Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Metadiscourse, knowledge advancement, and emotions in primary school students’ knowledge building

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Knowledge Building principles such as real ideas, authentic problems; epistemic agency; and collective responsibility for advancement of community knowledge convey ways in which Knowledge Building mirrors work in knowledge-creating communities. Previous studies suggest Metadiscourse—discourse about discourse—helps sustain and improve community knowledge. Do students’ emotions differ during metadiscourse compared to other discourse contexts? Is metadiscourse even possible in early elementary grades? If so, what emotions are associated with discourse moves requiring high-level reflection on prior discourse? Is it possible that such reflection engenders positive emotions required for sustained creative work with ideas? To address these issues, the authors engaged 22 grade 2 students (7 years old) in monthly metadiscourse sessions over four months, during which they discussed how their ideas changed, what they still wondered about, and what ideas they wanted to pursue. Video recordings of face-to-face sessions, online Knowledge Forum notes, students’ interviews, teacher’s reflections, and field notes were analyzed using discourse analysis, multi-faceted coding, and correlation analysis. The authors examined how students’ emotions and discourse moves differ in Knowledge Building discourse and metadiscourse and correlations between emotions and different discourse moves. The results show: (1) greater levels of enjoyment, reflection on previous ideas, and proposals for new directions for inquiry during metadiscourse sessions; (2) confidence positively associated with explanations and proposals for new directions for inquiry; (3) positive emotions associated with increasingly challenging cognitive work. The relationships between early elementary-grade students’ emotions and cognition during Knowledge Building is an underdeveloped area of investigation; in an effort to guide future research a model for regulating emotions in Knowledge Building is presented.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Because of ethical considerations, raw data cannot be shared. However, derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  • Andriessen, J., Pardijs, M., & Baker, M. (2013). Getting on and getting along: Tensions in the development of collaborations. In S., Järvelä (Ed.), Affective Learning Together: social and emotional dimensions of collaborative learning (pp. 205–230). Routledge.

  • Bakhtiar, A., Webster, E. A., & Hadwin, A. F. (2017). Regulation and socio-emotional interactions in a positive and a negative group climate. Metacognition and Learning, 13(1), 57–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-017-9178-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper’s world 3. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 21–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M. & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Can Children Really Create Knowledge?. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 36(1), 1–15. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/43133/

  • Bindé, J. (2005). Towards knowledge societies. UNESCO World Report. UNESCO Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohn-Gettler, C. M. (2019). Getting a grip: The PET framework for studying how reader emotions influence comprehension. Discourse Processes, 56(5–6), 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1611174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, B., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2015). Advancing knowledge building discourse through judgments of promising ideas. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 345–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9225-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M.-H., Zhang, J., & Lee, J. (2013). Making collective progress visible for sustained knowledge building. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), To see the world and a grain of sand: learning across levels of space, time, and scale: CSCL 2013 conference proceedings volume 1 (pp. 81–88). Madison, WI: International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.dx.org/https://doi.org/10.22318/cscl2013.1.81

  • Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative. Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River.

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damşa, C. I., Kirschner, P. A., Andriessen, J. E., Erkens, G., & Sins, P. H. (2010). Shared epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 143–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508401003708381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, T. (2000). Confidence its role in the creative teaching and learning of design and technology. Journal of Technology Education, 12(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v12i1.a.2

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2010). Modeling cognitive-affective dynamics with Hidden Markov Models. In: R. Catrambone & S. Ohlsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual cognitive science society (pp. 2721–2726). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

  • D’Mello, S., Lehman, B., Pekrun, R., & Graesser, A. (2014). Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.003

  • Dever, D. A., Wiedbusch, M. D., Cloude, E. B., Lester, J., & Azevedo, R. (2022). Emotions and the comprehension of single versus multiple texts during game-based learning. Discourse Processes, 59(1–2), 94–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2021.1950450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87(6), 477–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, K. W., & Pipp, S. L. (1984). Processes of cognitive development: Optimal level and skill acquisition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Mechanisms of cognitive development (pp. 45–80). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

  • Florida, R. L. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fryer, M. (1996). Creative Teaching and Learning. Paul Chapman Publishing.

  • Grawemeyer, B., Mavrikis, M., Holmes, W., Gutiérrez-Santos, S., Wiedmann, M., & Rummel, N. (2017). Affective learning: Improving engagement and enhancing learning with affect-aware feedback. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 119–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-017-9188-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagtvet, K. A., & Benson, J. (1997). The motive to avoid failure and test anxiety responses: Empirical support for integration of two research traditions. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 10, 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615809708249294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P. L., Johnson, C. N., Hutton, D., Andrews, G., & Cooke, T. (1989). Young children’s theory of mind and emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 3(4), 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699938908412713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety: A meta analysis. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47–77. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058001047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, J. D., Brackett, M. A., Bailey, C. S., & Willner, C. J. (2020). Teaching emotion regulation in schools: Translating research into practice with the RULER approach to social and emotional learning. Emotion, 20(1), 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Isen, A. M. (2000). Positive Affect and Decision Making. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 417–435). Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isohätälä, J., Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., & Baker, M. J. (2018). Striking a balance: Socio-emotional processes during argumentation in collaborative learning interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 16, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivcevic, Z., & Brackett, M. (2014). Predicting school success: Comparing conscientiousness, grit, and emotion regulation ability. Journal of Research in Personality, 52, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, B., Hofmann, F., Stephan, M., Fuchs, K., Markus, S., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2019). Students’ achievement emotions in university courses–does the teaching approach matter? Studies in Higher Education, 44(10), 1768–1780. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., & Malmberg, J. (2020). Supporting groups’ emotion and motivation regulation during collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J., & Sobocinski, M. (2016). How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? Learning and Instruction, 43, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jirout, J. J., Vitiello, V. E., & Zumbrunn, S. K. (2018). Curiosity in schools. In G. Gordon (Ed.), The new science of curiosity (pp. 243–265). Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, M. J., Hsu, M., Krajbich, I. M., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., Wang, J. T. Y., & Camerer, C. F. (2009). The wick in the candle of learning: Epistemic curiosity activates reward circuitry and enhances memory. Psychological Science, 20(8), 963–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02402.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kempler, T. M., & Linnenbrink, E. A. (2006). Helping behaviors in collaborative groups in math: A descriptive analysis. In S. A. Karabenick & R. S. Newman (Eds.), Help seeking in academic settings: Goals, groups, and contexts (pp. 89–116). Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R. A., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wosniak, A., & Kelly, V. (1991). The Assessment of Performance in Design and Technology. Schools Examinations and Assessments Council (SEAC).

  • Kisac, I., & Budak, Y. (2014). Metacognitive strategies of the university students with respect to their perceived self-confidence levels about learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3336–3339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleitman, S., & Gibson, J. (2011). Metacognitive beliefs, self-confidence and primary learning environment of sixth grade students. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 728–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 57–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-6844-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. R., Fischback, L., & Cain, R. (2019). A wearables-based approach to detect and identify momentary engagement in afterschool Makerspace programs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lei, C., & Chan, C. K. (2018). Developing metadiscourse through reflective assessment in knowledge building environments. Computers & Education, 126, 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loderer, K., Pekrun, R., & Lester, J. C. (2020). Beyond cold technology: A systematic review and meta-analysis on emotions in technology-based learning environments. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.08.002. Article 101162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moran, T. P. (2016). Anxiety and working memory capacity: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 142(8), 831. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000051

  • Muis, K. R., Chevrier, M., & Singh, C. A. (2018). The role of epistemic emotions in personal epistemology and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 53(3), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1421465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Näykki, P., Isohätälä, J., Järvelä, S., Pöysä-Tarhonen, J., & Häkkinen, P. (2017). Facilitating socio-cognitive and socio-emotional monitoring in collaborative learning with a regulation macro script–an exploratory study. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(3), 251–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9259-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Näykki, P., Isohätälä, J., & Järvelä, S. (2021). “You really brought all your feelings out”–Scaffolding students to identify the socio-emotional and socio-cognitive challenges in collaborative learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 30, 100536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R. (2000). A social cognitive, control-value theory of achievement emotions. In J. Heckhausen (Ed.), Motivational psychology of human development. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(00)80010-2

  • Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259–282). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_12

  • Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2014). Introduction to emotions in education. In International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 11–20). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012372545-5/50002-2

  • Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., Marsh, H. W., Murayama, K., & Goetz, T. (2017). Achievement emotions and academic performance: Longitudinal models of reciprocal effects. Child Development, 88(5), 1653–1670. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R. (2019). Inquiry on emotions in higher education: Progress and open problems. Studies in Higher Education, 44(10), 1806–1811. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pnevmatikos, D., & Trikkaliotis, I. (2013). Intraindividual differences in executive functions during childhood: The role of emotions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115(2), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.01.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Polo, C., Lund, K., Plantin, C., & Niccolai, G. P. (2016). Group emotions: The social and cognitive functions of emotions in argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(2), 123–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9232-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putwain, D. W. (2008). Deconstructing test anxiety. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 13, 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632750802027713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putwain, D. W., Becker, S., Symes, W., & Pekrun, R. (2018). Reciprocal relations between students’ academic enjoyment, boredom, and achievement over time. Learning and Instruction, 54, 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, A., & Chakrabarti, A. (2016). Design and implementation of technology enabled affective learning using fusion of bio-physical and facial expression. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 112–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, R., Messina, R., & Scardamalia, M. (2008). Wisdom in elementary school. In M. Ferrari & G. Potworowski (Eds.), Teaching for wisdom: Cross-cultural perspectives on fostering wisdom (pp. 79–92). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resendes, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Chen, B., & Halewood, C. (2015). Group-level formative feedback and metadiscourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 309–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9219-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, A. (2002). The role of epistemic agency and knowledge building discourse to foster interprofessional practice in a Canadian hospital. Paper presented at the American Education and Research Association Annual Conference, New Orleans.

  • Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society, 97, 67–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge forum®. Education and technology: An encyclopedia, 183–192.

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.), pp. 397–417. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.025

  • Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201–228). The MIT Press.

  • Scherer, K. R. (2009). The dynamic architecture of emotion: Evidence for the component process model. Cognition and Emotion, 23(7), 1307–1351. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930902928969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, K. R., & Moors, A. (2019). The emotion process: Event appraisal and component differentiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 719–745. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 549–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.549

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stupnisky, R. H., Hall, N. C., & Pekrun, R. (2019). Faculty enjoyment, anxiety, and boredom for teaching and research: instrument development and testing predictors of success. Studies in Higher Education, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665308

  • Suárez-Pellicioni, M., Núñez-Peña, M. I., & Colomé, À. (2016). Math anxiety: A review of its cognitive consequences, psychophysiological correlates, and brain bases. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-015-0370-7

  • Tao, D., & Zhang, J. (2018). Forming shared inquiry structures to support knowledge building in a grade 5 community. Instructional Science, 46(4), 563–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9462-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thies, K., & Kordts-Freudinger, R. (2019). University academics’ state emotions and appraisal antecedents: An intraindividual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 44(10), 1723–1733. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titz, W. (2001). Emotionen von Studierenden in Lernsituationen [Students’ emotions at learning]. Muenster, Germany: Waxmann.

  • Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Aalst, J., Mu, J., & Yang, Y. (2015). Formative assessment of computer-supported collaborative learning and knowledge building. In P. Reimann, S. Bull, M. Kickmeier-Rust, R. Vatrapu & B. Wasson (Eds.), Measuring and visualizing learning in the information-rich classroom (pp. 154–166). New York: Routledge.

  • Vogl, E., Pekrun, R., Murayama, K., & Loderer, K. (2019). Surprised–curious–confused: Epistemic emotions and knowledge exploration. Emotion. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000578

  • Worsley, M., & Blikstein, P. (2015, March). Using learning analytics to study cognitive disequilibrium in a complex learning environment. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge (pp. 426–427). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2723576.2723659

  • Yang, Y., van Aalst, J., Chan, C. K., & Tian, W. (2016). Reflective assessment in knowledge building by students with low academic achievement. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 281–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9239-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y., Zhu, G., & Chan, C. (2022). Evolution of academic emotions of academically low-achieving students in Knowledge Building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 17, 539–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-022-09380-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in the work of 9-and 10-year-olds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(2), 117–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9019-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.528317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Tao, D., Chen, M. H., Sun, Y., Judson, D., & Naqvi, S. (2018). Co-organizing the collective journey of inquiry with idea thread mapper. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3), 390–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1444992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, G., & Kim, M. S. (2017). A review of assessment tools of Knowledge Building towards the norm of embedded and transformative assessment. Paper presented in Knowledge Building Summer Institute 2017, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Zhu, G., Xing, W., Costa, S., Scardamalia, M., & Pei, B. (2019a). Exploring emotional and cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in grades 1 and 2. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 29(4), 789–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-019-09241-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, G., Donoahue, Z., Fan, M., Zijlstra, B., & Scardamalia, M. (2019b). Emotional and cognitive engagement in Knowledge Building circles: A case study of grade 1 students [Poster Session]. AERA Annual Meeting, Toronto, ON.

  • Zhu, G., Scardamalia, M., Moreno, M., Martins, M., Nazeem, R., & Lai, Z. (2022). Students’ discourse move-emotion states in knowledge building discourse and metadiscourse. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.900440

Download references

Funding

This work was funded by Ministry of Education (MOE), Singapore, Tier 1 RG122/22, Gaoxia Zhu, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 32092, Marlene Scardamalia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Sciences and Assessment Academic Group, National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616, Singapore

    Gaoxia Zhu

  2. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 1V6, Canada

    Marlene Scardamalia, Leanne Ma & Zhixin Lai

  3. Institute of Child Study, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 1V6, Canada

    Raadiyah Nazeem & Zoe Donoahue

Authors
  1. Gaoxia Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marlene Scardamalia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raadiyah Nazeem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zoe Donoahue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leanne Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zhixin Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GZ designed the study, collected and analyzed the data, and wrote the paper. She was the primary researcher who presented in the classroom, collected video data, and had reflective discussions with RN. She interviewed students one by one. As the doctoral supervisor of GX, MS co-designed the study, edited the paper, and provided instructions through the process. MS is also the recipient of the larger granted project. RN taught Grade 2 when the study was conducted. She designed the classroom materials and activities, implemented Knowledge Forum with the support of GZ, and had reflective conversations with GZ. ZD taught grade 1 when the study was conducted and prepared the participants to engage in Knowledge Building talks and use Knowledge Forum. LM was a member of the research team and mainly co-designed metadiscourse sessions with GZ and RN. ZL was a research assistant at the research team and helped analyze part of the data to calculate the agreement of coding.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gaoxia Zhu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare there is no potential conflict of interest in the work.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix A

Appendix A

See Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 A coding scheme to analyze student discourse moves
Full size table
Table 5 A multi-faceted coding approach to analyze student emotions
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhu, G., Scardamalia, M., Nazeem, R. et al. Metadiscourse, knowledge advancement, and emotions in primary school students’ knowledge building. Instr Sci 52, 1–40 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09636-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09636-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation