solutions. Once several possible ideas have been identified, discuss the advantages and drawbacks of each one until a consensus is made.
• Assign Tasks.  A problem identified and a solution selected is not a problem solved. Once a solution is determined, assign tasks to work towards a resolution. A team that has been invested in the creation of the solution will be invested in its resolution. The best time to act is now.
• Evaluate the Solution. Reconnect as a team once the solution is implemented and the problem is solved. What went well? What didn't? Why? Collaboration doesn't necessarily end when the problem is solved. The solution to the problem is often the next step towards a new collaboration.

The burden that is lifted when a problem is solved is enough victory for some. However, a team that plays together should celebrate together. It's not only collaboration that brings unity to a team. It's also the combined celebration of a unified victory—the moment you look around and realize the collectiveness of your success.

We can help

Check out MindManager to learn more about how you can ignite teamwork and innovation by providing a clearer perspective on the big picture with a suite of sharing options and collaborative tools.

Need to Download MindManager?

Try the full version of mindmanager free for 30 days.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 04 June 2018

Collaborative problem-solving education for the twenty-first-century workforce

• Stephen M. Fiore 1 ,
• Arthur Graesser 2 &
• Samuel Greiff 3  

Nature Human Behaviour volume  2 ,  pages 367–369 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

1639 Accesses

60 Citations

30 Altmetric

Metrics details

The complex research, policy and industrial challenges of the twenty-first century require collaborative problem solving. Assessments suggest that, globally, many graduates lack necessary competencies. There is a pressing need, therefore, to improve and expand teaching of collaborative problem solving in our education systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Pre-service teachers becoming researchers: the role of professional learning groups in creating a community of inquiry

• Sandris Zeivots
• , John Douglas Buchanan
•  &  Kimberley Pressick-Kilborn

The Australian Educational Researcher Open Access 20 January 2023

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fiore, S. M. et al. Collaborative Problem Solving: Considerations for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (National Center for Educational Statistics, United States Department of Education, Washington DC, 2017).

Graesser, A. C. et al. in Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Research and Applications (eds Care, E., Griffin, P. & Wilson, M.) Ch. 5 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65368-6_5 .

PISA 2015 Results (Volume V): Collaborative Problem Solving (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2017); https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264285521-en

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Education for Life and Work: Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century (National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2012); https://doi.org/10.17226/13398

National Research Council Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science (National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2015); https://doi.org/10.17226/19007

The Royal Society Assessing Experimental Science in 11–18 Education: New Research Directions (Royal Society Press, 2016); https://royalsociety.org/~/media/events/2016/10/education-conference-report-12-october-2016.pdf

Hart Research Associates Falling Short? College Learning and Career Success (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2015).

Critical Skills Survey (American Management Association, 2012); https://www.amanet.org/uploaded/2012-Critical-Skills-Survey.pdf

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Building America’s Skilled Technical Workforce (National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2017); https://doi.org/10.17226/23472

Weinberger, C. J. Rev. Econ. Stat. 96 , 849–861 (2014).

Article   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

Stephen M. Fiore

University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA

Arthur Graesser

University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

Samuel Greiff

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen M. Fiore .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fiore, S.M., Graesser, A. & Greiff, S. Collaborative problem-solving education for the twenty-first-century workforce. Nat Hum Behav 2 , 367–369 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0363-y

Download citation

Published : 04 June 2018

Issue Date : June 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0363-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

• John Douglas Buchanan
• Kimberley Pressick-Kilborn

The Australian Educational Researcher (2024)

Improving collaborative problem-solving skills via automated feedback and scaffolding: a quasi-experimental study with CPSCoach 2.0

• Sidney K. D’Mello
• Nicholas Duran
• Angela E. B. Stewart

User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction (2024)

Exploring the effects of role scripts and goal-orientation scripts in collaborative problem-solving learning

Education and Information Technologies (2023)

Integrating a collaboration script and group awareness to support group regulation and emotions towards collaborative problem solving

• Matias Rojas
• Miguel Nussbaum
• Danilo Alvares

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (2022)

Multimodal modeling of collaborative problem-solving facets in triads

• Zachary Keirn

User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction (2021)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Our Mission

Roles That Encourage Equitable Collaborative Learning

A look at how to distribute the roles—both academic and managerial—that make up group work to boost engagement and learning.

Team roles can support efficient, thoughtful, and equitable collaboration when used well. When used poorly, team roles can have the opposite effect.

Certain role schemes can concentrate power and influence with those who already have it, leading to inequitable participation, effort, and engagement. For example, a student who takes on the role of “synthesizer” or “facilitator” may be expected to do intellectually complex work, while a student who takes on the role of “timekeeper” may limit their engagement to watching their cell phone. Furthermore, students don’t always buy into roles or see them as anything but empty titles.

Fortunately, it doesn’t have to be this way. Teachers can leverage student roles to promote equitable collaboration that leads to deep learning. To do this, teachers must determine which roles will best support collaboration and learning, and support students to play those roles effectively.

Students Take on Multiple Roles

All roles are not created equal. Different types of roles serve different purposes, and students should take on multiple roles of different types in any given collaborative activity. Consider the following three role categories. For productive and equitable collaboration, every student should have each of the following types of roles within a given project or task.

Professional and field-specific roles: Professional and field-specific roles are ones that mirror the work of real professionals outside of the classroom. Since all students deserve access to intellectually rigorous and meaningful work, all students should take on a meaningful role of this type. That means in a history project all students should take on the role of a historian, in a math project all students should be mathematicians, and so on. In an interdisciplinary project, a single student may take on several different professional roles at different points.

Students may also take on roles that mirror a given job. Within a STEM project, they might take on the role of an engineer, and in a communications project they might take on the role of photojournalist.

Problem-exploring and problem-solving roles: When students work collaboratively on a complex task or project, they will inevitably have to step into a variety of additional roles to effectively explore and problem-solve. At various times, students may step into the role of leader, negotiator, critic, or collaborator. To address interpersonal conflict within the team, a student may need to step into the role of conflict mediator. To help the team incorporate a variety of perspectives, students may need to take on the roles of devil’s advocate, synthesizer, or summarizer.

Problem-exploring and problem-solving roles may be fluid, with students moving in and out of the roles based on the problem they are exploring, where they are in the problem-solving process, and their own judgment on what their team needs in the moment.

Team management roles: Effective teams require members to fulfill additional various roles to support their team process. Issues of power, status, and bias can lead to inequitable patterns of participation. Team management roles can help disrupt those patterns by supporting the team with a clear and thoughtful collaborative process. These roles may include facilitator, project manager, timekeeper, notetaker, resource manager, process observer, and participation tracker, among others. In effective teams, students know who is in what management role, as well as the responsibilities that come with each role.

Make the Roles Authentic

A role is much more than a title. Calling a student a facilitator doesn’t make them one, nor does encouraging every student to think like mathematicians guarantee that students will. Teachers and students should clearly define the meaning of each role they use by considering the different authentic aspects of each role.

Processes and practices: Students should engage in the processes and practices that are authentic to their roles. In their role as scientists, students should engage in authentic scientific practices such as observing natural phenomena, creating hypotheses, and planning and carrying out investigations. In their role as historians, students should engage in authentic historical thinking , by scouring primary source documents, attempting to make judgements on the veracity of historical accounts, and making arguments about what happened. In their role as engineers, students should engage in an authentic engineering design process.

Tools and technologies: Professionals in different roles use specific tools and technologies to carry out their work. In their role as mathematicians, students should use the authentic tools of mathematics to make sense of and solve problems, such as mathematical models, graphs, and other mathematical representations. In their role as photojournalists, students could use real photo editing software to edit and produce their work. In their role as a project manager, students might use a project calendar, Gantt chart, or project management software.

Materials and resources: Students should engage with materials and resources that are authentic to their roles. In their role as historians, students might engage with primary source documents. In their role as mathematicians, students might use real data sets while engaging in authentic mathematical practices . In their role as scientists, students may engage with real specimens and lab equipment within their investigations.

Leaning into Roles

As members of the classroom community deepen their shared understanding of these roles, they can create supports and scaffolds tied to each role, whether the role is novelist, collaborator, or timekeeper. Resources such as role descriptions, sentence starter guides, anchor charts, role rubrics, and reflection tools can help all students lean into their roles.

When students have opportunities to practice their roles, they’ll become more familiar and better equipped to engage with the authentic processes and practices, tools and technologies, and materials and resources associated with their roles. Far more than just a title, these roles can ultimately lead to more effective collaborative learning and more equitable participation in intellectually rich, worthwhile work.

9 Collaboration techniques to solve problems: A guide for leaders and people managers

Knowing when to ask for help is a strength. Learn why collaboration to solve problems is essential to your business and how to promote a culture of teamwork.

Table of Contents

Imagine you’re in Rome for the summer. You don’t speak the language and the transportation system is completely different from your home country. 

You’re using Google Maps and a translation app to read signs and get around on your own. But after wandering around the Roma Termini for 15 minutes with no idea where to find your train platform, it’s time to get some help.

In this case, no one would think less of you for asking for directions. So why are we often too worried about being judged to do the same at work?

It’s a strength to know when to seek help and use collaboration to solve problems. Acknowledging that there are things you don’t know or can’t solve on your own isn’t only smart, but is actually more productive. As soon as you and your team start playing to each other’s strengths, you’ll find those KPIs far more achievable.

Instead of spinning their wheels when they’re stuck on a problem, your team needs to know when to bring in an outside perspective to find possible solutions. By the end of this article, you’ll have a clear understanding of the benefits of collaborative problem-solving and learn how to get your team working together to overcome challenges.

Work together to find the best solutions to your business problems. Add a whiteboard to your Switchboard room and collect your team’s ideas live or async. Learn more

Benefits of collaborative problem solving

Solving complex problems in groups helps you find solutions faster. With more perspectives in the room, you’ll get ideas you’d never have thought of alone. In fact, collaboration can cause teams to spend 24% less time on idea generation. Together, you’ll spark more ideas and reach innovative solutions more quickly.

Not only that, but looking at problems in groups allows your team to learn from others, which can make them more resilient to issues in future. 

Peer-to-peer learning is also an opportunity to upskill your team while strengthening their relationships. That’s because collaborative problem-solving encourages people to trust each other as they work together towards common goals. It’s team collaboration best practice to encourage your team to share ideas without risk of humiliation.

How to get your team to solve problems collaboratively

Promoting collaborative problem-solving skills within your team allows you to create a culture where people are comfortable seeking feedback on their work. That means you won’t have to host a dedicated brainstorming session to get your team to collaborate—they’ll just start doing it naturally.

To get there, you need to foster a psychologically safe environment, provide them with the right tools, and reinforce the power of teamwork whenever possible. Here are ways to enable a collaborative problem-solving culture: 

1. Create the right environment 

Simply inviting your team to work together isn’t enough for them to actually do it. You need to foster psychological safety so they feel comfortable sharing ideas and aren’t afraid of getting called out if they are wrong. 

It all starts with your team culture 

Your culture should be supportive, inclusive, safe, trusting, respectful, and empathetic. It should make people certain that asking for help is a sign of strength, not weakness. 

Remind your team that brainstorming spaces are safe and all ideas are welcomed. They shouldn’t wait until they have a perfect solution to intervene. Be open-minded and treat all ideas as important even if you think they aren’t viable. This can be as simple as writing down all solutions on a shared document and asking questions for further clarification. 

Give them what they need to do their job  

Set your team up with the necessary resources and information to solve problems effectively. This includes written guidelines or even training on communication, leading a brainstorming session, or problem solving skills.

Also, technology improves collaboration in the workplace , so equip your team with the right tools for effective communication, information sharing, and project management. Make sure your team finds it easy to work with the tools they have. If they struggle to reach team mates due to technicalities, they’ll likely end up working on their own. 

Switchboard can support your existing tech stack since all browser-based apps work in their persistent rooms. In this visual digital workspace , team members always know where to find project-related information and can work together on those apps directly from Switchboard—without switching tabs.

2. Promote open, transparent communication and feedback  

A huge part of creating a psychologically safe environment for collaboration is encouraging open communication and establishing a culture that embraces feedback. Using active listening techniques, such as paraphrasing their words to check your understanding, can help you truly understand individual points of view focusing only on your answer.

For example, if your team member is struggling to find the words to express themselves, don’t jump in straight away with your own assumptions. Listen openly and let them fill the silence with their thoughts. Then, try and summarize what they’ve said so far and let them correct you.

It’s also important to be transparent when setting goals and addressing potential setbacks. 

“The clearer you can be about what you need as a leader, what you need from your team, and what your clients need, you’ll be able to take action that's in alignment with creating that outcome,” says Tarah Keech , Founder of Tarah Keech Coaching . 

Finally, follow-up on discussions when you have results so each contributor can see the impact of their input.

3. Set clear common goals 

What makes collaboration different from compromising, for example, is that you get to work toward a common objective . When team members have a shared purpose, they become allies and are more likely to work together to find the best solution possible, instead of trying to be in the right. 

For instance, when you offer profit sharing, people earn more money if the company makes higher revenue. That means if two people work together on finding a solution, they’ll likely decide on the one that’s better for the business—because, in the end, it’ll be beneficial for both.

Also, when you set clear goals for the collaboration, you get more focused answers and help improve team productivity. For example, start a brainstorming session by clearly stating the problem “Sign-ups are down by 1%, we need to come up with ideas to get back to the regular signup rate.” 

Making it clear that you’ve identified a gap and know exactly what you need from others helps them understand why the session is relevant and what they need to do. 

4. Present collaboration as a win-win 

If you don’t set up a collaborative culture, team members will spin their wheels rather than get help to solve a problem. It’s crucial that you explain the benefits of collaboration clearly to your team so you can: 

• Reach profitable business solutions
• Make people feel heard and valued 
• Bring your team together
• Increase trust in the company’s decisions
• Make people feel part of something bigger
• Promote knowledge sharing

It’s your job to help team members understand that collaboration is beneficial for both individual and collective success—and find win-win scenarios.

5. Eliminate silos and solicit diverse opinions

Working in silos can affect productivity and morale as people spend more time coming up with solutions. A way to eliminate silos is by encouraging cross-functional projects and hosting team-building activities for colleagues to get to know each other. 

“The only path that creates positive change is the one you haven't taken yet,” says Tarah. Encouraging teamwork allows you to come up with more diverse alternatives to problems. “And, the fastest way to identify the path that works is by using each other as resources and co-creators,” she adds. 

Gather multiple perspectives on a problem by ensuring everyone shares their thoughts even if they’re introverted. For example, create a Switchboard room and invite everyone to add one or two ideas to the whiteboard either during or before the meeting. Then, go over each one of those ideas and vote on the best ones. This can happen anonymously so people feel more comfortable sharing their thoughts.

This is an easy way to bring diverse people together and see problems from multiple perspectives. “We all have stories from our lives where we pull lessons from. Imagine if we had access to other people's lessons. How much time would that save us?” says Tarah. 

6. Train your team on how to resolve conflicts 

Conflict resolution is a skill all managers should have, so make sure to give training on this topic. Equip your team with problem-resolution skills—for them to find mutually beneficial solutions. This will allow them to address disagreements and conflicts before they escalate to something bigger. Do this by:

Leaving your ego at the door 

Many times conflicts occur when people take things personally or when you enter team meetings with your ego by your side. 

The best advice for learning how to solve conflicts is to leave your ego at the door and assume you all want what’s best for the business. The idea of working together toward a common goal instead of discussing who’s right or which proposal is best helps reach consensus and a better alternative to all ideas.

7. “Yes, and…” every idea

This concept comes from improv and means acknowledging others’ proposals and adding to them. Improv actors use this technique to come up with stories in a group.

For example, someone enters the scene and goes “Help, mother, help!” The next person should say “ Yes , dear, I’m here. And , what do you need?” If they enter the room and say “I’ve told you a thousand times, I’m not your mother,” it’ll neglect the first actor’s proposal and can make the story stagnant. 

You can apply this practice to business teamwork. If during collaborative problem-solving, you suggest an idea and someone neglects that thought, the conversation goes nowhere. 

Instead, try establishing a “yes, and…” mentality to move the conversation forward. This is an example of how this would look in practice:

• Do: “I think the problem is that users are struggling to find the sign-up button.” “ Yes , that’s a potential issue, and it might also be because the color of the button doesn’t stand out. Let’s look at our web page analytics.” 
• Don’t: “I think the problem is that users are struggling to find the sign-up button.” “Hmm, not really , we’ve conducted usability testing and that was never an issue.”

This mindset gives space for ideas to grow, even if they seem off the mark initially. Let people explain their thoughts and you'll be surprised how solutions can result. Avoid premature judgment and create a safe space for creativity and exploration.

8. Play to everyone’s strengths 

You can’t expect the same type of insights from all team members. The beauty of having diverse people on your team is that they can all add to the conversation from their unique perspectives. 

Assign roles and responsibilities based on team members' strengths and expertise. Encourage collaboration and reach potential solutions to problems by assigning tasks that require different skill sets. 

For example, let’s say the customer support team’s workload increased in the last month. They don’t know why, but people keep complaining about their orders being wrong. The team is so busy trying to find quick solutions for the customers that they can’t take the time to get to the root cause of the problem. 

You can’t afford to close the online store and decide to host a brainstorming session with one or two key players from each department. Inviting them to this session helps bring their own experiences to the table and will help you find the problem faster. Not necessarily the ones affected by an issue are the most suited to solve it. 

9. Recognize and reward teamwork 

Acknowledge and appreciate collaborative efforts within the team. Recognize individuals who actively contribute to problem-solving and emphasize the importance of teamwork. This will help you keep your team engaged and motivated as well as remind everyone that if they collaborate, they might get rewarded. 

Give negative feedback in private with useful examples, and celebrate successes in public as a team. However, not everyone likes public recognition, so take time to understand what motivates different people from your team and implement it.

Encourage risk taking and turn failure into learning opportunities. Part of collaborating toward solutions is understanding that making mistakes is part of the process, and the faster you get to fail, the better.

The fastest way to succeed is by solving problems in groups

You can make mistakes as a tourist in Rome because the worst thing that could happen is getting lost for a couple of hours (and you can always call an Uber).

It’s different at work. Many people think that making mistakes could cause them to build up a bad reputation or, in extreme cases, lose their  job. However, that mindset is what causes you to get stuck on a problem. And, if you don’t ask others to support you, you might struggle to come up with solutions in a timely manner. 

But asking for help isn’t a mistake. It’s a sign of strength and your company should encourage people to seek different perspectives. To encourage your team to use collaboration to solve problems, build a psychologically safe environment for people to speak openly about their ideas. 

Set common goals, eliminate siloed work, and promote a “yes, and…” mentality. And, along with leaving your ego at the door, you should get equipped with the right team collaboration tools . 

Using a tool like Switchboard makes it easy for your team to work together to solve problems in a shared room. There, everyone can add files, edit content directly from browser-based applications, or include their ideas on a whiteboard to simplify team communication and reach solutions faster.

Work in groups to find the best solution to your business problems. Add a whiteboard to your Switchboard room and collect your worker’s ideas live or async. Learn more

Frequently asked questions about collaboration to solve problems

What is the purpose of collaboration.

The purpose of collaboration is to bring diverse people together to share ideas to work together towards solving a common goal. Teamwork can help organizations:

• Shorten decision-making loops
• Solve problems faster
• Drive innovation
• Improve knowledge sharing
• Tighten team relationships
• Get better at managing conflict
• Create a sense of belonging

What is the difference between collaboration and compromise?

The difference between collaboration and compromise is that the first one aims to reach a common goal; while compromising, means finding a middle ground. Collaboration presents the opportunity to reach win-win solutions while compromising means someone needs to cede.

What is the difference between brainstorming and collaborative problem-solving?

The difference between brainstorming and collaborative problem-solving is that brainstorming is meant for doing group work to come up with ideas that may or may not solve a problem. Collaborative problem-solving, on the other hand, is much more structured and aims to find practical solutions to a specific problem (brainstorming can be one of the techniques used to reach that solution).

Keep reading

Musings on remote work and the future of collaboration

6 tips for how to give creative feedback

5 best design feedback tools for highly collaborative teams

Stop, collaborate, and listen.

Get product updates and Switchboard tips and tricks delivered right to your inbox.

You can unsubscribe at any time using the links at the bottom of the newsletter emails. More information is in our privacy policy.

Work together to find the best solutions to your business problems.

Add a whiteboard to your Switchboard room and collect your team’s ideas live or async.

Advertisement

The pivotal role of monitoring for collaborative problem solving seen in interaction, performance, and interpersonal physiology

• Open access
• Published: 22 October 2021
• Volume 17 , pages 241–268, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Eetu Haataja   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8280-1546 1 ,
• Jonna Malmberg 1 ,
• Muhterem Dindar 1 &
• Sanna Järvelä 1  

3983 Accesses

10 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Being aware of the progress towards one’s goals is considered one of the main characteristics of the self-regulation process. This is also the case for collaborative problem solving, which invites group members to metacognitively monitor the progress with their goals and externalize it in social interactions while solving a problem. Monitoring challenges can activate group members to control the situation together, which can be seen as adjustments on different systemic levels (physiological, psychological, and interpersonal) of a collaborative group. This study examines how the pivotal role of monitoring for collaborative problem solving is reflected in interactions, performance, and interpersonal physiology. The study has foci in two central characteristics of monitoring interactions that facilitate groups’ regulation in reaching their goals. First is valence of monitoring, indicating whether the group members think they are progressing towards their goal or not. Second is equality of participation in monitoring interactions between group members. Participants of the study were volunteering higher education students ( N  = 57), randomly assigned to groups of three members whose collaborative task was to learn to run a business simulation. The collaborative task was video recorded, and the physiological arousal of each participant was recorded from their electrodermal activity. The results of the study suggest that both the valence and equality of participation are identifiable in monitoring interactions and they both positively predict groups’ performance in the task. Equality of participation to monitoring was not related to the interpersonal physiology. However, valence of monitoring was related to interpersonal physiology in terms of physiological synchrony and arousal. The findings support the view that characteristics of monitoring interactions make a difference to task performance in collaborative problem solving and that interpersonal physiology relates to these characteristics.

Similar content being viewed by others

How does monitoring set the stage for adaptive regulation or maladaptive behavior in collaborative learning?

Biosignals reflect pair-dynamics in collaborative work: EDA and ECG study of pair-programming in a classroom environment

Coordination Cost and Super-Efficiency in Teamwork: The Role of Communication, Psychological States, Cardiovascular Responses, and Brain Rhythms

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Collaborative learning and problem solving are increasingly used in today’s education. Early research demonstrated that solving computer-based problems together can initiate learning through interaction (Roschelle and Teasley 1995 ). More detailed descriptions in different contexts have since been made to better explain what is important when students collaborate and interact to facilitate learning through problem solving. Currently, there is a wide range of studies showing that group members who are successful in their collaborations negotiate with each other (Hmelo-Silver and Barrows 2008 ) and reciprocally share how they are doing with the task (Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2011 ; Ucan and Webb 2015 ). In other words, they engage in metacognitive monitoring, which can lead to more profitable strategies in collaborations (Hadwin et al. 2018 ). Monitoring can make learners aware of whether the task is progressing as planned or if there is a need to control and make changes to the process (Azevedo 2014 ; Azevedo et al. 2010 ). When learners engage in monitoring interactions, expressing their views to each other and acknowledge that there is a challenge in terms of their learning process, it can invite socially shared regulation, consisting of negotiated and reciprocal regulatory processes such as planning, monitoring, and controlling among the group members (Hadwin et al. 2018 ; Malmberg et al. 2015 ).

Learners’ monitoring interactions have a crucial impact on deciding which regulatory actions to take in order to reach task goals (Hadwin et al. 2018 ), because its valence signals whether the standards and goals set for task progress, understanding, and resources are being met or not (Azevedo et al. 2010 ; Azevedo 2014 ; Sobocinski et al. 2020 ). Monitoring interactions with positive valence suggest that things are on track and strategies are likely working. Monitoring interactions with negative valence raise the awareness that the group is off track and control of the strategies is likely needed. Although there is an emerging interest in studying group regulatory processes in relation to valence of monitoring interactions (Sobocinski et al. 2020 ), the knowledge on the issue is nascent. Specifically, the empirical link between the valence of monitoring interactions and group task performance is missing. Considering this, the current study investigates how valence of monitoring is seen in interaction and its relation to collaborative task performance.

In collaborative settings, metacognitive monitoring occurs as a co-constructed, transactive activity where group members engage in reciprocal turn-taking and respond to each other to discuss and evaluate their group progress, understanding, and resources. Several studies have underlined the importance of reciprocal interactions in facilitating effective monitoring in collaborative learning (Isohätälä et al. 2020 ; Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2011 ; Ucan and Webb 2015 ). However, it is also known that group members do not contribute to the collaborative discourse equally (Kapur et al. 2008 ; Koivuniemi et al. 2018 ). Specifically, there is limited knowledge on how equality of participation manifests in monitoring interactions during face-to-face collaboration and its impact on task outcomes. Drawing on this, the current study further explores equality of participation in monitoring interactions and its relation to collaborative task performance.

Studying metacognitive monitoring and regulation in collaborative learning is challenging because collaboration involves multiple agents interacting in relation to temporally unfolding collaboration events. Regulation in collaborative learning is a multifaceted phenomenon involving cognitive, motivational, emotional, and behavioral aspects (Hadwin et al. 2018 ), and it occurs as interplay on multiple systemic levels, including physiological, psychological, and interpersonal (Reimann 2019 ; Volet et al. 2009 ). To date, studying and gathering evidence of this temporal, multifaceted, multilevel phenomenon has been difficult for researchers. In real-time face-to-face collaborative learning studies, in particular, video data have been the most dominant data source used to study monitoring (Malmberg et al. 2017 ). Yet, during the past few years, there has been an increase in the development of methods and tools that are viable in making metacognitive monitoring and its underlying conditions in groups visible (Järvelä et al. 2021 ). Due to technological development, there are increased opportunities to apply, for example, speech recognition (Amon et al. 2019 ), facial expression recognition (Taub et al. 2019 ), or physiological sensors (Dindar, Järvelä et al. 2020 ), that can, to some extent, reach monitoring and its conditions in real time. Although some of these methods hold benefits in collaborative settings, such as physiological measures’ unobtrusiveness and intensive sampling, more empirical work is needed to show if and how they relate to processes relevant for socially shared regulation of learning (Hadwin et al. 2018 ), such as monitoring. Studying metacognitive processes in relation to physiological data might help overcome the aforementioned challenges in developing a more thorough understanding of how monitoring unfolds temporally and how it interplays with regulatory processes unfolding on the multiple systemic levels (Volet et al. 2009 ) of a collaborative group. Therefore, in addition to studying the characteristics of monitoring interaction (i.e., equality of participation and valence), this study utilizes electrodermal activity to explore whether these characteristics of monitoring as pivotal features of regulation are also reflected in interpersonal physiology.

Collaboration is a coordinated and synchronous activity that is facilitated by continuous attempts to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem (Roschelle and Teasley 1995 ). Therefore, collaborative learning can elicit students’ individual learning processes but can also start learning processes on a social level (Dillenbourg 1999 ; Salomon and Perkins 1998 ). However, collaborative learning does not necessarily take an effective form just by putting individuals into a group (Kuhn 2015 ), but rather, it requires learners to metacognitively monitor and regulate their cognition, emotion, motivation, and behavior individually and as a group (Järvelä et al. 2018 ). Shared understanding and planning are important for solving problems together (Eichmann et al. 2019 ; Häkkinen et al. 2017 ), but learners also need to be aware of and monitor together how they are doing with their task and what needs to be changed when challenges occur (Ackerman and Thompson 2017 ; Hesse et al. 2015 ).

Monitoring together in collaborative learning

Monitoring is at the core of metacognition and regulation because it facilitates the comparison of the current state of the cognition with the standards set for the task (Winne and Hadwin 1998 ). Given that metacognitive monitoring lacks direct access to cognition, it often must rely on its products (Veenman et al. 2006 ; Winne 2018 ). In problem solving, these cognitive products can take the form of progress and performance regarding the task at hand. Therefore, thinking about progress and performance in terms of a collaborative problem-solving task can be considered a metacognitive monitoring process (Ackerman and Thompson 2017 ; Clark and Dumas 2016 ; Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2011 ; Ucan and Webb 2015 ).

Monitoring serves as a base for controlling learning and problem solving if needed and is therefore important for successful problem-solving (Ackerman and Thompson 2017 ; Chang et al. 2017 ). This is especially the case when the task is considered to be complex (Dörner and Funke 2017 ; Greene and Azevedo 2009 ) because complex problem solving involves a high level of uncertainty, temporally unfolding events, and evaluation of the effectiveness of strategies (Dörner and Funke 2017 ). These characteristics call learners to monitor their knowledge, progress, and strategies. For example, Rudolph et al. ( 2017 ) studied the role of monitoring in complex problem solving and found it to be positively linked to success in solving the problem. Their results suggest that problem solving requires efficient self-regulation, and in particular, monitoring. The authors also stated that it would be especially relevant to study what follows when the monitoring of the students signals challenges in the process.

Monitoring also has a fundamental role in theories of regulation in collaborative learning (Hadwin et al. 2018 ). For group-level regulation (co-regulation and socially shared regulation) to manifest itself, it is crucial that metacognitive monitoring is communicated and negotiated in the interactions between group members (Hadwin et al. 2018 ; Malmberg et al. 2017 ). This is especially the case during task execution because it is important that all the participants in a group know how they are progressing with the task so that they can decide together on the efficient use of strategies. Due to that, the quality of monitoring seems to be strongly associated with high-quality cognitive activities of collaborative groups (Hurme et al. 2006 ; Khosa and Volet 2014 ). Näykki et al. ( 2017 ) studied the characteristics of university students’ monitoring in collaborative learning and found that groups in which learners monitored their own and their peers’ understanding throughout the tasks had an advantage in terms of their learning gains over the groups who did not. In the successful groups, learners were also actively involved in monitoring each other’s task progress, task understanding, and task interests. Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia ( 2011 ) studied in detail the characteristics of high-quality monitoring in collaborative learning. Their results suggest that groups’ high-quality monitoring asks for group members’ equal contributions to monitoring. This view is supported by Ucan and Webbs’ ( 2015 ) study, in which reciprocal monitoring interactions facilitated a beneficial knowledge co-construction process within the groups. Reciprocal interactions and equal contributions to monitoring should also support the socially shared regulation of learning, which again, should contribute to collaborative learning (Järvelä et al. 2018 ; Saab 2012 ).

The importance of equality of participation in small groups has been acknowledged for decades for its apparent ability to predict differences in learning (Cohen 1994 ). In practice, equality of participation has often been operationalized with indices of statistical dispersion derived from either the number of task acts or the amount of talking time initiated by each group member (Bachour et al. 2010 ; Cohen and Roper 1972 ). In computer-supported collaborative learning environments, the length of the messages has also been used as a unit of analysis (Kapur et al. 2008 ; Strauß and Rummel 2021 ). Results from synchronous online collaboration studies (Kapur et al. 2008 ) suggest that equality of participation is a significant positive predictor of collaborative learning outcomes and that the level for this in a group is quite stable. Inequal participation is hypothesized to leave little opportunity for different perspectives, strategies, and solutions to be shared and discussed, which might explain why equality of participation predicts learning outcomes.

Further, emerging evidence from studies in face-to-face collaborative learning settings suggests that productive collaboration involves distributed actions of regulation, social behaviors with positive valence, and forms of interaction, which support equal participation in a group (Pino-Pasternak et al. 2018 ). For example, Isohätälä et al. ( 2020 ) explored how actively students participate in cognitive and socio-emotional interactions during collaborative learning and what characterizes the moments when participation changes during transitions between the types of interaction. They categorized events from video data where all or only some of the students participated in the interaction. The qualitative analysis showed that monitoring task progress and challenges often occurred when a higher number of students participated during a transition from cognitive to socio-emotional interaction. Groups’ metacognitive interaction about their performance seemed to co-occur with socio-emotional interaction and often involved increased participation in a group. The authors of the study hypothesize that these moments may help groups to coordinate and develop shared understandings of their learning and promote a positive socio-emotional climate. They also conclude that future studies should investigate how patterns of participation and types of social interaction affect regulation and outcomes of collaborative learning.

To conclude, monitoring has a special role in collaborative problem solving, because in order to collaborate, students should share their views about the task and progress towards their goal. This is also a prerequisite for socially shared regulation (Hadwin et al. 2018 ). However, empirical evidence about the importance of equality of participation in monitoring interactions for the group performance in face-to-face collaboration is still limited.

Valence of monitoring makes a difference to regulation

Although the aforementioned earlier research has revealed some of the characteristics of monitoring interaction, the valence of monitoring has so far gained little attention in the analysis of regulatory processes (Azevedo 2014 ). Because monitoring is an activity that raises participants’ awareness of the current situation, it can signal two completely different states of affairs with regard to valence.

Monitoring has different valences depending on if there is a discrepancy or not with the standards and goals set. On the one hand, monitoring can signal that there is a challenge and that the cognitive activity process is not developing as it should, which requires students to control their cognitive processes. This has been called monitoring with negative valence (Azevedo et al. 2010 ; Sobocinski et al. 2020 ). For example, a group of students might notice that their simulation task is not progressing as it should and that they are not performing well. This serves as a sign that something needs to be changed (metacognitive control) in their cognitive processes, and they can start to discuss alternative strategies to use in the simulation. They might end up reading the instructions again or adjusting the simulation for better success. On the other hand, monitoring may also indicate that the process is currently on track, which is called monitoring with positive valence . This suggests that the learning is progressing as it should and that no significant adjustments are needed regarding the cognitive processes of the group. Though the valence of monitoring is likely linked to emotional valence, it has a different meaning because emotional valence refers to the pleasantness of a feeling (Bradley and Lang 1994 ), while valence of monitoring refers to the evaluation of a cognitive process in relation to set standards (Azevedo and Witherspoon 2009 ). It is, for example, possible for a learner to monitor their own task progress with negative valence but still express and experience emotions with positive valence.

Monitoring with negative valence makes a difference for regulation in collaborative learning because it is likely to start the control processes of regulation. This means that the group has to activate and show an effort to change the course of the learning process (Hadwin et al. 2018 ), which should also be reflected as the interplay of adjustments on different systemic levels, including physiological, psychological, and interpersonal (Volet et al. 2009 ), of a collaborating group. Therefore, the distinction of valence as a characteristic in monitoring is important for understanding how students regulate their learning processes together (Sobocinski et al. 2020 ). The valence of monitoring has been acknowledged in regulation research on individual learners (Azevedo et al. 2010 ). However, there are only a few studies that have investigated it in collaborative learning contexts (Sobocinski et al. 2020 ; Koivuniemi et al. 2018 ). These studies suggest that becoming aware and acknowledging the challenges in approaching the goals is important for efficient collaboration and seems to be linked to collaboration dynamics such as equality of participation. Evidence for the relation between valence of monitoring interactions, collaborative task performance and marks of regulation on different systemic levels of collaborative group is still scarce.

Interpersonal physiology reflecting monitoring in collaboration

Regulation of collaborative learning is not static but rather unfolds over time. While it is metacognitively grounded (Hadwin et al. 2018 ), it activates adjustments on different systemic levels (physiological, psychological, and interpersonal) based on perceived or anticipated changes in the demands and conditions of the environment to meet goals (Volet et al. 2009 ). This means that recognizing a need for adjustment through monitoring is pivotal and should therefore be reflected in social interactions (Näykki et al. 2017 ) and physiology (Ullsperger et al. 2014 ). To have a comprehensive understanding on the nature of monitoring and regulation in collaborative learning, it is important to investigate the interplay between the aforementioned systemic levels (Reimann 2019 ).

So far, it has been challenging to find scalable measures to explore these processes (Hurme and Järvelä 2005 ). Approaching regulation through triangulation with multiple methods and data channels has been proposed as one potential solution for the challenge (Karabenick and Zusho 2015 ; Järvelä et al. 2019 ). Recent developments in technology have opened new possibilities for studying monitoring with temporal data. Still, robust measures in individual learning settings, such as computer log events (Winne and Jamieson-Noel 2002 ) or a think-aloud protocol (Greene et al. 2012 ), are not necessarily well suited to face-to-face collaborative tasks. This is because the number of log events in face-to-face collaborative settings is often low, and traditional thinking aloud directed toward the researcher cannot be carried out normally when students take turns discussing the problem with one another.

Recently, it has become possible for learning researchers to utilize data modalities that have previously only been available in highly controlled laboratory settings (Järvelä et al. 2019 ; Reimann et al. 2014 ). For example, physiological measures provide intensive temporal data linked to cognitive and emotional processes during cognitive tasks (Efklides et al. 2018 ; Kreibig and Gendolla 2014 ; Strain et al. 2013 ), which means they have potential in studying learning processes. Autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity does reflect cognitive processes (Critchley et al. 2013 ), and its measures have been used in psychological research for years to study physiological arousal in relation to the emotion, cognition, and behavior of individuals. For example, there have been attempts to find an optimal level of physiological arousal for performance (Stennett 1957 ; Yerkes and Dodson 1908 ), and empirical findings suggest that physiological arousal is linked to learning outcomes in real collaborative classroom environments (Pijeira-Díaz et al. 2018 ).

Research also suggests that physiological arousal relates to processes relevant to the regulation of learning (Malmberg et al. 2019 ). Being a goal-targeted activity, regulation of learning is likely to be reflected in ANS, which has the purpose of regulating bodily functions to meet the interpreted situational demands. For example, in addition to having cognitive and affective effects, monitoring problems in task performance (monitoring with negative valence) activates ANS, providing the somatic basis for behavioral adaptations (Ullsperger et al. 2014 ). Recently proposed allostatic models of regulation and adaptation of physiology also suggest that changes in ANS are not just reactions to events, but reflect individuals’ and groups’ predicted demands (physical, cognitive, or social) in the situation (Blair and Raver 2015 ; Kreibig and Gendolla 2014 ; Saxbe et al. 2020 ; Sterling 2012 ). This means that changes in arousal also reflect the predictions of the coming events and required actions in relation to individuals’ or groups’ goals.

In addition to investigating individuals’ physiological activity in collaborative settings, a growing interest has risen to study the relationship between people’s physiological dynamics referred as interpersonal physiology (Palumbo et al. 2017 ). Interpersonal autonomic physiology studies temporal interactions in ANS between multiple people. These interactions have been linked to several social cognitive and emotional phenomena relevant for collaboration, such as shared understanding (Järvelä et al. 2014 ), empathy (Marci et al. 2007 ), and emotional contagion (Pijeira-Díaz et al. 2019 ). However, the role of interdependence between the participants’ physiological processes for social coordination remains unclear. On the one hand it seems to facilitate common social and affective space for collaboration (Cornejo et al. 2017 ; Danyluck and Page-Gould 2019 ) and on the other hand in some contexts it seems to reflect co-dysregulation in face of challenges (Saxbe et al. 2020 ). It has been hypothesized that these dynamics in interpersonal physiology aim towards stability through change, meaning continual predictive adjustment of multiple physiological systems to maintain homeostatic balance in a group (Saxbe et al. 2020 ).

Different concepts and computational procedures have been used to describe interpersonal physiology (Palumbo et al. 2017 ). In practice, most of the indices reveal how much interdependent or associated activity there is between the participants’ physiological processes. In this study, this interdependence is referred to as physiological synchrony.

One of the potential ANS measures to inspect interpersonal physiology during temporally unfolding collaborative events is electrodermal activity (Ahonen et al. 2018 ; Schneider et al. 2020 ). Electrodermal activity (EDA) indicates the sympathetic “Fight or Flight” activity of ANS, which especially has been hypothesized to prepare the individual to face challenges identified in the situation (Dawson et al. 2017 ). Though EDA has often been linked with emotional reactions, it is also considered to relate to metacognitive processes, such as the monitoring of task performance (Ahonen et al. 2018 ; Hajcak et al. 2003 ; Ullsperger et al. 2014 ) and feelings relating to difficulty and effort (Efklides et al. 2006 ).

Ahonen et al. ( 2018 ), studying collaborative learning in coding with dyads, found that the amplitude of EDA responses contains information about collaboration dynamics in relation to the role participants have in collaboration. They also found preliminary evidence suggesting that EDA provides insight into the valence of pivotal task events. In the study, students who ran the code showed significantly higher EDA responses before running unsuccessful code than those running successful code. Authors of the study frame this as a link to emotional valence, but further explain it with participants’ mental model of the code goodness, which could be considered to rely on metacognition. The fact that the arousal arose before testing the non-successful code could mean that prediction of the coming performance and adjustments needed after that was made beforehand, which would align with allostatic models of physiological regulation (Sterling 2012 ).

Based on prior research, Malmberg et al. ( 2019 ) investigated how physiological arousal relates to monitoring events during collaborative exams. They found that, at a session level, the frequency of monitoring utterances was strongly related to physiological arousal, seen as EDA peaks.

Recently, Schneider et al. ( 2020 ) found physiological synchrony to be positively linked with interaction characteristics relevant to regulation in collaborative learning, such as reciprocal interactions and dialogue management. They also found that groups that managed to reach a consensus decreased their physiological synchrony over time. Further, group effort demands might play a role in this, as Dindar, Järvelä et al. ( 2020 ) found monitoring of mental effort to be positively related to physiological synchrony during collaboration. Physiological synchrony has also been found to reflect the similarity between subjective self-reported evaluations of cognition between group members in collaboration (Dindar, Malmberg et al. 2020 ). Sobocinski et al. ( 2020 ) studied the valence of monitoring and the following reactions by collaborative group members as markers of adaptation during a collaborative physics exam. They found that groups that monitored more with positive valence also tended to show more transitions in their group-level physiological states, as derived with vector quantization from their heart rate signals. Though the strength of the correlation was limited, the relations between monitoring and interpersonal physiology seem to have potential to be explored further.

Frequently found relations between monitoring interactions and physiology suggest that the hypothesized interplay (Reimann 2019 ; Volet et al. 2009 ) between systemic levels of physiology and social interaction in the regulation of collaborative learning exists. However, the findings of interpersonal physiology in relation to monitoring expressed in collaborative learning are still somewhat inconsistent, and there seem to be group- (Haataja et al. 2018 ) and task-dependent variations (Dindar et al. 2019 ). It remains unclear whether interpersonal physiology is more likely to reflect the dynamics of roles and equality of participation in collaborative interactions (Ahonen et al. 2018 ; Schneider et al. 2020 ) or the recognized regulatory need for adjustments (monitoring with negative valence) in a group (Sobocinski et al. 2020 ; Volet et al. 2009 ). The valence of monitoring should be pivotal for the following regulation process (Azevedo 2014 ), making it important to study valence in relation to monitoring interactions, arousal, and physiological synchrony. More research is needed to better understand how physiological synchrony, which in some contexts seems to facilitate adaptation (Feldman 2007 ) but in others is coupled with challenges (Malmberg et al. 2019; Saxbe et al. 2020 ), relates to monitoring and regulation in collaborative learning.

This study acknowledges the pivotal role of monitoring for collaborative problem solving and hypothesizes that it can be evidenced in interactions, performance, and interpersonal physiology. Therefore, the study aims to investigate how valence and equality of participation in monitoring interactions relates to collaborative problem-solving performance, physiological arousal, and physiological synchrony.

The specific research questions and hypotheses are as follows:

RQ1. Do valence and equality of participation in monitoring interactions relate to collaborative task performance?

H 1 . Valence of monitoring interactions predicts collaborative task performance.

H 2 . Equality of participation in monitoring interactions predicts collaborative task performance.

RQ2. Do physiological arousal and physiological synchrony relate to valence of monitoring interactions?

H 3 . Physiological arousal predicts valence of monitoring interactions.

H 4 . Physiological synchrony predicts valence of monitoring interactions.

RQ3. Do physiological arousal and synchrony relate to equality of participation in monitoring interactions?

H 5 . Physiological arousal is positively linked to equality of participation in monitoring interactions.

H 6 . Physiological synchrony is positively linked to equality of participation in monitoring interactions.

Methodology

Participants and context.

The subjects of the study were volunteer university students ( N  = 77, M age  = 27.84, SD  = 5.51, Male = 33) who were randomly assigned to groups of three. In total, data were collected from 26 groups. However, seven groups were excluded from the dataset, either due to a participant leaving the task before it was over or because of the poor quality of a participant’s EDA data. One of the excluded groups included only 2 participants. Therefore, the final dataset includes data from 19 groups ( N  = 57, M age  = 27.29, SD  = 4.89, Male = 25).

The collaborative task was a business simulation in which participants were required to run a shirt production company (Danner et al. 2011 ). The simulation’s goal was to increase the value of the company as much as possible. This depended on the relationships between 24 variables (e.g., employee wages, storage costs, store locations, advertisement costs, shirt price), which could be adjusted by the group members. The simulation included two distinct phases: exploration and performance. The current study concentrates on the exploration phase, wherein the participants ran the simulation for six simulated months with the aim of learning how the system worked, as well as understanding how adjusting the variables would affect the value of the company. Adjustments for each month were followed by a transition to the next month, after which the participants could immediately see the company’s current value based on the decisions and adjustments made during the previous month. This study focuses on one-minute episodes that took place immediately after each transition as those were considered to be pivoting parts of the simulation where the students would likely spontaneously monitor their problem-solving processes. The participants were not prompted on how to interact after the transitions.

The data were collected in a classroom-like research infrastructure specifically designed for collaborative learning. The research space was separated into three rooms with soundproof walls, which made it possible to collect data from three groups simultaneously. First, participants were asked to fill in consent forms. Second, for EDA recording, the researchers attached Shimmer 3GSR + sensors (Burns et al. 2010 ) to the participants’ non-dominant hands so that the gel electrodes were placed on the thenar and hypothenar eminences on their palms (Dawson et al. 2017 ). Third, the researchers introduced the participants to their randomly assigned group members and guided them to the data collection room. In the room, the group members were seated at a table with a desktop computer. Fourth, the researcher read the task instruction and then left the participants to complete the simulation collaboratively. On average, it took 41 min and 14 s for the groups to complete the exploration phase of the task ( SD  = 17 min 5 s).

The data of the current study consist of video recordings, physiological data, and task performance measures for 19 groups. Altogether, the video recordings include 27 h and 3 min of data. However, this study concentrates on the exploration phase of the simulation, and the (1 min) episodes following the transitions between the simulated months altogether provide 114 one-minute video recordings. The original EDA data consist of 57 recordings with a sampling frequency of 128 hz. Log data include the timestamps of the transition episodes and the company values before and after the transitions in the simulation.

Analysis of the performance

Since the goal of the simulation is to maximize the company value, the changes in the company value after each simulated month are considered as performance indicators for the Tailorshop simulation (Danner et al. 2011 ). Although a trend in the change seems to be the most reliable measure of individuals’ dynamic decision-making skill, this study was more interested in the specific moments of collaboration in the simulation interactions. Therefore, a change in the company value ( M = -12373.26, SD  = 17493.20) for the month, following the transition minute, was used as an indicator of task performance for each month. Because the change is presented as a simulated monetary unit, being possibly difficult to interpret, the values were standardized to help interpretation of the results.

Analysis of the video data

The analysis of the current study concentrates on the (1 min) time segments when the students transitioned to the subsequent month in terms of exploring the simulation and, therefore, when they had the chance to monitor their progress with the task. Monitoring utterances and subjects participating were identified and coded from the transition (1 min) episodes in the video, and was based on prior coding schemes used for monitoring coding (Haataja et al. 2018 ; Whitebread et al. 2009 ). Verbalizations related to the ongoing on-task assessment of the quality of the task performance, understanding, and the degree to which performance was progressing towards a desired goal were considered as monitoring interactions (Whitebread et al. 2009 ). After this, a coding scheme on the valence of monitoring was developed based on theory (Azevedo 2014 ; Azevedo and Witherspoon 2009 ) and prior research (Sobocinski et al. 2020 ).

The valence of monitoring included three categories: monitoring with positive, neutral, and negative valence. Defining characters for monitoring with positive valence were that the students considered that the problem-solving process was progressing towards their goal or that they acknowledged knowing how the simulation worked. Monitoring with neutral valence was more about students verbally pointing out the current state of the problem-solving process without considering if it was progressing towards the goal or not. Monitoring with negative valence signaled that the process of problem solving was not advancing towards the goal or that the students did not understand how the system operated. Table  1 explains the key differences between each of these categories in further detail.

In the current study, verbal expressions of monitoring were considered as participation in monitoring and, therefore, equality of participation into monitoring was operationalized from the variation in summed durations of expressed monitoring utterances between the students. In practice, equality of participation in monitoring interactions between the students was calculated for each simulation transition minute as the standard deviation ( SD ) of the three members’ monitoring proportions (the duration of the monitoring by a member as a proportion of the total duration of the monitoring) within each group (Kapur et al. 2008 ). This would have meant that a lower SD indicated more equal participation in the monitoring interactions between the students in a group. Therefore, the variable was reversed for easier interpretation. First, each value was subtracted from the theoretical maximum of the proportional SD that three group members could have, referring to a case of least equal participation where one student would be responsible for all the monitoring. Second, resulting values were then divided by theoretical maximum to adjust the range of the scale to 0–1. In the resulting variable, value 0 indicates the lowest possible equality of participation where one student is responsible for all the monitoring in a group, and value 1 indicates the highest possible equality of participation where all three group members attend to exactly the same amount.

Reliability of the video data coding

The reliability analysis was performed on two levels: first, (a) to identify monitoring utterances at the student level and second, (b) to reveal the valence of the monitoring utterances at the student level. Both the monitoring utterances and the valence of the monitoring utterances were coded by two researchers. After the principal coder had completed the coding, the interrater coder assessed 20 % of the data from randomly selected one-minute episodes, altogether consisting of 23 min of video from 15 groups. The interrater coder was asked to demarcate monitoring utterances and the valence of the monitoring utterances from the students’ verbal interactions (i.e., when the monitoring began and ended) and to name the type of valence (negative, neutral, or positive). In the first round of the reliability coding, four random episodes were selected. In this phase of the analysis, the rules and criteria for identifying monitoring utterances with valence were also clarified. In the second round of the analysis, 10 episodes from 23 randomly assigned episodes were analyzed, yielding agreement between the coders with a kappa value of 0.59. After negotiating and specifying the coding schema, the rest of the episodes were coded, and the overall interrater reliability kappa value for 168 monitoring utterances was 0.64, which can be considered as demonstrating a substantial level of agreement. The resulting video codes used in the later steps of the analysis were all coded by a principal coder who was more experienced with these types of data. The duration of each valence of monitoring for each one-minute episode and for each student was retrieved from Observer XT12.5 software.

Analysis of the physiological data

The EDA signal was pre-processed with a previously used approach (see, e.g., Di Lascio et al. 2018 ). First, the EDA data were visually inspected for clear signs of movement artifacts (e.g., lost electrode contact seen as a drop in the signal), and the artifacts found were manually corrected with Ledalab toolbox. Second, the signals were downsampled to 4 hz with the purpose of making long recordings computable for recurrence quantification analysis. Third, signals were standardized in order to make them comparable with each other (Ben-Shakhar 1985 ). Standardization has been successfully used for EDA (Ben-Shakhar 1985 ; Dawson et al. 2017 ) and is also suggested for recurrence-based analysis to ensure that its measures are based on the sequential similarity of the time series (Wallot and Leonardi 2018 ). Fourth, the signal was decomposed with Ledalab continuous decomposition analysis, including the adaptive smoothing of the signal (Benedek and Kaernbach 2010 ), which resulted in a rapidly changing phasic signal component (seen as peaks in the original signal) and a more slowly changing tonic signal component (seen as a base level in the original signal).

Physiological arousal was measured by the change in the tonic signal component of EDA, which has been suggested to be applicable to unfolding events such as collaborative learning (Mendes 2009 ). In practice, physiological arousal was derived from the slope of the tonic EDA component by fitting a linear model for each signal in each transition minute. Because this gave values for the individuals in a group, an aggregation for the group level had to be carried out. For this, the best unbiased linear predictor method in the MicroMacro R package was used (Croon and van Veldhoven 2007 ; Lu et al. 2017 ). This resulted in slope values for each group for each transition, reflecting physiological arousal at a group level. Positive values signaled an increase and negative values signaled a decrease in the group’s arousal.

