Content area
Purpose
This study investigates socially shared regulation of learning (SSRL) in workplace team interactions to understand how professionals manage their learning processes during team meetings. It aims to identify what types of SSRL phases appear in workplace team interactions and which SSRL phases and team-regulation behaviors are associated with SSRL episodes that achieve small-scale adaptation.
Design/methodology/approach
A qualitative study grounded in socio-cognitive theory was conducted, using a combination of deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis. This approach integrated process mapping and descriptive analysis. The data were derived from 24 one-hour team meetings involving 10 workplace teams from the service, manufacturing and information and communications technology sectors.
Findings
SSRL was present in the team meetings, and it supported the teams in recognizing and adapting to situated challenges. Team-regulation behaviors, such as posing questions and assessing solutions regarding specific actions, contributed to small-scale adaptation in the regulation of the learning process.
Research limitations/implications
The study used video analysis and relied on its ability to capture the phenomenon. Furthermore, the small sample size, specific cultural context and the voluntary participation of the teams may have introduced bias into the findings.
Practical implications
The findings can guide customized training programs to improve team learning and performance by focusing on key SSRL phases and team-regulation behaviors essential for adaptability.
Originality/value
The study uses video data from team meetings to explore SSRL and its impact on successful collaboration.
Introduction
Within organizations, there are a number of decisions taken at the team level that can have far-reaching effects on the organization (Barker and Neailey, 1999; Boss et al., 2021; Khaw et al., 2023). In workplaces, many challenges depend on the capabilities of teams to jointly solve complex tasks; therefore, learning as a team stands out as a crucial skill in the 21st-century economy (Edmondson and Harvey, 2018; Järvelä et al., 2018; Van den Bossche et al., 2022). Furthermore, the ability to manage and adapt to continuous changes in uncertain and evolving situations stands out as the most significant asset in the future labor market. Consequently, a diverse set of individual and teamwork skills, including cognitive, metacognitive, social and emotional skills (e.g. learning strategies and collaboration), becomes increasingly relevant (OECD, 2018; World Economic Forum, 2020).
Socially shared regulation of learning (SSRL) theory explains how successful teams monitor their learning and, as a result, enact learning strategies to adjust their cognitive, behavioral, emotional and motivational conditions (Hadwin et al., 2018). The SSRL process involves four cyclical and non-sequential phases: planning, task enactment, reflection and adaptation (Winne and Hadwin, 1998). The latter is considered a core mechanism of regulated learning. Adaptation demonstrates change and can manifest in two distinct ways: immediate, on-the-fly adjustments aimed at optimizing learning for the current task (small-scale adaptation) or modifications that contribute to enhancing performance in future tasks (large-scale adaptation) (Järvelä et al., 2018; Sobocinski et al., 2022). In this study, the focus is on small-scale adaptation that optimizes the learning process during team meetings.
SSRL relates to processes of self-regulation and co-regulation of learning (CoRL). The self-regulation of learning (SRL) considers the regulation of learning at the individual level, which provides a critical foundation for the regulation of learning in collaborative situations (Järvelä et al., 2018). Team members’ strategic learning skills contribute to effectively addressing challenges and ensuring successful teamwork (Koivuniemi et al., 2018). The CoRL refers to individuals’ actions undertaken to regulate other group members, which facilitates the progression toward self-regulated learning and/or SSRL. SSRL goes beyond co-regulation by involving group members in interactive exchanges where they collectively build on each other’s contributions to regulate learning together. This results in instances of negotiated adaptation (Hadwin et al., 2018). In the present study, the actions team members take during SSRL phases to regulate their learning are referred to as team-regulation behaviors.
The research field of education sciences has studied the regulation of learning for more than two decades, showing that engaging in SSRL enhances collaborative learning in academic environments (e.g. Isohätälä et al., 2017; Näykki et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2019). However, its application to professional teamwork remains underexplored (Ito and Umemoto, 2022; Lyons and Bandura, 2020, 2021; Margaryan et al., 2013). As adaptation resulting from SSRL is linked to more strategic, self-regulated learning performance, there is a need to further explore this issue (Pieschl et al., 2012; Sobocinski et al., 2022). Other research strands have explored this regulation in team learning through theoretical frameworks such as social regulation, team reflexivity and team adaptation. For example, Wijga et al. (2023) adopted a social regulation perspective to develop an analytical framework for team reflexivity in workplace team meetings. Van den Bossche et al. (2022) noted that SSRL and team reflexivity are interconnected, as both involve sustaining goal-directed activities through reflecting on past outcomes, analyzing missteps and identifying improvements, thereby fostering a culture of continuous learning and adaptation. By focusing on SSRL in this study, we aim to bridge the gap between existing research on collaborative learning in academic settings and its application in professional teamwork, providing valuable insights into fostering adaptability within workplace contexts. This presents an opportunity to examine how team learning processes, specifically those guided by SSRL, can enhance adaptability in team settings.
In doing so, this research also relates to a broader call for attention to informal learning and its dynamics in organizations (Cerasoli et al., 2018; Froehlich et al., 2014). Despite the prevalence of informal learning, organizations continue to prioritize formal training programs, often overlooking the potential of informal learning to improve team outcomes (Manuti et al., 2015). Furthermore, the challenge of measuring informal learning has limited our understanding of how best to support and develop these processes (Cerasoli et al., 2018). These challenges underscore the need for further research on informal learning, particularly in team settings, where SSRL can offer valuable insights into improving teamwork and fostering adaptability.
Based on these premises, this study aims to address SSRL to understand how professionals manage their learning processes during team meetings by the following research questions (RQs):
Theoretical background
Previous studies on the regulation of learning among professionals have focused more on processes within the individual or the individual and their interactions and less on how teams regulate their collaborative learning (Bransen et al., 2021; Cuyvers et al., 2020; Endedijk and Cuyvers, 2022). SRL has, for instance, been a key focus in health-professional education. For example, Cuyvers et al. (2020) studied SRL among medical specialists and found various strategies that drive its process, including some not traditionally categorized in the existing frameworks. Brydges et al. (2020) identified specific SRL mechanisms that medical trainees used to distinguish and navigate possible learning trajectories. They demonstrated that trainees adapt their learning behaviors based on interactions with peers, supervisors and colleagues, shaped by personal, behavioral and environmental factors. Pousa and Mathieu (2015) investigated managerial coaching as a way of fostering employee self-regulation. They suggested that fostering employee self-efficacy and self-regulation can increase an organization’s resilience and potentially provide a sustainable competitive advantage. It can also lead to improved coping and persistence in challenging situations. These studies indicate a growing interest in understanding the metacognitive aspect of the learning process as part of work processes. Examining SSRL in the workplace may be different from doing so in the educational contexts that have traditionally been studied in relation to SSRL. For instance, students focus on learning, while professionals’ goals pertain to work (Margaryan et al., 2013). In educational settings, students typically engage in activities such as discussing theories, solving academic problems and completing assignments. These activities are directly tied to their learning objectives and academic achievements. In contrast, in the workplace, professionals engage in activities that are aligned with their work-related responsibilities and project goals. In a recent study by Wijga et al. (2023), team meetings are less about the immediate execution of tasks and more about sharing information and planning. Hence, in this study, the theoretical framework of SSRL was adapted to account for the characteristics of the workplace and learning in teams. For example, in the examined team meetings, task enactment was absent; also, during the SSRL episodes, decision-making focused on optimizing the tasks at hand.
This study emphasizes the importance of learning regulation to foster meaningful, lasting transformations that drive workplace team success. Regulation of learning refers to purposeful and adaptive actions to address new challenges, situations or failures (Hadwin et al., 2018). These processes involve dynamic and metacognitive strategies that support effective collaboration and are influenced by both individual and social interactions (Järvelä et al., 2010). However, effective learning and collaboration are not solely about frequently using regulatory practices. Instead, focusing on the stages and phases of SSRL provides deeper insights into how teams collaborate productively (Järvelä et al., 2023). This approach shifts the focus from quantity to quality, offering a clearer understanding of how teams adapt and succeed.
Metacognitive processes, which involve understanding and managing one’s thinking, play a crucial role in the SSRL (Järvelä et al., 2018). These processes help team members assess their thoughts, emotions and actions before, during and after collaborative tasks, enabling them to make necessary adjustments related to tasks (Sobocinski et al., 2022). Metacognition includes awareness of strategies and tools for handling information effectively (Hadwin et al., 2011; Winne, 2018; Zimmerman, 2002). In teamwork, metacognitive processes are externalized and shared through interactions, allowing participants to reflect, negotiate and align their strategies and goals (Sobocinski et al., 2022). This sharing fosters SSRL by facilitating collective understanding and agreement on changes (Järvelä et al., 2018). Thus, these externalized processes act as both a foundation and a gateway for the successful regulation of learning.
