This article reviews the terms and concepts that have been used for describing regulation of learning during cooperative and collaborative learning and suggests differentiating them on the basis of which parts of a regulatory feedback loop model are being shared. During cooperative and collaborative learning, not only self-regulation but also the regulation of the group process is important. This regulation might occur on both an individual level and a social level. Several modes of regulation have been identified, but the terms used for them vary tremendously—including social regulation, socially shared regulation, coregulation, and other-regulation. This article seeks to clarify the diverse terminology. To this end, we use a theoretical framework based on Winne and Hadwin's (1998) model of self-regulated learning to analyze how the different terms are used in the literature. We make and exemplify suggestions for a consistent usage of terms.

Background and Aims: Although errors and failures are indispensable parts of the learning process, the current theoretical models and empirical research remain inadequate to provide a comprehensive perspective for learning from errors, considering the roles of different agents, settings, and support mechanisms. Addressing these gaps in the literature, this special issue collects 11 research papers related to learning from errors and failure in educational contexts. In this commentary, we synthesize the findings of these papers with previous work, address conceptual and methodological challenges based on these papers and their implications, and provide suggestions to enhance educational practices. Results: The special issue papers varying in regard to research design, subject domain, participants, and learning setting presented findings about four main themes: (1) contextual factors (e.g. organization and error climate) as an enabler and barrier, (2) individual factors (e.g. motivational beliefs and emotions) in learners' processing of errors, (3) error‐ or failure‐related learning processes, and (4) instructional strategies (e.g. feedback and prompts) to support learning from errors. Critical evaluation of these papers also revealed conceptual (e.g. error vs. failure) and methodological (e.g. generic vs. error‐specific measures and instruments) challenges, which also paved the way for directions for future research. Conclusion: Overall, 11 papers in this special issue provide significant empirical evidence about learning from errors and failure in educational contexts. Synthesizing the findings of both these papers and prior research, we also present suggestions to construct an educational environment conducive to learning from errors.