Physiological synchrony aims to reveal interdependence in physiology between the individuals. In this study, the explored time windows for interdependence were quite short (1 min), and therefore, the phasic signal component of EDA was used as the signal for calculation (Mendes 2009 ). Multidimensional recurrence quantification analysis (MdRQA) is one of the few methods that can quantify the synchrony between more than two signals (Wallot et al. 2016 ), and therefore, it was used to quantify the physiological synchrony between the students. MdRQA is a nonlinear time series analysis method that allows the investigation of synchrony patterns between two or more time series, which do not necessarily have to be stationary. MdRQA statistics are based on recurrence plots, which graphically display the dynamics of a multidimensional phase space of a system, such as a collaborating group (see the example in Fig.  1 ). In general, MdRQA statistics derived from the plot can be considered to indicate synchrony between the signals. For example, percent recurrence (%REC) indicates how many individual elements between three signals are shared, percent determinism (%DET) is the degree to which elements between the three signals repeat in terms of larger connected synchrony patterns, and average diagonal line (ADL) indicates the average size of the repeated synchrony patterns (Wallot et al. 2016 ).

Example of EDA signals ( A , C ) and the resulting recurrence plots ( B , D ) of one-minute episodes with high synchrony ( A , B ) and low synchrony ( C , D )

The parameters for running the MdRQA analysis were decided based on the suggestions in the RQA literature (Wallot et al. 2016 ). First, the delay (DEL) parameter was estimated using the average mutual information function for each individual EDA signal. Second, the false nearest neighbor function was used for each EDA signal to estimate the embedding dimension parameter. With both functions, the first local minimum was determined for each signal and then averaged and rounded up for all the signals. In this case, the resulting values were divided by two as the signals were embedded together in the MdRQA. This means that not all the dimensions had to be reconstructed by time-delayed embedding because they were available as separately measured signals (Wallot et al. 2016 ). The parameters used were delay = 10 and embedding = 2. The radius parameter was set to 0.30, which kept the mean of percent recurrence close to the suggested 5 % (Wallot and Leonardi 2018 ).

To verify that the synchrony occurred due to collaboration and not due to chance or task constraints, false groups were formed so that phasic EDA signals were randomly matched with participants from other groups. In practice, each signal was randomly assigned to a false group so that none of the signals stayed in the same group with the original group members. Then, MdRQA was performed for the false groups to compare them with the real ones. The Mann-Whitney U test showed a significant difference between the real and the false groups for percent recurrence (%REC, U  = 5 385.5, n 1 = 112, n 2 = 112, z  = − 2.032, p  = .042), percent determinism (%DET, U  = 5 116, n 1 = 112, n 2 = 112, z  = − , p  = .010) and average diagonal line length (ADL, U  = 5 407, n 1 = 112, n 2 = 112, z  = − 1.988, p  = .047). However, for maximum diagonal line length (MDL, U  = 6 306, n 1 = 112, n 2 = 112, z  = − 0.159, p  = .874) and percent laminarity (%LAM, U  = 5428.5, n 1 = 112, n 2 = 112, z  = − 1.944, p  = .052), no significant difference was found, and therefore, these were excluded from the later phases of analysis.

In order to use all the observed values from transition moments for each group in the analysis, the effects of repeated measures and possible serial dependency had to be taken into account in the statistical analysis. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a robust covariance estimator were used to model the standardized independent variables as predictors of task performance, equality of participation in monitoring, and valence of monitoring interactions. GEE attempts to accommodate the covariance that exists between the observations (i.e., repeated observations or clusters) and yields regression coefficient estimates with standard error estimates being corrected for nested or repeated types of data (McNeish et al. 2017 ). Because the dependent variables were continuous, normal, gamma, and inverse gaussian distributions with logarithmic and identity link functions were tested to select the best fitting working correlation matrix indicated by the lowest quasi-likelihood under the independence criterion (QIC) value (Garson 2012). Independent variables were standardized before being included in the model. The independent covariates for each model were included based on the lowest values of corrected quasi-likelihood under the independence model criterion (QICC), indicating the best fit for the model (Cui and Qian 2007 ). The results of each model with the working correlation matrix, distribution, and link functions are reported in each table. Variance inflation factor values for MdRQA measures (VIF < 2.2) and different valences of monitoring (VIF < 1.2) were below commonly used cutoff limits (4–10, O’Brien 2007 ) suggesting that multicollinearity does not exist between the variables.

Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics for the monitoring utterances with different valences are introduced as durations and frequencies in Table  2 . Most of the monitoring had a neutral valence ( M  = 16.88 s, SD  = 11.45 s). Monitoring with positive valence occurred the least ( M  = 5.45 s, SD  = 5.52 s). On average, half of the duration of the transition minutes included monitoring interactions (see Table  2 ).

The Friedman test was run to see if there were differences between six subsequent transitions in terms of the duration of the monitoring and the three different valence categories. Durations of monitoring with neutral valence (χ 2 (5) = 2.81, p  = .730) and with positive valence (χ 2 (5) = 6.85, p  = .232), and monitoring overall, showed no differences between transitions. Only monitoring with negative valence showed a significant difference between transition episodes (χ 2 (5) = 17.80, p  = .003). However, a post hoc comparison of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Bonferroni correction could not identify significant differences in pair-wise comparisons between the transitions. Variance partitioning coefficients suggested that differences between groups explained 21 % of the variance in all monitoring, 12 % in monitoring with negative valence, 27 % in monitoring with neutral valence, and 4 % in monitoring with positive valence. This supported the use of GEE for the later steps of the analysis.

The values for equality of participation varied from 0 to 1, with a mean of 0.52 and a SD of 0.20. A repeated measures ANOVA showed no significant difference between the means of the six subsequent transition episodes ( F (5, 90) = 1.72, p  = .14), which would suggest that on average there was no change or trend in terms of how equally the students took part in monitoring interactions during the simulation. The variance partitioning coefficient suggested that 27 % of the variance in equality of participation in monitoring was explained by the group. This is to say, there were consistent differences between the groups (see Fig.  2 ) in terms of how equally the monitoring interactions were distributed between the group members, which also supported use of GEE for the later analysis.

Equality of participation presented for each group during each transition episode

RQ1. Do valence of monitoring interactions and equality of participation in monitoring interactions relate to collaborative task performance?

Equality of participation in monitoring and monitoring with negative, neutral, and positive valence (duration) were used as independent variables to fit a GEE model predicting task performance. Based on the QIC and QICC, the best fitting model predicting task performance included equality of participation in monitoring and monitoring with positive valence as significant positive predictors (see Table  3 ). Intercept made the fit of the model worse and was therefore excluded from it. This result means that higher equality of participation in monitoring interactions and more monitoring with positive valence predicted better task performance following the transition episodes.

The slope of the tonic EDA signal, representing physiological arousal and %REC, %DET, and ADL, representing physiological synchrony, were used to fit models predicting each valence category of monitoring interactions. The GEE model output for monitoring with negative, neutral, and positive valence shows that physiological arousal and physiological synchrony were both related to the valence of monitoring interactions (see Table  4 ). First, the model predicting monitoring with negative valence included the tonic EDA slope and %DET as significant positive predictors, meaning that increase in physiological arousal and higher physiological synchrony were related to more monitoring interactions with negative valence. Second, the model predicting monitoring with neutral valence included the tonic EDA slope as a significant negative predictor, meaning that an increase in arousal was related to less monitoring interactions with neutral valence. Third, the model predicting monitoring with positive valence indicates that %REC and %ADL were significant negative predictors, meaning that higher physiological synchrony was related to less monitoring with positive valence.

The slope of the tonic EDA signal, representing physiological arousal, and %REC, %DET, and ADL, representing physiological synchrony, were used as independent variables to predict equality of participation in monitoring interactions. None of the independent physiological data variables improved the fit of the GEE model for predicting equality of participation in monitoring interactions. The best fitting model therefore only included the intercept (β = 0.241, χ 2  = 333.72, p  < .001, 95 % CI [0.22, 0.27]), which suggests that neither arousal nor physiological synchrony has the potential to predict equal participation in monitoring interactions.

Research into regulation in learning has emphasized the need to differentiate the characteristics of monitoring in different settings (Azevedo 2014 ). Equality of participation (Isohätälä et al. 2017 ; Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2011 ) and the valence of monitoring interactions (Sobocinski et al. 2020 ) have been considered as important characteristics for successful collaborative learning, but few studies have examined these systematically. Theories of regulation in collaborative learning have also emphasized the multifaceted (Hadwin et al. 2018 ) and multilevel (Volet et al. 2009 ) nature of regulation in collaborative learning. Prior research suggests that interpersonal physiology does relate to monitoring and regulation in collaborative learning. However, this relation has not held true for all tasks and all groups (Dindar et al. 2019 ; Haataja et al. 2018 ). In general, researchers have called for more empirical evidence to confirm the methodological relevancy of multimodal data for conceptual and theoretical progress in the field of regulated learning (Järvelä et al. 2019 ; Reimann 2019 ).

This study supports the view that the different types of valence occurs in monitoring and can be recognized in the interactions of the students (Sobocinski et al. 2020). However, in the collaborative problem-solving context studied, much of the monitoring was neutral, without indicating a clear negative or positive valence. This distribution between different valence categories likely depends, to a great extent, on the contextual task demands and on the competence of the group. Because the task of the current study was novel for the participants, they were likely to monitor a lot of elements of which not all were related to the cognitive goals of the task. Complex problem solving also involves a high level of uncertainty (Dörner and Funke 2017 ), which is also likely to trigger knowledge construction that could be reflected as neutral monitoring. Still, in general monitoring with different valences stayed constant, and no significant differences between the transition episodes were found as the students progressed with the task.

The results suggest that groups differ in how equally participants take part in monitoring interactions, and this seems to be a characteristic that is somewhat “fixed” through the collaboration. This means that in some groups, participants continuously take more equal responsibility in terms of monitoring interactions. Similar findings for equality of participation in collaborative learning have been made in prior research (Cohen 1994 , Kapur et al. 2008 ). This could indicate that initial individual and/or social conditions such as self-efficacy or interest might have a significant role in terms of equality of participation in monitoring interactions. This should be considered when interventions aiming to support monitoring are designed. For example, it might be important that prompts, which have been considered as a prominent approach to facilitate metacognitive interaction (Malmberg et al. 2015 ), are introduced early in the collaboration and that these would also aim to influence equality of participation in monitoring interactions.

Group members’ equality of participation in monitoring and monitoring with positive valence were found to be significant predictors of task performance. First, this supports the importance of shared regulatory processes in collaborative learning (Hadwin et al. 2018 ). When more participants monitor the task process, it is likely that different points of views are presented to construct shared knowledge (Roschelle and Teasley 1995 ), which also supports the reciprocal and negotiated use of strategies and joint responsibility for the progress of the task (Isohätälä et al. 2020 ). It is also possible that inequality in participation has a hindering effect on collaboration because it can involve overruling and social loafing types of phenomena (Linnenbrink-Garcia et al. 2011 ). Importantly, although this study gives some support to the view that participation in monitoring can (in some cases) signal good-quality collaboration (Jeong and Hmelo-Silver 2016 ), it does not account for every variety of other quality characteristics in monitoring, such as targets and accuracy of monitoring, which affect how successfully students construct knowledge together (Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia 2011 ). Second, the result underlines the role of the valence of monitoring in revealing pivotal moments in collaborations. An explanation for the latter could be that when group members understand something relevant for the task, signaled as monitoring with positive valence, their following performance is likely to be better. Still, though the GEE analysis adjusts to the repeated nature of the data, this result should be interpreted carefully because of the possible relatedness between transitions.

The results of the current study also show that the valence of monitoring relates to the interpersonal physiology of the students. For example, monitoring with negative valence was positively related to increase in physiological arousal (EDA slope) and physiological synchrony (%DET). This means that when monitoring interactions suggest that there is a need to act and change something in a group’s strategies, learners simultaneously show the effortful allocation of physiological resources and attune with each other. This aligns with the hypothesized interplay of regulation on different systemic levels in collaborative groups (Reimann 2019 ; Volet et al. 2009 ). Arousal itself might also have a special adaptive role in collaborative learning, since it seems to increase information sharing (Berger 2011 ), which might be especially useful when different strategies are considered. In contrast, monitoring with neutral valence was related to a decrease in physiological arousal, and monitoring with positive valence was negatively linked to physiological synchrony (%REC and ADL), which signals that synchrony is lower when things are considered to be on-track. These results can also explain why some of the prior studies have observed variance in the relation between monitoring and physiological synchrony for different tasks and groups (Dindar et al. 2019 ; Haataja et al. 2018 ). Because the valence of monitoring interactions reflects task demands, it is likely that tasks with different degrees of difficulty and groups with different levels of competence show different relationships between monitoring and physiological synchrony if the valence of monitoring is not considered. This is also in line with recent findings showing a link between the monitoring of mental effort (Dindar, Järvelä et al. 2020 ) and task difficulties (Malmberg et al. 2019 ) with physiological synchrony. It seems that physiological synchrony occurs as a condition, especially when the group as a whole considers that efforts and changes in the collaborative process are needed. When the strategies are changed, physiological synchrony tends to decrease (Mønster et al. 2016 ). Therefore, it could be hypothesized that groups that continuously show high synchrony and arousal throughout their collaboration might actually be unable to adapt and find efficient strategies and could therefore benefit from support.

Earlier research has found interpersonal physiology to reflect reciprocal contributions to collaborative learning (Schneider et al. 2020 ), and therefore, this study explored the possible relationship between equality of participation in monitoring and physiological synchrony and arousal. However, the current study could not find a relationship between physiological synchrony or arousal and equality of participation in monitoring interactions. The difference in these results with those of prior research might be due to the different indices used for measuring physiological synchrony, different task types, and conditions, or the fact that monitoring interactions make up only a small part of all the interactions in collaborations. The result also suggests that, although joint contributions to monitoring interactions seem to be important for performance, it is not a prerequisite for students to interpret similarly the demands of the ongoing situation.

In relation to physiological arousal, it should be noted that constant increased physiological arousal is a taxing condition for the body (Dawson et al. 2017 ). Therefore, if a task involves a lot of monitoring with negative valence caused, for example, by uncertainty or difficulty, this is likely to be exhausting at the mental and physiological levels (Barrett et al. 2016 ; Stephan et al. 2016 ). Also, it could be hypothesized that if the physiological state of the individual or group is not optimal to start with, it might be difficult to keep demanding monitoring and regulation processes going. Considering this, physiological data hold the potential to reveal a more holistic picture of the conditions within which self- and socially shared regulation processes emerge (Ben-Eliyahu and Bernacki 2015 ; Järvelä et al. 2019 ).

The challenge of using physiological data as a direct proxy to study any mental-level self-regulatory process remains (Winne 2019 ). In the case of arousal, though it is likely related to monitoring of some current or forthcoming cognitive demands (Dawson et al. 2017 ), it is very challenging to say if these interpreted demands actually are cognitive or, for example, socio-emotional. Therefore, this allocation of physiological resources to meet the demands seen as changes in arousal cannot itself indicate whether it stems only from metacognition, or whether it is related to the learning task at all. This means that other data about the context are needed to make (at least somewhat) correct predictions of specific cognitive processes with physiological data (Järvelä et al. 2021 ). However, current investigations into the relations between physiology and social interactions in collaborative groups, as in this study, are likely to increase our understanding of how regulation involves adjustments on the multiple systemic levels of a collaborative group (Reimann 2019 ; Volet et al. 2009 ).

Further, because the valence of monitoring is likely, but not necessarily always, linked to emotional valence during collaborative learning, it would be important to investigate these processes together (Törmänen et al. 2021 ). Arousal originating from monitoring of cognition, or some other cognitive process, can also be considered as an affective ingredient when emotional experience is being constructed (Barrett 2016 ). This might partly explain some of the relationships found between emotions and metacognitive processes (Taub et al. 2019 ). One way to control and inspect these relations further in the future would be to separately capture fine-grained data of emotional expressions (e.g., facial expressions), metacognitive monitoring (e.g., interactions, or think-a-loud), and physiological arousal (e.g., electrodermal activity) and inspect the discrepancies and relations between them.

Future studies should also consider the nonlinear nature of emergence in these learning processes. For example, monitoring with different valence characteristics triggers different types of feedback loops of regulation, which are not linear but are likely to greatly affect the following learning process (Azevedo 2014 ). It is also important to investigate the temporal changes of interpersonal physiology such as moving in and out of synchrony (Likens and Wiltshire 2020 ), because these seem to be prominent in revealing the quality of the collaboration (Schneider et al. 2020 ) and might reflect adaptation or mal-adaptation of a group (Saxbe et al. 2020 ; Sobocinski et al. 2020 ). Because regulation in collaborative learning is a dynamic process and emerges on different systemic levels, which are likely to constantly interact with each other (Reimann 2019 ; Volet et al. 2009 ), a complex dynamical systems approach might offer potential methodological tools (e.g., MdRQA) for researching it in the future (Hilpert and Marchand 2018 ; Jacobson et al. 2016 ).

In conclusion, this study shows the importance of monitoring interactions for successful collaborative learning. It also provides evidence that levels of metacognitive interactions and interpersonal physiology are linked in collaborative learning. This suggests that monitoring interactions that serve groups’ regulation of learning towards a shared goal are linked to a different type of regulatory process on another systemic level: interpersonal physiology. Though the strength of this link may be limited, it is likely that research involving multiple data modalities such as video and physiological data advances understanding of how regulation on these different levels intertwine and facilitate or hinder groups in progressing towards their goals in problem solving and learning.

Limitations

The current study has several limitations. First, the data for this study were gathered with a simulation task, which is rather specific and not usual for the participants to be working with. Therefore, it might have a novelty effect not seen in other contexts. Also, though the task performance measures of the simulation are likely to reflect some of the learning gains, they are not a direct measure of these.

The focus of the current study was limited to transition moments in the simulation process. This was due to limited possibilities to code the entire video corpus with the level of detail used in this study. As a result, some of the monitoring that focused more on content understanding during exploration was likely left out of the analysis. Additionally, the study only concentrated on one central process of regulation—monitoring—and two of its characteristics. Considering the full cycles of regulation, including different phases, would be important in the future.

The transitions between simulated months are also likely to trigger monitoring and therefore results might not apply to monitoring during tasks with less structure. Due to the nature of the task, this monitoring also mostly targeted cognitive performance in contrast to, for example, knowledge about strategies. Further, in a real classroom the learners might monitor progress towards a variety of goals, from which only some might be related to learning. Though monitoring of cognition has been shown to be linked with arousal, other factors are likely to be linked to physiological arousal and synchrony during collaborative learning.

Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. A. (2017). Meta-reasoning: Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 21(8), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahonen, L., Cowley, B. U., Hellas, A., & Puolamäki, K. (2018). Biosignals reflect pair-dynamics in collaborative work: EDA and ECG study of pair-programming in a classroom environment. Scientific Reports , 8(1), 3138. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21518-3

Amon, M. J., Vrzakova, H., & D’Mello, S. K. (2019). Beyond dyadic coordination: Multimodal behavioral irregularity in triads predicts facets of collaborative problem solving. Cognitive Science , 43(10), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12787

Azevedo, R. (2014). Issues in dealing with sequential and temporal characteristics of self- and socially-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning , 9(2), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9123-1

Azevedo, R., & Witherspoon, A. M. (2009). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 319–339). Routledge

Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist , 45(4), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.515934

Bachour, K., Kaplan, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010). An Interactive Table for Supporting Participation Balance in Face-to-Face Collaborative Learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies , 3(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2010.18

Barrett, L. F. (2016). The theory of constructed emotion: an active inference account of interoception and categorization. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience , 12(1), nsw154. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw154

Barrett, L. F., Quigley, K. S., & Hamilton, P. (2016). An active inference theory of allostasis and interoception in depression. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 371(1708), 20160011. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0011

Ben-Shakhar, G. (1985). Standardization Within Individuals: A Simple Method to Neutralize Individual Differences in Skin Conductance. Psychophysiology , 22(3), 292?299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1985.tb01603.x

Benedek, M., & Kaernbach, C. (2010). A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 190(1), 80?91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.04.028

Ben-Eliyahu, A., & Bernacki, M. L. (2015). Addressing complexities in self-regulated learning: a focus on contextual factors, contingencies, and dynamic relations. Metacognition and Learning , 10(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9134-6

Berger, J. (2011). Arousal increases social transmission of information. Psychological Science , 22(7), 891–893. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611413294

Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2015). School readiness and self-regulation: a developmental psychobiological approach. Annual Review of Psychology , 66, 711–731. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015221

Bradley, M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring Emotion: The Self-Assessment Semantic Differential Manikin and the. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry , 25(I), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9

Burns, A., Greene, B. R., McGrath, M. J., O’Shea, T. J., Kuris, B., Ayer, S. M. … Cionca, V. (2010). SHIMMER™ – A Wireless sensor platform for noninvasive biomedical research. IEEE Sensors Journal , 10(9), 1527–1534. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2010.2045498

Chang, C. J., Chang, M. H., Chiu, B. C., Liu, C. C., Chiang, F., Wen, S. H. … Chen, W., C.-K., &. (2017). An analysis of student collaborative problem solving activities mediated by collaborative simulations. Computers & Education , 114(300), 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.008

Clark, I., & Dumas, G. (2016). The regulation of task performance: A trans-disciplinary review. Frontiers in Psychology , 6 (JAN). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01862

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research , 64(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001

Cohen, E. G., & Roper, S. S. (1972). Modification of Interracial Interaction Disability: An Application of Status Characteristic Theory. American Sociological Review , 37(6), 643. https://doi.org/10.2307/2093576

Cornejo, C., Cuadros, Z., Morales, R., & Paredes, J. (2017). Interpersonal Coordination: Methods, Achievements, and Challenges. Frontiers in Psychology , 8(September), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01685

Critchley, H. D., Eccles, J., & Garfinkel, S. N. (2013). Interaction between cognition, emotion, and the autonomic nervous system. In Handbook of Clinical Neurology (Vol. 117, Issue October, pp. 59–77). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53491-0.00006-7

Croon, M. A., & van Veldhoven, M. J. P. M. (2007). Predicting group-level outcome variables from variables measured at the individual level: A latent variable multilevel model. Psychological Methods , 12(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.45

Cui, J., & Qian, G. (2007). Selection of Working Correlation Structure and Best Model in GEE Analyses of Longitudinal Data. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation , 36(5), 987–996. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610910701539617

Danner, D., Hagemann, D., Holt, D. V., Hager, M., Schankin, A., Wüstenberg, S., & Funke, J. (2011). Measuring Performance in Dynamic Decision Making. Journal of Individual Differences , 32(4), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000055

Danyluck, C., & Page-Gould, E. (2019). Social and Physiological Context can Affect the Meaning of Physiological Synchrony. Scientific Reports , 9(1), 8222. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44667-5

Dawson, M. E., Schell, A. M., & Filion, D. L. (2017). The Electrodermal System. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of Psychophysiology (pp. 217–243). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107415782.010

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning?. In Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and Computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Elsevier

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M. J., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1995). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Spada, E., & Reiman, P. (Eds.), Learning in Humans and Machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier

Google Scholar  

Di Lascio, E., Gashi, S., & Santini, S. (2018). Unobtrusive assessment of students? emotional engagement during lectures using electrodermal activity sensors. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies , 2(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3264913

Dindar, M., Alikhani, I., Malmberg, J., Järvelä, S., & Seppänen, T. (2019). Examining shared monitoring in collaborative learning: A case of a recurrence quantification analysis approach. Computers in Human Behavior , 100, 335?344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.004

Dindar, M., Malmberg, J., Järvelä, S., Haataja, E.,& Kirschner, P. A. (2020). Matching self-reports with electrodermal activity data: Investigating temporal changes in self-regulated learning. Education and Information Technologies , 25(3), 1785?1802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10059-5

Dindar, M., Järvelä, S.,& Haataja, E. (2020). What does physiological synchrony reveal about metacognitive experiences and group performance? British Journal of Educational Technology , 51(5), 1577?1596. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12981

Dörner, D., & Funke, J. (2017). Complex problem solving: What it is and what it is not. Frontiers in Psychology , 8 (JUL). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01153

Efklides, A., Kourkoulou, A., Mitsiou, F., & Ziliaskopoulou, D. (2006). Metacognitive knowledge of effort, personality factors, and mood state: their relationships with effort-related metacognitive experiences. Metacognition and Learning , 1(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6581-0

Efklides, A., Schwartz, B. L., & Brown, V. (2018). Motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: Does metacognition play a role?. In Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed., pp. 64–82). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group

Eichmann, B., Goldhammer, F., Greiff, S., Pucite, L., & Naumann, J. (2019). The role of planning in complex problem solving. Computers & Education , 128 (July 2018), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.004

Feldman, R. (2007). Parent-infant synchrony and the construction of shared timing; physiological precursors, developmental outcomes, and risk conditions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 48(3–4), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01701.x

Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 34(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.05.006

Greene, J. A., Hutchison, L. A., Costa, L. J., & Crompton, H. (2012). Investigating how college students’ task definitions and plans relate to self-regulated learning processing and understanding of a complex science topic. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 37(4), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.02.002

Haataja, E., Malmberg, J.,& Järvelä, S. (2018). Monitoring in collaborative learning: Co-occurrence of observed behavior and physiological synchrony explored. Computers in Human Behavior , 87(July 2017), 337?347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.007

Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2018). Self-regulation, co-regulation and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. In Schunk, D. H., & Greene, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 83–106). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group

Hajcak, G., McDonald, N., & Simons, R. F. (2003). To err is autonomic: Error-related brain potentials, ANS activity, and post-error compensatory behavior. Psychophysiology , 40(6), 895–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.00107

Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Ahonen, A., Näykki, P., & Valtonen, T. (2017). Preparing teacher-students for twenty-first-century learning practices (PREP 21): a framework for enhancing collaborative problem-solving and strategic learning skills. Teachers and Teaching , 23(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1203772

Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (Vol. 9789400723, pp. 37–56). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9395-7_2

Hilpert, J. C., & Marchand, G. C. (2018). Complex systems research in educational psychology: Aligning theory and method. Educational Psychologist , 53(3), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1469411

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction , 26(1), 48–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701798495

Hurme, T. R., & Järvelä, S. (2005). Students’ activity in computer-supported collaborative problem solving in mathematics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning , 10(1), 49–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-005-4579-3

Hurme, T., Palonen, T., & Järvelä, S. (2006). Metacognition in joint discussions: an analysis of the patterns of interaction and the metacognitive content of the networked discussions in mathematics. Metacognition and Learning , 1(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-9792-5

Isohätälä, J., Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2017). Socially shared regulation of learning and participation in social interaction in collaborative learning. International Journal of Educational Research , 81, 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.10.006

Isohätälä, J., Näykki, P., & Järvelä, S. (2020). Convergences of joint, positive interactions and regulation in collaborative learning. Small Group Research , 51(2), 229–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419867760

Jacobson, M. J., Kapur, M., & Reimann, P. (2016). Conceptualizing debates in learning and educational research: Toward a complex systems conceptual framework of learning. Educational Psychologist , 51(2), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1166963

Järvelä, S., Kivikangas, J. M., Kätsyri, J., & Ravaja, N. (2014). Physiological linkage of dyadic gaming experience. Simulation & Gaming , 45(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878113513080

Järvelä, S., Hadwin, A. F., Malmberg, J.,& Miller, M. (2018). Contemporary perspectives of regulated learning in collaboration. In F. Fischer, C. Hmelo-Silver, S. Goldman,& P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (1st ed., pp. 127–136). Routledge.

Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H.,& Malmberg, J. (2019). Capturing the dynamic and cyclical nature of regulation: Methodological 10.1007/s11409-021-09279-3 Progress in understanding socially shared regulation in learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 14(4), 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09313-2

Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., Haataja, E., Sobocinski, M.,& Kirschner, P. A. (2021). What multimodal data can tell us about the students? regulation of their learning process? Learning and Instruction , 72(March), 101203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.04.004

Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: how to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist , 51(2), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1158654

Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., & Kinzer, C. K. (2008). Sensitivities to early exchange in synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) groups. Computers & Education , 51(1), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.007

Karabenick, S., & Zusho, A. (2015). Examining approaches to research on self-regulated learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning , 10(1), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9137-3

Khosa, D. K., & Volet, S. E. (2014). Productive group engagement in cognitive activity and metacognitive regulation during collaborative learning: can it explain differences in students’ conceptual understanding? Metacognition and Learning , 9(3), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9117-z

Koivuniemi, M., Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2018). Teacher education students’ strategic activities in challenging collaborative learning situations. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction , 19(November), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.05.002

Kreibig, S. D., & Gendolla, G. H. E. (2014). Autonomic nervous system measurement of emotion in education and achievement settings. In Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (Eds.), International Handbook of Emotions in Education (pp. 625–642). Routledge

Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher , 44(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15569530

Likens, A. D., & Wiltshire, T. J. (2020). Windowed multiscale synchrony: modeling time-varying and scale-localized interpersonal coordination dynamics. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience , 22(7), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa130

Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Rogat, T. K., & Koskey, K. L. K. (2011). Affect and engagement during small group instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 36(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.09.001

Lu, J. G., Page-Gould, E., & Xu, N. R. (2017). MicroMacroMultilevel R package .

Malmberg, J., Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H.,& Panadero, E. (2015). Promoting socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: Progress of socially shared regulation among high- and low-performing groups. Computers in Human Behavior , 52, 562–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.082

Malmberg, J., Järvelä, S.,& Järvenoja, H. (2017). Capturing temporal and sequential patterns of self-, co-, and socially shared regulation in the context of collaborative learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 49, 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.009

Malmberg, J., Haataja, E., Seppänen, T.,& Järvelä, S. (2019). Are we together or not? The temporal interplay of monitoring, physiological arousal and physiological synchrony during a collaborative exam. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 14(4), 467–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09311-4

Marci, C. D., Ham, J., Moran, E., & Orr, S. P. (2007). Physiologic correlates of perceived therapist empathy and social-emotional process during psychotherapy. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease , 195(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nmd.0000253731.71025.fc

McNeish, D., Stapleton, L. M.,& Silverman, R. D. (2017). On the unnecessary ubiquity of hierarchical linear modeling. Psychological Methods , 22(1), 114–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000078

Mendes, W. B. (2009). Assessing autonomic nervous system activity. In Harmon-Jones, E., & Beer, J. S. (Eds.), Methods in social neuroscience (pp. 118–147). Guilford Press

Mønster, D., Håkonsson, D. D., Eskildsen, J. K., & Wallot, S. (2016). Physiological evidence of interpersonal dynamics in a cooperative production task. Physiology & Behavior , 156, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.01.004

Näykki, P., Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S.,& Kirschner, P. (2017). Monitoring makes a difference: quality and temporal variation in teacher education students? collaborative learning. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research , 61(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1066440

O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity , 41(5), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6

Palumbo, R. V., Marraccini, M. E., Weyandt, L. L., Wilder-Smith, O., McGee, H. A., Liu, S., & Goodwin, M. S. (2017). Interpersonal autonomic physiology: A systematic review of the literature. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 21(2), 99–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316628405

Pijeira-Díaz, H. J., Drachsler, H., Kirschner, P. A., & Järvelä, S. (2018). Profiling sympathetic arousal in a physics course: How active are students? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 34(4), 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12271

Pijeira-Díaz, H. J., Drachsler, H., Järvelä, S., & Kirschner, P. A. (2019). Sympathetic arousal commonalities and arousal contagion during collaborative learning: How attuned are triad members? Computers in Human Behavior , 92 (September 2018), 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.008

Pino-Pasternak, D., Whitebread, D., & Neale, D. (2018). The role of regulatory, social, and dialogic dynamics on young children’s productive collaboration in group problem solving. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 2018(162), 41–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20262

Reimann, P. (2019). Methodological progress in the study of self-regulated learning enables theory advancement. Learning and Instruction , xxxx , 101269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101269

Reimann, P., Markauskaite, L., & Bannert, M. (2014). e-Research and learning theory: What do sequence and process mining methods contribute? British Journal of Educational Technology , 45(3), 528–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12146

Rogat, T. K., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2011). Socially shared regulation in collaborative groups: An analysis of the interplay between quality of social regulation and group processes. Cognition and Instruction , 29(4), 375–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.607930

Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol. 128, pp. 69–97). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1_5

Rudolph, J., Niepel, C., Greiff, S., Goldhammer, F., & Kröner, S. (2017). Metacognitive confidence judgments and their link to complex problem solving. Intelligence , 63 (May 2016), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.04.005

Saab, N. (2012). Team regulation, regulation of social activities or co-regulation: Different labels for effective regulation of learning in CSCL. Metacognition and Learning , 7(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9085-5

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Chapter 1: Individual and Social Aspects of Learning. Review of Research in Education , 23(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X023001001

Saxbe, D. E., Beckes, L., Stoycos, S. A., & Coan, J. A. (2020). Social allostasis and social allostatic load: A new model for research in social dynamics, stress, and health. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 15(2), 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619876528

Schneider, B., Dich, Y., & Radu, I. (2020). Unpacking the relationship between existing and new measures of physiological synchrony and collaborative learning: a mixed methods study. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 15(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09318-2

Sobocinski, M., Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., Dindar, M., Isosalo, A., & Noponen, K. (2020). How does monitoring set the stage for adaptive regulation or maladaptive behavior in collaborative learning? Metacognition and Learning . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09224-w

Stennett, R. G. (1957). The relationship of performance level to level of arousal. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 54(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043340

Stephan, K. E., Manjaly, Z. M., Mathys, C. D., Weber, L. A. E., Paliwal, S., Gard, T. … Petzschner, F. H. (2016). Allostatic self-efficacy: A metacognitive theory of dyshomeostasis-induced fatigue and depression. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience , 10 (NOV2016). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00550

Sterling, P. (2012). Allostasis: A model of predictive regulation. Physiology & Behavior , 106(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.06.004

Strain, A. C., Azevedo, R., & D’Mello, S. K. (2013). Using a false biofeedback methodology to explore relationships between learners’ affect, metacognition, and performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 38(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.08.001

Strauß, S., & Rummel, N. (2021). Promoting regulation of equal participation in online collaboration by combining a group awareness tool and adaptive prompts. But does it even matter? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 16(1), 67–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-021-09340-y

Taub, M., Azevedo, R., Rajendran, R., Cloude, E. B., Biswas, G., & Price, M. J. (2019). How are students’ emotions related to the accuracy of cognitive and metacognitive processes during learning with an intelligent tutoring system? Learning and Instruction , July 2018 , 101200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.04.001

Törmänen, T., Järvenoja, H., & Mänty, K. (2021). Exploring groups’ affective states during collaborative learning – what triggers activating affect on . a group level? Educational Technology Research and Development , 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10037-0

Ucan, S., & Webb, M. (2015). Social regulation of learning during collaborative inquiry learning in science: How does it emerge and what are its functions? International Journal of Science Education , 37(15), 2503–2532. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1083634

Ullsperger, M., Danielmeier, C., & Jocham, G. (2014). Neurophysiology of performance monitoring and adaptive behavior. Physiological Reviews , 94(1), 35–79. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00041.2012

Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning , 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0

Volet, S., Vauras, M.,& Salonen, P. (2009). Self- and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 215?226. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213584

Wallot, S., & Leonardi, G. (2018). Analyzing multivariate dynamics using cross-recurrence quantification analysis (CRQA), diagonal-cross-recurrence profiles (DCRP), and multidimensional recurrence quantification analysis (MdRQA) – A Tutorial in R. Frontiers in Psychology , 9(December), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02232

Wallot, S., Mitkidis, P., McGraw, J. J., & Roepstorff, A. (2016). Beyond synchrony: Joint action in a complex production task reveals beneficial effects of decreased interpersonal synchrony. PLOS ONE , 11(12), e0168306. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168306

Wallot, S., Roepstorff, A., & Mønster, D. (2016). Multidimensional recurrence quantification analysis (MdRQA) for the analysis of multidimensional time-series: a software implementation in matlab and its application to group-level data in joint action. Frontiers in Psychology , 7, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01835

Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pasternak, D. P., Sangster, C., Grau, V., Bingham, S. … Demetriou, D. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children. Metacognition and Learning , 4(1), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9033-1

Winne, P. H. (2018). Cognition and metacognition within self-regulated learning. In Schunk, D. H., & Greene, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed., pp. 36–48). Routledge

Winne, P. H. (2019). Paradigmatic dimensions of instrumentation and analytic methods in research on self-regulated learning. Computers in Human Behavior , 96, 285–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.026

Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Erlbaum

Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 27(4), 551–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00006-1

Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology , 18(5), 459–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.920180503

Download references

Acknowledgements

Oulu University LeaF research infrastructure has been used in the data collection of this study

Open access funding provided by University of Oulu including Oulu University Hospital. This work was supported by the Academy of Finland [Grant numbers, 324381, 308809, 297686] and University of Oulu.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Learning and Educational Technology Research Unit (LET), University of Oulu, P.O. Box 2000, 90014, Oulu, Finland

Eetu Haataja, Jonna Malmberg, Muhterem Dindar & Sanna Järvelä

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eetu Haataja .

Ethics declarations

Declaration of interest, additional information, publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Haataja, E., Malmberg, J., Dindar, M. et al. The pivotal role of monitoring for collaborative problem solving seen in interaction, performance, and interpersonal physiology. Metacognition Learning 17 , 241–268 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09279-3

Download citation

Received : 07 September 2020

Accepted : 09 September 2021

Published : 22 October 2021

Issue Date : April 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09279-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Metacognitive monitoring
• Self-regulated learning
• Collaborative problem solving
• Collaborative learning
• Physiological arousal
• Physiological synchrony
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Collaborative Problem Solving A Step-by-Step Guide for School Leaders

• Lawrence A. Machi - University of La Verne, USA
• Brenda T. McEvoy - Independent Writer/ Researcher
• Description

Engage your school communities in collaboratively solving your biggest problems

Schools are complex places where problems come in all shapes and sizes, and where decisions impact students’ lives. Leading groups in solving these problems sometimes can be a daunting task. Collaborative Problem Solving outlines a process to help veteran and new leaders alike to create thoughtful, organized, and collaborative solutions for the simple to the most difficult problems they face.

Rooted in theory, this comprehensive guide presents a seven-step process that addresses all types of problems. Each chapter outlines the tasks and procedures required to successfully navigate each step, while providing helpful analogies and illustrations, alongside common foibles and fumbles leaders should avoid. Additional features include:

• An explanation of participatory problem-solving
• Prerequisites for successful collaboration and rules for collaborative leaders
• “Task Cue Cards” that offer facilitation lesson plans to approach each step in the process
• A “Problem Solver’s Toolbox” that covers meeting designs, roles, communication strategies, and more
• An annotated guide for further reading, providing a wealth of additional information and resources

Practical and relevant, this book is a user-friendly manual for school leaders seeking to employ a problem-solving process that works so that they and their teams can feel confident their efforts will result in a successful resolution.

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

Preview this book

For instructors, select a purchasing option.

• Collaborative Problem Solving® »

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS)

At Think:Kids, we recognize that kids with challenging behavior don’t lack the will  to behave well. They lack the  skills  to behave well.

Our Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) approach is proven to reduce challenging behavior, teach kids the skills they lack, and build relationships with the adults in their lives.

Anyone can learn Collaborative Problem Solving, and we’re here to help.

What is Collaborative Problem Solving?

Kids with challenging behavior are tragically misunderstood and mistreated. Rewards and punishments don’t work and often make things worse. Thankfully, there’s another way. But it requires a big shift in mindset.