Methodology
To explore how professionals regulate their learning as a team, the verbally externalized metacognitive process needs to be captured. To achieve this, video recordings of team meetings were used as the data source for qualitative content analysis.
Participants and context
The data were gathered from 10 workplace teams, ranging from 4 to 14 members, totaling 71 participants. The organizations included small (3), medium-sized (6) and large-scale (1) enterprises from the service (6), manufacturing (2), and information and communications technology (2) sectors. The enterprises were officially located in the Oulu region of northern Finland, but the members’ locations and nationalities varied. Half of the teams were management teams, while the other half were project teams; they all had versatile expertise areas, experiences and educational backgrounds.
The team meetings were conducted as part of two projects funded by the European Social Fund. The team leaders from the participating companies organized and led the content of the weekly or monthly meetings. These were conducted online, face-to-face or in a hybrid format, depending on the teams’ internal processes and plans. Eleven teams were involved in the projects, and data from 10 of them was available for research purposes, as one team member did not respond to the consent form. The data set consisted of two online meetings, nine face-to-face meetings and 13 hybrid meetings, which occurred between December 2021 and May 2023. The languages used by the teams were Finnish (nine teams) and English (one team). In total, 24 team meetings were recorded on video, with durations ranging from 37 to 95 min (average: 59 min). The recordings were made using three 360-degree cameras or the online-meeting recording function of Zoom.
Prior to data collection, informed consent was obtained from all the participants. The privacy protocols followed the ethical guidelines of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and the University of Oulu. The consent encompassed the collection and analysis of data for research purposes, as well as the use of data within the context of the coaching service. The participants could withdraw from the study at any stage. All related publications will present the data anonymously. Furthermore, when requested by the participating companies, mutual nondisclosure agreements were signed to further protect sensitive information.
Data analysis
Qualitative content analysis, using both inductive and deductive approaches, was used to examine the data. The conceptual framework of the phases of SSRL guided the deductive analysis. The definitions of Hadwin et al. (2018), Järvelä et al. (2010), Sobocinski et al. (2022) and Winne and Hadwin (1998) were used to formulate the coding scheme for identifying the SSRL phases. As the team meetings primarily revolved around planning and information sharing rather than the execution of work tasks, the SSRL phases were tailored to align with the nature of these meetings. For instance, task enactment was notably absent during the meetings; also, during the SSRL episodes, decision-making focused on optimizing the learning task in question. Therefore, this was coded as small-scale adaptation. Table 1 presents the outline and examples of the coding scheme for the SSRL phases.
First, SSRL episodes were identified. An episode of SSRL was marked when the recognition phase was identified and at least two team members verbally contributed to the discussion. The episodes consisted of several SSRL phases, and they were coded at the utterance level. The coded utterances could include several phases. Figure 1 visually represents the SSRL phases (1–4) in three SSRL episodes during the second meeting of team 9. After the identification of the SSRL episodes and phases, each SSRL episode was classified based on whether or not small-scale adaptation was reached. Then, the connections between the different SSRL phases were examined. The analysis was carried out with the Fluxicon Disco software, which allowed the creation of process maps and the unveiling of interdependencies among the phases. The process maps show absolute frequencies of the phases (f), with numbers indicating the occurrences of activities and paths throughout the process. Three process maps were generated: one for all the SSRL episodes, another for the episodes with small-scale adaptation and another for the episodes without adaptation.
Qualitative inductive analysis was used to examine in more detail the SSRL episodes and understand the interactive exchanges contributing to the SSRL phases. In the inductive analysis, codes were developed to uncover patterns, themes and insights directly from the data, providing a nuanced understanding and context-specific findings (Bingham, 2023). This analysis involved identifying the behaviors in the team’s interactions during the utterances in each SSRL phase. In this study, the team-regulation behaviors describe strategic activities that encompass both the topics of discussion and the strategies within the interactions. These behaviors demonstrate exchanges negotiated among team members (e.g. assessing solutions and considering interconnected issues) or initiated by a team member (e.g., shifting the discussion to a new topic). After identifying these behaviors through inductive coding, similar ones were grouped together and given a unifying name and description. For example, in the task-understanding phase, questions directed at the team (e.g. “Why was it included?” and “But almost all the settings have the save function. That is how it is done automatically. Isn’t it?”) were grouped in the category “Task-Related Inquiry.” This category pertained to posing questions to the entire team and seeking additional information about a topic.
The coding was conducted with Microsoft Excel, which has data processing and visualization functionalities. When applicable, percentage prevalence, frequency distribution and the chi-square test of independence were used to assess the possible relationships among team-regulation behaviors in different SSRL episodes (i.e. with or without small-scale adaptation). In the chi-square test of independence, the small-scale phase was excluded; in the analysis of the rest of the phases, the requirement for the expected value to be at least 5 was followed. The results include the degrees of freedom (df), Chi-Square value (χ2) and the p-value, which serves as an indicator of statistical significance, using a 5% threshold for the probability of observing the test statistic (p).
Findings
RQ1. What types of SSRL phases appear in workplace team interactions?
During the 24 team meetings, the 10 teams engaged in a total of 50 SSRL episodes. The frequency of these episodes was 0–7 per meeting (mean: 2.08), and their duration varied between 18 secs. and 31 mins. 45 secs. (mean: 5 mins. 37 secs.). The episodes occurred in 22 team meetings; two meetings had no SSRL episodes. During the meetings, all four phases of SSRL were identified. Across 50 episodes, recognition occurred 121 times; task-understanding was present 280 times; goal-setting and planning took place 289 times, and small-scale adaptation happened 87 times. Figure 2 illustrates the occurrence of and interconnections among the four SSRL phases across the 50 SSRL episodes observed. Within these four phases, 14 team-regulation behaviors were identified.
Recognition
In the recognition phase (f = 121), the teams identified challenges and the need for change in relation to shared goals or collaboration. This phase included the transition in the discussion to the metacognitive level. The recognition phase typically served as the starting point of SSRL (f = 43) as it involved identifying the target of regulation in the learning process. This phase appeared also in the later stages of the process, mostly after task-understanding (f = 44) or goal-setting and planning (f = 31).
The team-regulation behaviors linked to this phase concerned the target recognized as needing change. These topics of the recognition discussion were identified and combined from 50 SSRL episodes. The most common topics were the following:
Team-level processes (f = 22), which focused on the collective aspects of a team’s internal processes and communication, including processes, tools, communication methods, resources, responsibilities, focus and attitudes;
Organizational processes (f = 13) – that is, company-level internal process, such as decision-making, communication, employee well-being, security, auditing, forecasts and budget;
Product or production (f = 8), which encompasses product installation, updates or maintenance; and
External operations (f = 7), including sales activities, brand management, customer service protocols and the tools and content used to engage with external stakeholders.
An additional team-regulation behavior in the recognition phase was team members’ indication of the significance of the topic at hand (Acknowledging Importance, f = 12).
Task understanding
The recognition phase usually led to the task-understanding phase (f = 89), which was observed very frequently (f = 280) and remained consistently present in every episode of SSRL. For instance, this phase appeared most frequently after the phase of goal-setting and planning (f = 168). In the task-understanding phase, the teams engaged in collective exchanges of information, sharing experiences and discussing various perspectives to establish and negotiate shared interpretations of the problems at hand.
The team-regulation behaviors in the task-understanding phase were focused on posing questions and sharing information. The team-regulation behavior Task Insight (f = 49) entailed input and engagement in task-related information and perspectives, as well as sharing personal experiences, emotions and attitudes. Another team-regulation behavior – Task-Related Inquiry (f = 32) – involved posing questions to the entire team, directing questions to specific team members and seeking additional information about the topic. Furthermore, team members sought input in progress and strategic decisions, ensuring discussions stayed on topic while promoting clarity and alignment in collaboration (Strategic-Decisions Inquiry, f = 17).
Goal setting and planning
During the goal-setting and planning phase, the teams set goals and made plans regarding how to strategically approach tasks. This phase appeared most frequently and throughout the process (f = 289) in all the episodes; it mostly preceded (f = 218) or followed (f = 168) the task-understanding phase.
During this phase, three team-regulation behaviors were recognized. The first one – Forward Planning (f = 45) – entailed planning the future stages of topic preparation and proposing actions to resolve or understand the topic and execution, including setting subgoals for solution implementation and identifying the responsible person to take the lead in the task. The second one – Strategic-Impact Planning (f = 25) – involved assessing solutions and considering interconnected issues. The third team-regulation behavior – Changing Topics (f = 10) – entailed shifting the discussion to a new topic or a topic related to the previous conversation during the team meeting, as well as making statements that put the topic on hold (e.g. “You really can’t say anything else”).
Small-scale adaptation
In the small-scale adaptation phase, the teams decided on the actions to be taken, thus optimizing learning in the tasks at hand. This phase was less frequent than the others (f = 87), and it typically ended the SSRL episode (f = 28), but it also occurred elsewhere in the latter stages of the process. Goal-setting and planning frequently appeared before small-scale adaptation (f = 76), which often led back to goal-setting and planning (f = 38). Small-scale adaptation demonstrated the teams’ decision-making through negotiations that resulted in small-scale adaptation in 78% (39) of the episodes across the meetings. In the remaining 22% (11) of episodes, small-scale adaptation was absent.
During this phase, three team-regulation behaviors were detected. The first one – Affirming Existing Issue (f = 4) – entailed consenting to the existing state of the issue or affirming previous agreements. The second one – Strategic-Actions Consensus (f = 26) – involved agreeing on specific actions to enact the requested change or solve the problem. The third team-regulation behavior – Direction Consensus (f = 24) – entailed agreeing on the next steps in the process of solving the problem, including assigning a task or responsibility to a team member.
RQ2. Which SSRL phases and team-regulation behaviors are associated with the SSRL episodes that achieve small-scale adaptation?
In this study, achieving small-scale adaptation was regarded favorably as it signified that the team had made decisions regarding the actions to be taken and had thus optimized learning in the task at hand. Small-scale adaptation was observed in 78% (39) of the SSRL episodes, while the remaining 22% (11) of episodes showed no adaptation.
Comparing the process maps of the SSRL phases in terms of no-adaptation and small-scale adaptation episodes showed no differences, except for the absence of the small-scale adaptation phase in the no-adaptation episodes (Figure 3). The recognition phase emerged as the initial phase in both the no-adaptation (f = 8) and small-scale adaptation (f = 35) episodes. The recognition phase usually led to the task-understanding phase in both the no-adaptation (f = 16) and small-scale adaptation (f = 73) episodes. The goal-setting and planning phase followed the task-understanding phase in both the no-adaptation (f = 26) and small-scale adaptation (f = 192) episodes, yet it also preceded the task-understanding phase in a loop in both the no-adaptation (f = 17) and small-scale adaptation (f = 151) episodes. In the small-scale adaptation episodes, the goal-setting and planning phase preceded (f = 76) the small-scale adaptation phase, which served as the conclusion of the episodes (f = 28). In the no-adaptation episodes, task-understanding (f = 4) or goal-setting and planning (f = 7) were the last phases. As the process maps indicated similarities in the SSRL phases, a closer examination of each phase was conducted to generate deeper insights into the team-regulation behaviors influencing teams in achieving small-scale adaptation.
A deeper understanding of the differences between the two types of episodes was obtained by examining the team-regulation behaviors within each SSRL phase. Figure 4 presents all the 14 team-regulation behaviors identified across the SSRL phases and compares their prevalence in the no-adaptation and small-scale adaptation episodes.
In the recognition phase, both types of episodes similarly highlight the need for changes in shared goals, collaboration or processes related to teams, organizations, products and external operations (Topic). The analysis indicates that Acknowledging Importance, where team members highlighted the significance of the topic at hand, was more prevalent in the episodes of small-scale adaptation.
In the task-understanding phase, both types of episodes showed similarities in Task Insight, involving task-related input, engagement and the sharing of personal experiences, emotions and attitudes. During this phase, the prevalent team-regulation behaviors in the episodes with small-scale adaptation were Strategic-Decisions Inquiry, where team members sought team input on strategic decisions, and Task-Related Inquiry, which involved posing questions to the group or directing questions to specific team members and seeking additional information about the topic.
In the goal-setting and planning phase, the frequency differed in Forward Planning, which included planning the future stages of the process, and Strategic-Impact Planning, which occurred when the team assessed solutions and considered interconnected issues. Changing topics, which involved shifting the discussion to a new topic or one related to the previous conversation, occurred only in episodes without adaptation.
In the small-scale adaptation phase, observed team-regulation behaviors included: Affirming Existing Issues (consenting to the current issue state or past agreements), Strategic-Actions Consensus (agreeing on actions to address changes or problems) and Direction Consensus (aligning on next steps, including task assignments).
Two team-regulation behaviors showed statistical significance and were more likely to appear in the episodes with small-scale adaptation. These were Task-Related Inquiry (df = 1; χ2 = 6.09; p = 0.01), and Strategic-Impact Planning (df = 1; χ2 = 4.72; p = 0.03).
Conclusion
This study investigated SSRL in workplace teams to understand how professional teams manage their learning processes during meetings. The first research question aimed to identify the types of SSRL phases that appear in workplace team interactions. Four phases were observed during the team meetings: recognition, task-understanding, goal-setting and planning, and small-scale adaptation. In the recognition phase, the teams identified challenges or acknowledged the need for change related to their shared goal. This phase, which typically initiated SSRL, shifted the discussions toward the metacognitive level. This finding aligns with previous evidence that regulatory patterns often begin with metacognitive interactions (Järvelä et al., 2023).
The recognition phase often led to the task-understanding phase, where collective information exchange and shared interpretations of the task occurred. The task-understanding phase often occurred in a loop with the goal-setting and planning phase. The latter involved negotiation of the strategic approach and often preceded the small-scale adaptation phase, which involved choosing the actions to implement, thus completing the SSRL episode. The prevalence and cyclical nature of SSRL, as well as its topics, showcase the integration of learning processes into work operations. This kind of learning emerges in situations where learning is not the primary goal, but occurs as individuals address problems requiring solutions, aligning with views presented by Manuti et al. (2015). These results also echo those of Margaryan et al. (2013), who highlighted that the regulation of learning in the workplace is structured by and deeply embedded in work tasks.
The small-scale adaptation phase, which optimized learning in the task at hand, was present in 78% (39) of the SSRL episodes. This high percentage indicates successful teamwork, highlighting how SSRL fosters the effective coordination of activities, addresses challenges and promotes collaboration (Isohätälä et al., 2017; Näykki et al., 2017). The lower proportion of episodes with no adaptation (22%, 11 episodes) aligns with the findings of Sobocinski et al. (2020) in that maladaptive episodes of learning regulation during collaboration were rare compared to adaptive episodes. Overall, the findings of the present study suggest that SSRL is present in workplace team meetings and that metacognitive interactions often activate adaptive regulation (Sobocinski et al., 2020). This offers insights into teams’ capacity to recognize and adjust to challenges to achieve success (Hadwin et al., 2018). By fostering adaptability, SSRL not only supports team success but also contributes to broader organizational learning processes, which are essential for driving innovation and profitability (Manuti et al., 2015).
The second research question aimed to understand which SSRL phases and team-regulation behaviors help teams achieve small-scale adaptation. The comparison of episodes in which no adaptation took place with those leading to small-scale adaptation showed that the SSRL phases were similar in both instances. However, certain team-regulation behaviors were specifically associated with small-scale adaptation. These included questions addressed to the entire group to seek additional information in the task-understanding phase and the team assessing solutions and considering interconnected issues in the goal-setting and planning phase. These team-regulation behaviors closely resemble the co-construction process in team learning, where the process goes beyond sharing information and encompasses collaboratively building on each other’s ideas, helping in developing a shared conception of the task, uncovering new meanings and creative solutions and fostering negotiation and agreement. These actions are crucial for effective teamwork and problem-solving (Van den Bossche et al., 2006). A recent review by Wiese et al. (2022) has also highlighted the importance of behaviors such as co-construction for enhancing team performance.
When examining the episodes without adaptation, one team-regulation behavior stood out as occurring exclusively in these instances: dialogs involving shifts to a new or previous topic. This suggests that in situations lacking adaptation, teams might change topics, which potentially disrupts the continuity and depth of their discussions. These shifts may indicate an inability to maintain one direction, which can contribute to the absence of adaptive behavior. Revisiting previous discussions could reflect a limited understanding of the task in earlier stages, which can hinder the formation of shared plans and goals. Hoven et al. (2022) found that teams that reopen discussions or share irrelevant information during the decision-making phase tend to hinder effective decision-making, ultimately resulting in lower overall team performance.
In contrast, episodes characterized by small-scale adaptation featured team-regulation behaviors that involved agreeing on the current state of an issue, deciding on actions to address changes and determining the next steps. These behaviors highlight the importance of strategic collaboration in facilitating adaptation. This connection reinforces the findings of earlier studies that found that effective group collaboration relies on active participation and strategic decision-making to regulate learning (Eraut, 2010; Isohätälä et al., 2017; Vuorenmaa et al., 2023). In this context, active participation involves not only asking questions and offering alternative views but also affirming mutual understanding and keeping the dialog focused. These actions are crucial for maintaining the continuity and depth of discussions, which enables the team to make meaningful changes and progress toward its goals.
This study shows how professional teams regulate their learning across different types of meetings within the workplace. In the future, scholars should consider conducting longitudinal studies and examining motivational and emotional aspects related to SSRL in the workplace context. Additionally, other factors influencing workplace learning such as leadership, organizational learning culture, team conditions and characteristics (e.g. Froehlich et al., 2014), which were not considered in this study, could be explored alongside the micro-level processes identified in this study.
Given that this study focused on SSRL and metacognitive processes in team discussions, its main limitation is its dependence on observed verbal communication, which restricts the ability to capture SSRL that extends beyond discourse, as suggested by Järvelä and Bannert (2021). Future studies should therefore incorporate additional data channels, including multimodal approaches. Additionally, the sample size was relatively small, and the study focused on a specific cultural context, which limits the results’ generalizability. Furthermore, the fact that the teams voluntarily engaged in the coaching program could have influenced the findings. When assessing findings in educational and workplace settings, one should note that the development of self-regulatory capacity continues into adulthood, as these skills consolidate into a more efficient, flexible system for managing multiple goals (Greene et al., 2023).
To conclude, this study identified key SSRL phases and team-regulation behaviors that contribute to achieving small-scale adaptation in workplace teams. The findings highlight SSRL’s integral role in informal learning processes and its contribution to enhancing team adaptability in response to situational challenges. Scholars and practitioners increasingly view working and learning as intertwined phenomena, with the most valuable learning often occurring unintentionally through everyday interactions and experiences (Manuti et al., 2015). These insights can guide interventions to enhance team learning and performance, with SSRL serving as a dynamic tool for calibrating team learning processes.
A key practical implication of this study is its potential to support team coaching by providing tailored insights into SSRL phases and team-regulation behaviors. Guided reflexivity and targeted team-level feedback, addressing both performance and process aspects, have been shown to enhance team performance and foster effective learning processes (Gabelica et al., 2012, 2014). Empirical research findings could be shared with participating teams during coaching services. Teams could receive specific feedback on the SSRL phases and behaviors observed in their meetings, offering actionable insights to enhance their collaborative practices. By integrating SSRL principles into everyday work, teams could foster adaptability and address situational challenges, highlighting the value of informal workplace learning. As Froehlich et al. (2014) noted, informal learning is crucial for enhancing organizational adaptability and competitiveness.
The research work related to data analysis and academic publishing has been funded by the Foundation for Economic Education, Finland (Developing virtual team meta-skills in multidisciplinary collaboration, PI: Prof. Satu Nätti). The data collection was conducted along projects funded by the European Social Fund (TiiM-Coaching Developing Teams’ Learning and Collaboration Skills in SMEs; Effective remote teamwork, PI: Prof. Sanna Järvelä). The research was conducted in the LeaF research infrastructure at the University of Oulu.
Figure 1.An example from team 9’s meeting, with three SSRL episodes and SSRL phases
Figure 2.Visualization of the occurrence of and interconnections among the four phases of SSRL across the 50 observed episodes
Figure 3.Process map of the SSRL phases in the no-adaptation and small-scale adaptation episodes
Figure 4.Team-regulation behaviors within the different phases, comparing no-adaptation and small-scale adaptation episodes
Table 1.
Coding scheme for the phases of SSRL
| Phases of SSRL in the SSRL episodes | Examples |
|---|---|
|
“‘How do we want to lead people? How were those decisions made? This is what I’ve been asking myself all along” |
|
“There are so many interdependent things [related to content] that you can’t just separate them” |
|
“Could we do it that way? We have very little time, and we would need a bigger picture of everything. So, could you prepare that?” |
|
“Yeah, yeah, but that’s a good approach. I’ll outline it in that [document]. Let’s start with this. Then, we probably need to have some sort of workshop or conversation, or whatever” |
Source(s): Authors’ own work
© Niina Palmu, Hanna Järvenoja, Piet Van den Bossche and Sanna Järvelä. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.