Skip to main content
Log in

Talking about group (but not individual) process aids group performance

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The discourse of small groups of 3–4 adults enrolled in a graduate business course was audio-recorded as they participated in a computer-supported simulation in which the group represented a firm and worked over a series of eight sessions in making a series of decisions. Discourse transcripts were analyzed using a coding scheme that classified utterances expressed during group interaction as types of topic-talk (constituting a part of the activity itself) vs. meta-talk (reflecting on the activity). Supporting our hypothesis regarding the importance of meta-level discourse about group process in a group’s achieving coordinated action and a successful outcome, analysis suggested that discourse about the group’s process, but not discourse about individuals’ actions, was associated with superior group outcomes.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Duhigg, C. (2016). Smarter faster better: The transformative power of real productivity. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, R. L., Roberts, M. E., & Gureckis, T. M. (2008). Emergent processes in group behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 10–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A., Fiore, S., Greiff, S., et al. (2018). Advancing the science of collaborative problem solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618808244.

  • Hogan, M., Dwyer, C., Harney, O., Noone, C., & Conway, R. (2016). Metacognitive skill development and applied systems science: A framework of metacognitive skills, self-regulatory functions and real-world applications. In A. Pena-Ayala (Ed.), Metacognition: Fundamentals, applications, and trends (pp. 75–106). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M., Kapur, M., & Reimann, P. (2016). Conceptualizing debates in learning and educational research: Toward a complex systems conceptual framework of learning. Educational Psychologist, 51, 210–218.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 379–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 178–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44, 46–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2019). Why is reconciling divergent views a challenge? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29, 27–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Modrek, A. (2018). Do reasoning limitations undermine discourse? Thinking and Reasoning, 24, 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Ramsey, S., & Arvidsson, T. S. (2015). Developing multivariable thinkers. Cognitive Development, 35, 92–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition & Instruction, 31, 456–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F. (2016). Argument relevance and structure: Assessing and developing students’ uses of evidence. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 180–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M., Savani, K., & Fincher, K. (2019). Metacognition fosters cultural learning: Evidence from individual differences and situational prompts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116, 48–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osiurak, F., & Reynaud, S. (2019). The elephant in the room: What matters cognitively in cumulative technological culture. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/SO140525X19003236.

  • Pease, M., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Experimental analysis of the effective components of problem-based learning. Science Education, 95, 57–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pifarre, M., & Cobos, R. (2010). Promoting metacognitive skills through peer scaffolding in a CSCL environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 237–253.

  • Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83, 483–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea, N., Boldt, A., Bang, D., Yeung, N., Heyes, C., & Frith, C. D. (2014). Supra-personal cognitive control and metacognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(4), 186–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siqin, T., van Aalst, J., & Chu, S. K. W. (2015). Fixed group and opportunistic collaboration in a CSCL environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10, 161–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P., Janssen, J., & Jaspers, J. (2012). Successfully carrying out complex learning-tasks through guiding teams' qualitative and quantitative reasoning. Instructional Science, 40, 623–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloman, S., & Rabb, N. (2019). Thought as a determinant of political opinion. Cognition, 188, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I. et al. (2017) Socio-Cognitive Scaffolding with Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts: a Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 477–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9361-7

  • Yoon, S., Park, M., & Anderson, E. (2018). Identifying reflective and non-reflective group consensus strategies for evidence-based scientific argumentation. London: Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deanna Kuhn.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kuhn, D., Capon, N. & Lai, H. Talking about group (but not individual) process aids group performance. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 15, 179–192 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09321-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09321-7

Keywords

Navigation