Helping kids with challenging behavior requires understanding why they struggle in the first place. But what if everything we thought was true about challenging behavior was actually wrong? Our Collaborative Problem Solving approach recognizes what research has pointed to for years – that kids with challenging behavior are already trying hard. They don’t lack the will to behave well. They lack the skills to behave well.

Learn More About the CPS Approach

Kids do well if they can.

CPS helps adults shift to a more accurate and compassionate mindset and embrace the truth that kids do well if they can – rather than the more common belief that kids would do well if they simply wanted to.

Flowing from this simple but powerful philosophy, CPS focuses on building skills like flexibility, frustration tolerance and problem solving, rather than simply motivating kids to behave better. The process begins with identifying triggers to a child’s challenging behavior and the specific skills they need help developing.  The next step involves partnering with the child to build those skills and develop lasting solutions to problems that work for everyone.

The CPS approach was developed at Massachusetts General Hospital a top-ranked Department of Psychiatry in the United States.  It is proven to reduce challenging behavior, teach kids the skills they lack, and build relationships with the adults in their lives. If you’re looking for a more accurate, compassionate, and effective approach, you’ve come to the right place. Fortunately, anyone can learn CPS. Let’s get started!

Bring CPS to Your Organization

Attend a cps training.

6 out of 10 teachers report reduced stress.

Significant reductions in parents’ stress.

74% average reduction in use of seclusion.

73% reduction in oppositional behaviors during school.

Parents report improvements in parent-child interactions.

71% fewer self-inflicted injuries.

reduction in school office referrals.

Significant improvements in children’s executive functioning skills.

60% of children exhibited improved behavior 

Privacy overview.

The Power of Collaboration: Driving Growth and Innovation

• August 14, 2023
• Teamwork & Collaboration

Collaboration, as a driving force behind growth and innovation, can be likened to a catalyst that propels organizations towards success. By pooling resources, knowledge, and expertise, collaboration enables exponential growth, as evidenced by the network effects that occur when the value of a product or service increases with its expanding user base. The Collaboration Curve further reinforces the notion that the benefits of collaboration far outweigh the costs, leading to innovation, knowledge sharing, and improved decision-making. In the digital age, organizations can leverage technology and analytics to foster collaboration, gaining valuable insights and making data-driven decisions to remain competitive. Furthermore, the cultivation of a collaborative culture is indispensable for organizations seeking to thrive and adapt through innovation. Thus, collaboration plays a pivotal role in driving growth and innovation across various industries and sectors.

Table of Contents

Key Takeaways

• Network effects and collaboration are powerful drivers of growth and innovation.
• Leveraging the Collaboration Curve can lead to exponential growth and widespread adoption of products and services.
• Technology and analytics play a crucial role in enabling collaboration and driving digital transformation.
• Innovation is essential for organizations to stay competitive and should be fostered through a culture of creativity and strategic execution.

The Impact of Collaboration on Business Growth

The impact of collaboration on business growth can be seen through the increasing value of collaboration as more people participate, as illustrated by the Collaboration Curve. Collaboration plays a crucial role in driving organizational success by fostering innovation, knowledge sharing, and improved decision-making. Through collaboration, organizations can leverage the diverse expertise and perspectives of individuals to generate new ideas and solutions. This can lead to improved product development, enhanced customer experiences, and increased market competitiveness. Furthermore, collaboration can enhance business sustainability by promoting a culture of teamwork and cooperation, which can result in higher employee satisfaction and retention. By working together, organizations can overcome challenges, adapt to changes in the business environment, and achieve long-term growth and success.

Harnessing the Power of Collaboration for Innovation

Harnessing the potential of collaboration can result in significant advancements and positive outcomes in various industries and sectors. Collaborative ideation, the process of generating and developing ideas collectively, allows individuals to tap into a diverse range of perspectives and expertise, leading to innovative solutions and breakthroughs. Collaborative knowledge sharing, on the other hand, facilitates the exchange of information, insights, and best practices among individuals and teams, enabling continuous learning and improvement. By leveraging both collaborative ideation and collaborative knowledge sharing, organizations can foster a culture of innovation, where individuals are encouraged to share their unique perspectives and contribute to the collective intelligence of the group. This collaborative approach not only drives growth and competitiveness but also promotes a sense of ownership and collaboration among team members, ultimately leading to the successful implementation of innovative ideas.

Unlocking Opportunities Through Collaborative Partnerships

Unlocking opportunities through collaborative partnerships requires organizations to foster an environment that encourages collective intelligence and the exchange of diverse perspectives and expertise. By forming partnerships and participating in collaborative ecosystems, organizations can effectively leverage the power of collaboration to drive growth and innovation. Collaborative partnerships offer organizations access to new ideas, resources, and market insights that they may not have access to on their own. These partnerships also enable organizations to pool their resources and capabilities, leading to increased efficiency and effectiveness in achieving common goals. Additionally, collaborative partnerships can facilitate knowledge sharing and learning between organizations, leading to the development of new solutions and innovative approaches. Overall, organizations that actively seek partnership opportunities and embrace collaborative ecosystems are better positioned to unlock new opportunities and drive sustainable growth and innovation.

Collaborative Strategies for Driving Market Expansion

By implementing collaborative strategies, organizations can effectively tap into new markets and expand their reach. Collaborative growth techniques play a crucial role in driving market expansion. These strategies involve partnerships, alliances, and joint ventures with other organizations in order to leverage their resources, expertise, and networks. One such strategy is co-creation, where organizations collaborate with customers, suppliers, and even competitors to develop innovative products and services that meet the evolving needs of the market. Another strategy is strategic alliances, where organizations form partnerships to enter new markets, access new customer segments, or share distribution channels. Additionally, organizations can engage in cross-industry collaborations, where they collaborate with organizations from different industries to create new market opportunities. These collaborative strategies for collaboration success can lead to increased market share, enhanced competitiveness, and accelerated growth for organizations.

Leveraging Collaboration for Competitive Advantage

To gain a competitive advantage, organizations can leverage the benefits of collaborative strategies by fostering strong partnerships and alliances with other entities. Collaboration can be a powerful tool for organizations to reduce costs and enhance their talent acquisition efforts. By collaborating with other organizations, companies can pool their resources and expertise, leading to cost savings through economies of scale and shared expenses. Additionally, collaborative strategies can enable organizations to tap into a wider pool of talent, as they can access the skills and knowledge of their partners. This can be particularly beneficial in industries where talent shortages are prevalent or where specialized skills are required. By leveraging collaboration for cost reduction and talent acquisition, organizations can position themselves as more competitive in the marketplace and drive growth and innovation.

Collaboration as a Catalyst for Product Development

Collaborative strategies can serve as a catalyst for product development, facilitating the integration of diverse perspectives and expertise to create innovative and high-quality products. Collaborative product design involves the active involvement of multiple stakeholders, including designers, engineers, marketers, and customers, in the entire product development process. This approach enables the pooling of knowledge, skills, and resources, leading to the generation of new ideas and solutions. Collaborative research and development further enhances the product development process by fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge sharing. Through collaborative research and development, organizations can tap into different fields of expertise, leverage external resources, and mitigate risks associated with new product development. By engaging in collaborative strategies, companies can leverage the collective intelligence and experience of their teams, resulting in improved product quality, increased innovation, and ultimately, a competitive advantage in the market.

Collaborative Decision-Making: A Key Driver of Success

Collaboration in product development has been shown to be a catalyst for innovation and growth. Building on the importance of collaboration, this section focuses on the role of collaborative decision-making as a key driver of success. Collaborative decision-making involves the active participation and involvement of multiple stakeholders in the decision-making process. It aims to leverage the diverse perspectives, expertise, and knowledge of individuals to make informed decisions. Collaborative decision-making techniques and processes facilitate effective communication, consensus building, and collective problem-solving. These techniques may include brainstorming, group discussions, and the use of decision-making frameworks. By involving a diverse range of stakeholders and incorporating their inputs, collaborative decision-making can lead to better decisions, increased buy-in, and improved implementation. This collaborative approach fosters a sense of ownership and accountability among participants, ultimately driving organizational success.

The Role of Collaboration in Driving Customer Satisfaction

The effectiveness of collaboration in enhancing customer satisfaction can be observed through improved product/service quality and personalized experiences. Collaboration plays a crucial role in driving customer centricity by bringing together diverse perspectives and expertise to meet customer needs and expectations. When teams collaborate effectively, they can identify and address customer pain points, develop innovative solutions, and deliver products and services that align with customer preferences. Furthermore, collaboration enables organizations to measure the impact of their efforts on customer satisfaction through various metrics such as customer feedback, loyalty, and retention rates. By fostering a collaborative culture and leveraging collaboration tools and technologies, organizations can continuously improve their customer satisfaction levels and build stronger relationships with their customers.

Collaborative Approaches to Problem Solving and Solution Finding

Problem solving and solution finding can be enhanced through the application of collective intelligence and the integration of diverse perspectives. Collaborative problem solving techniques and collaborative solution finding strategies are effective approaches to address complex challenges. By bringing together individuals with different backgrounds, expertise, and viewpoints, collaborative problem solving allows for a more comprehensive analysis of the problem and the generation of innovative solutions. This approach fosters a collective intelligence that leverages the strengths and insights of each participant. Collaborative solution finding strategies involve active communication, brainstorming, and consensus building to reach a shared understanding of the problem and to identify the most viable solution. The collaborative nature of these approaches ensures that multiple perspectives are considered, increasing the likelihood of finding effective and sustainable solutions to complex problems.

Collaborative Innovation: Transforming Industries and Markets

Collective intelligence and diverse perspectives foster transformative innovation in industries and markets. Collaboration is a key driver of innovation, allowing for the pooling of knowledge, expertise, and resources. By bringing together individuals and organizations from different backgrounds and disciplines, collaborative ecosystems enable the exchange of ideas, the identification of new opportunities, and the co-creation of novel solutions. This collaborative disruption challenges traditional industry boundaries and paves the way for new business models, products, and services. Key aspects of collaborative ecosystems include open communication, trust, and a shared commitment to common goals. By embracing collaboration, industries and markets can tap into a rich network of collective intelligence, unlocking new possibilities for growth and driving innovation.

Collaboration and Digital Transformation: A Winning Combination

Collaboration and digital transformation go hand in hand, as organizations strive to optimize their processes in the digital era. Digital transformation involves the integration of digital technologies into all aspects of business operations to drive efficiency and innovation. Collaboration plays a crucial role in this process, as it fosters a collaborative mindset where individuals work together to leverage digital tools and technologies for the collective benefit of the organization. By collaborating, organizations can optimize their processes, enhance decision-making, and drive growth. Collaboration in the digital transformation era involves breaking down silos, promoting cross-functional teamwork, and embracing a culture of collaboration. It requires organizations to embrace new ways of working and leverage digital platforms and tools to facilitate communication, knowledge sharing, and collaboration across teams and departments. By embracing collaboration in the digital transformation journey, organizations can unlock new opportunities and drive sustainable growth.

Building a Collaborative Culture: Empowering Growth and Innovation

To foster a culture of collaboration and empower growth and innovation, organizations must cultivate an environment that encourages open communication, knowledge sharing, and cross-functional teamwork. This can be achieved by promoting teamwork and synergy, breaking down silos, and fostering cross-functional collaboration. By doing so, organizations can benefit from the following:

• Enhanced problem-solving capabilities: Collaboration enables individuals from different backgrounds and expertise to come together and collectively find solutions to complex problems.
• Increased creativity and innovation: Collaborative environments foster the exchange of ideas, sparking creativity and driving innovation within the organization.
• Improved decision-making: When teams collaborate, they bring diverse perspectives to the table, leading to more informed decision-making processes.
• Knowledge sharing and learning: Collaboration encourages the sharing of knowledge and expertise, enabling individuals to learn from one another and grow professionally.
• Enhanced employee engagement and satisfaction: A collaborative culture promotes a sense of belonging and empowerment, leading to higher levels of employee engagement and satisfaction.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does collaboration impact business growth.

Collaboration’s role in driving business growth can be seen in improved productivity and increased innovation. By bringing together diverse perspectives and expertise, collaboration enables organizations to generate new ideas, make informed decisions, and adapt to a changing business environment.

What Strategies Can Be Used to Harness the Power of Collaboration for Innovation?

Strategies for harnessing the power of collaboration for innovation include fostering synergy among team members, promoting open communication channels, providing opportunities for knowledge sharing, encouraging diverse perspectives, and creating an environment that values and rewards creativity.

How Can Collaborative Partnerships Unlock New Opportunities for Businesses?

Collaborative ventures and cross-industry collaborations can unlock new opportunities for businesses by facilitating knowledge sharing, resource pooling, and access to diverse perspectives. These partnerships can lead to innovation, increased market reach, enhanced competitiveness, and accelerated growth.

What Are Some Collaborative Strategies for Driving Market Expansion?

Collaborative alliances and joint ventures are effective strategies for driving market expansion. These partnerships allow organizations to leverage each other’s resources, expertise, and networks, leading to increased market share and access to new markets.

How Can Organizations Leverage Collaboration to Gain a Competitive Advantage?

Organizations can leverage collaboration to gain a competitive advantage by fostering a collaborative culture and embracing collaborative strategies. This can lead to increased innovation, knowledge sharing, and improved decision-making, ultimately driving growth and competitiveness.