Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learning by teaching

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prior research has established that learning by teaching depends upon peer tutors’ engagement in knowledge-building, in which tutors integrate their knowledge and generate new knowledge through reasoning. However, many tutors adopt a knowledge-telling bias defined by shallow summarizing of source materials and didactic lectures. Knowledge-telling contributes little to learning with deeper understanding. In this paper, we consider the self-monitoring hypothesis, which states that the knowledge-telling bias may arise due to tutors’ limited or inadequate evaluation of their own knowledge and understanding of the material. Tutors who fail to self-monitor may remain unaware of knowledge gaps or other confusions that could be repaired via knowledge-building. To test this hypothesis, sixty undergraduates were recruited to study and then teach a peer about a scientific topic. Data included tests of recall and comprehension, as well as extensive analyses of the explanations, questions, and self-monitoring that occurred during tutoring. Results show that tutors’ comprehension-monitoring and domain knowledge, along with pupils’ questions, were significant predictors of knowledge-building, which was in turn predictive of deeper understanding of the material. Moreover, tutorial interactions and questions appeared to naturally promote tutors’ self-monitoring. However, despite frequent comprehension-monitoring, many tutors still displayed a strong knowledge-telling bias. Thus, peer tutors appeared to experience more difficulty with self-regulatory aspects of knowledge-building (i.e., responding appropriately to perceived knowledge gaps and confusions) than with self-monitoring. Implications and alternative hypotheses for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, P. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Research, 32, 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annis, L. (1983). The processes and effects of peer tutoring. Human Learning, 2, 39–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buehl, M., & Alexander, P. (2006). Examining the dual nature of epistemological beliefs. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 28–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Educational design and cognitive science (Vol. 5, pp. 161–238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics. In K. Ericsson, N. Charness, R. Hoffman, & P. Feltovich (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 21–30). New York: Cambridge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. (2009). Active–constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M., & Roscoe, R. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change (pp. 3–27). London: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M., deLeeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1986). Theoretical considerations of peer tutoring. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P., Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, E., Brown, A., & Rivkin, I. (1997). The effect of instructional explanations on formal learning from scientific texts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 347–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2012). Exploring the potential impact of reciprocal peer tutoring on higher education students’ metacognitive knowledge and regulation. Instructional Science, 40, 559–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufrene, B., Noell, G., Gilbertson, D., & Duhan, G. (2005). Monitoring implementation of reciprocal peer tutoring: Identifying and intervening with students who do not maintain accurate implementation. School Psychology Review, 34, 74–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R., Roth, W., Komorek, M., & Wilbers, J. (2001). Fostering conceptual change by analogies—between Scylla and Charybdis. Learning and Instruction, 11, 283–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. Ericsson, N. Charness, R. Hoffman, & P. Feltovich (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 39–68). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foot, H., Shute, R., Morgan, M., & Barron, A. (1990). Theoretical issues in peer tutoring. In H. Foot, M. Morgan, & R. Shute (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 65–92). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, S. (1996). Human physiology (5th ed.). Chicago: WCB Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., Phillips, N., Karns, K., & Dutka, S. (1997). Enhancing students’ helping behavior during peer-mediated instruction with conceptual mathematical explanations. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 223–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenburg, A., Wilkinson, A., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 10, 597–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, E. B. (1999). Sensation and perception. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A., & Person, N. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A., McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 334–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. (1998). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 165–191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H., Ball, D., & Schilling, S. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 372–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B., & Pintrich, P. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ismail, H., & Alexander, J. (2005). Learning within scripted and non-scripted peer-tutoring session: The Malaysian context. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 67–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 303–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1997). ASK to THINK–TEL WHY: a model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 32, 221–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A., Staffieri, A., & Adelgais, A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 134–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leinhardt, G. (2001). Instructional explanations: A commonplace for teaching and location for contrast. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 333–357). Washington, DC: AERA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepper, M., Drake, M., & Donnell-Johnson, O. (1997). Scaffolding techniques of expert human tutors. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 108–144). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R., Shields, M., Wheeler, A., & Zacchilli, T. (2005). Individual differences in absolute and relative metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 723–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M., Roediger, H., & McDermott, K. (2007). Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 200–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M., Howard, D., & Einstein, G. (2009). The Read-Recite-Review study strategy: Effective and portable. Psychological Science, 20, 516–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMaster, K., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2006). Research on peer-assisted learning strategies: The promise and limitation of peer-mediated instruction. Reading and Research Quarterly, 22, 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Ghatala, E. S., Woloshyn, V., & Pirie, J. (1990). Sometimes adults miss the main ideas and do not realize it: Confidence in responses to short-answer and multiple-choice comprehension questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 232–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rekrut, M. (1994). Peer and cross-age tutoring: The lessons of research. Journal of Reading, 37, 356–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D., Schofield, J., & Steers-Wentzell, K. (2005). Peer and cross-age tutoring in math: Outcomes and their design implications. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 327–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H., & Karpicke, J. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbeck, C., Ginsburg-Block, M., Fantuzzo, J., & Miller, T. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 240–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, R., & Chi, M. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 534–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, R., & Chi, M. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of instructional explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36, 321–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 142–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schommer-Aikins, M., & Easter, M. (2006). Ways of knowing and epistemological beliefs: Combined effect on academic performance. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 26, 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Crippen, K., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunn, C., & Anderson, J. (1999). The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 23, 337–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K., & Ehly, S. (2001). Peer assisted learning: A framework for consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 113–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K., Graesser, A., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rosé, C. (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science, 31, 3–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K., Siler, S., Murray, C., Yamauchi, T., & Baggett, W. (2003). Why do only some events cause learning during human tutoring? Cognition and Instruction, 21, 209–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N., Nemer, K., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 63–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Michelene Chi, Kurt VanLehn, Chris Schunn, and Janet Schofield for their insights and expertise. The author is also grateful to Robert Hausmann, Marguerite Roy, Kirsten Butcher, Soniya Gadgil, and Bibinaz Pirayesh for their advice, suggestions, and assistance with many aspects of the research. This research was funded in part by Faculty of Arts and Sciences Summer Research Awards to the author from the University of Pittsburgh, and by a National Science Foundation award to the Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center (SBE-0354420) at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Sciences Institute, Arizona State University, P. O. Box 872111, Tempe, AZ, 85287-2111, USA

    Rod D. Roscoe

Authors
  1. Rod D. Roscoe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rod D. Roscoe.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Human visual system text excerpt

Due to length, the entire human visual system text is not reproduced here. However, the following excerpt provides a representative sample of the style and tone of the text. This portion of the text described the lens and vitreous humor of the eye:

The cornea does most of the focusing of light, but additional focusing occurs by varying the thickness of the lens. This process is called accommodation. In this process, the ciliary muscles contract, which increases the curvature and focusing power of the lens. This process allows us to keep an image on the retina clear as we view things at varying distances. After light exits the lens, it passes through the vitreous humor, which is a clear, jelly-like substance in the middle of the eye. One purpose of this substance is to maintain the shape of the eye. In addition, the vitreous humor has a refractive index similar to that of the lens, which prevents further bending of the light.

Appendix 2

Knowledge assessment questions

The following items appeared on the Questions Test assessment. Each item is labeled regarding whether the question was a core question repeated across test phases or a new question appearing only on the posttest.

  • What components of the eye are involved in focusing and directing light towards the retina? How do these components accomplish this process? (core question)

  • How is light energy entering the eye converted to neural signals in the retina? Why is this process necessary? (core question)

  • What are the most direct and least direct pathways that neural signals can follow to reach the brain from the photoreceptors? (core question)

  • Why is the fovea the most sensitive section of the retina for detecting light patterns? Why is vision in the periphery less clear? (core question)

  • How is the amount of light entering the eye regulated by the muscles of the iris? Why is this function important for normal vision? (new question)

  • What are the two main functions of the vitreous humor? What properties of the vitreous humor are responsible for these functions? Why are these functions important for normal vision? (new question)

  • What are the major functions of the cone receptor system and the rod receptor system? What causes these systems to possess these properties? (new question)

  • Some animals can see in the dark. What are several ways that animal eyes might be structured differently than human eyes so that this is possible? (new question)

  • Eyeglasses may be worn to correct for several visual impairments. What underlying problems may cause a person to need glasses? How do glasses compensate for impaired eye functions? (new question)

  • Colorblindness is a disorder in which a person is unable to see colors. What are several potential problems underlying this disorder? How could a person be “blind” to only one or two colors? (new question)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roscoe, R.D. Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learning by teaching. Instr Sci 42, 327–351 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9283-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9283-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation