Checking progress to help the group adjust its approach

Manal Raoui  |  manalraoui.com

Checking progress means identifying what has been achieved and what remains, then comparing the current state with what the group is meant to achieve and with the criteria and plan guiding its work. If the approach remains suitable, work continues. If a meaningful gap appears, the student identifies what needs review, makes the observation available to classmates, helps coordinate an adjustment, and monitors its effect.

This is our proposed classroom formulation. The cited studies did not test it in this form under this name. It draws on metacognitive monitoring and adaptation in socially shared regulation. Monitoring compares what is happening with what should be happening. Adaptation occurs when information from that comparison informs changes to learners' actions when needed (Malmberg et al., 2017; Sobocinski et al., 2020, 2022).

Why the strategy matters

Members can appear occupied with the task: some exchange information, others record results, and each works on what is in front of them. This activity does not necessarily bring them closer to the required outcome. They may spend too long on a secondary detail, repeat completed work, or produce correct parts that remain insufficient for the task.

The reverse is possible too: work is progressing appropriately, but the group repeatedly reorganizes something that needs no change. Students need to examine what the activity has achieved in relation to the goal, rather than merely notice that it continues.

Malmberg and colleagues' sequential analysis (2017) found that metacognitive monitoring facilitated progress in task execution. Members could monitor their own progress, classmates' progress, and the joint work as a whole.

The findings do not imply that every monitoring pause improves the activity. They show why progress itself needs examination: execution alone does not tell a group whether it is moving in the right direction.

For the student, the strategy clarifies how their contribution fits the whole and directs effort toward remaining needs. For the group, the observation makes delays, gaps, or unsuitable approaches visible before they affect the final product. Alongside “Have I finished my part?”, a learner sometimes needs to ask, “Where is our work as a whole in relation to what we need to achieve?”

Establishing a reference for progress

Judging progress requires a reference. This may be the task's intended outcome, success criteria, the group plan, or the time available in relation to remaining work.

A scientific explanation cannot be judged only by the number of sentences written. It needs to answer the question using the required data. A project with several stages may require checking what is complete against what should have been achieved by the current stage.

The learner first identifies the current state: “Where have we got to? What have we actually completed? What remains?” They then compare it with the reference: “Does this bring us closer to the requirement? Are we meeting the criteria? Is our present activity still moving the work forward?”

The result may be that the approach remains appropriate. Continuing is an important regulatory decision. Monitoring is not a constant search for faults.

Sobocinski and colleagues (2020) distinguish monitoring that shows a group is on track from monitoring that reveals a need for further regulation. The first question after checking is therefore “Does anything need to change?”

Making an observation available for shared adjustment

If comparison reveals a meaningful gap, the next question is “What exactly needs adjusting?” The issue may concern a procedure, sequence, time estimate, plan, or understanding of the task.

The learner explains the observation and contributes to a group decision. Monitoring can begin individually, but a change affecting shared work needs examination and coordination with others.

Ahola and colleagues (2024) analyzed 94 seventh-grade students collaborating in physics. Monitoring contributions were a typical starting point for both co-regulation and socially shared regulation episodes. A member might notice task progress, the product, a difficulty, or an emerging need. An individual observation could initiate group-level regulation when others took it up.

After an adjustment, the student checks progress again: Did the change address the issue? Is the work closer to the intended outcome?

The process involves identifying achievements and remaining work, comparing them with the requirements, criteria, and plan, judging whether the approach fits, identifying a needed adjustment, sharing the observation, contributing to a coordinated change, and monitoring its effect.

These operations can recur flexibly. New information may require returning to task understanding, planning, or the method of execution.

Choosing an adjustment that fits the gap

A learner may react to any difference from expectations by proposing a new plan. Alternatively, they may notice stalled progress and continue unchanged. Neither response is necessarily appropriate without examining the gap.

A delay may concern one step while the overall plan remains suitable. A procedure may need changing without replanning the task. Execution may reveal that the original interpretation was inaccurate, making a return to task understanding more useful than a procedural change.

Sobocinski and colleagues (2022) explain that monitoring may prompt changes in strategies, plans, goals, or task understanding. They describe adjustments made during the task to improve how it proceeds as small-scale adaptation.

This strategy therefore differs from planning an approach in advance. It uses information generated during work to judge whether the chosen approach remains appropriate.

It also differs from using resources to resolve a specific difficulty. Progress checking may reveal a need for information or another resource, at which point the strategy discussed in the preceding article becomes relevant. The present function is judging where the work stands and whether redirection is necessary.

An individual observation also does not authorize unilateral changes to the group's work. The learner can identify and propose an adjustment, while coordinating changes that affect others.

Why students may need support

A student may notice insufficient time, an answer that misses a requirement, or discussion that has drifted, without anything changing. Monitoring information does not automatically become regulation of the approach.

Sobocinski and colleagues (2020) identified 463 monitoring events during a collaborative physics examination. They classified the sequences that followed according to what monitoring revealed and what the group did next. The classification included 314 on-track sequences, 132 adaptive sequences, and 17 maladaptive sequences. These figures describe the study's sample and task, rather than general group success rates. They distinguish information about progress from a need for change and from the response that follows.

When monitoring shows appropriate progress, continuing may be the right decision. When it reveals a need for regulation, noticing the need is only a beginning; learners must use the information to identify what to change.

Sobocinski and colleagues (2022) also show that adjustment need not target the same process in which a difficulty became apparent. Of 82 small-scale adaptation events, 61 involved a move from execution back to task definition, and 12 a move from execution to goals and planning.

“What we are doing is not bringing us closer” therefore does not prescribe the adjustment. The learner still needs to examine where intervention is required.

With experience, students can become more able to use monitoring information appropriately: continue when the approach fits, or return to the part that needs review.

What teachers can do

Asking about completed work, reminding a group of time, or pointing out missing content may sometimes be necessary. If these remain the only source of monitoring, students wait for the teacher to judge whether work is suitable and when it needs adjustment.

Support can shift toward helping learners construct that judgment. Instead of “You're behind; leave this part and move on,” ask, “What should have been achieved by now, and where have you got to?”

Other prompts include “Which criterion have you met, and which still needs work?” and “What exactly needs adjusting: what you are doing now, the plan, or your understanding of the requirement?”

The teacher should not assume that every comparison will reveal a fault. Appropriate progress may call simply for continuing.

Michalsky and Cohen (2021) examined question prompts in a study of 104 seventh-grade students working in 31 groups on science problems. Conditions supported shared regulation, creative thinking, both, or provided no additional support. Students receiving shared regulation support improved their participation in most of the regulatory phases examined.

That condition did not show the greatest increase in scientific knowledge. The study supports using prompts to direct attention to regulatory processes, but does not establish that these questions alone directly increase subject attainment.

Every question need not be asked each time. Across tasks, external reminders can decrease as students become more able to recall the reference, judge progress, and identify adjustments themselves.

The strategy in practice

Four students are preparing a presentation explaining the causes and consequences of an environmental phenomenon using several documents. They initially agreed to analyze the data, organize the causes and consequences, and prepare the presentation. Most of the available time has now passed, and they have many slides.

One student continues formatting, another searches for pictures, and a third notices that the slides contain causes and consequences without explaining their relationships, although that is a requirement.

“We haven't finished” might simply lead to allocating remaining slides. A progress check instead returns to the reference: “We need to explain the phenomenon, not just present information about it.”

The learner identifies the gap: “We have the causes and consequences, but we haven't shown how the causes lead to those consequences.”

They then connect it to the approach: “If we keep adding pictures, we'll finish the presentation without completing the explanation. Could we pause formatting and use the remaining time to connect the causes and consequences?”

Classmates examine the observation and may agree to reorder priorities. The learner then checks again: Is the explanation clearer? Has the missing criterion been met?

The strategy lies in comparing actual progress with the requirements and using the result to help decide whether to continue or adjust.

“Are we on track?” makes three questions visible: Where have we got to? Is our current activity producing progress? What needs adjusting?

Members examine what they have actually achieved, check whether present activity advances the task, and identify a needed adjustment before a deviation continues too long.

The aid does not represent the full strategy or determine when and how the group should change its approach. It makes progress checking visible and reminds students that continued activity is not necessarily progress.

The central idea

What happens during execution supplies new information about a plan's suitability and the distance remaining to the goal. Students learn to regulate the work by using this information: identify what is complete and what remains, compare it with the requirements, and distinguish appropriate progress from a gap needing attention.

An adjustment may be small or require returning to planning, understanding, or execution. It should follow a judgment about progress rather than an arbitrary change whenever difficulty appears.

Making that judgment available to classmates can turn individual monitoring into a contribution to group regulation. The learner becomes better able to recognize when the group should continue and when it needs a shared review of its approach.

References

Ahola, S., Malmberg, J., & Järvenoja, H. (2024). Investigating upper-secondary school learners’ contributions in co-regulation and socially shared regulation during collaborative learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 49, 100870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2024.100870

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

Michalsky, T., & Cohen, A. (2021). Prompting socially shared regulation of learning and creativity in solving STEM problems. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 722535. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.722535

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, 15, 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09224-w

Sobocinski, M., Malmberg, J., & Järvelä, S. (2022). Exploring adaptation in socially-shared regulation of learning using video and heart rate data. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27, 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09526-1

See it in a classroom situation: When a group stays busy without making progress