Abstract
While a number of studies have considered that metacognition is related to processes at an individual level, the role of metacognition during collaborative learning activities remains unclear. Metacognition has been studied mainly as a process of the individual, neglecting the relevance of group regulated behavior during cooperative activities and how group members perceive their skills and reflect on group potentialities. The current study presents the construction and validation of a 20-item quantitative scale for measuring the metacognition of groups based on their knowledge of cognition, planning, monitoring and evaluating. The tool was presented to 362 university students participating in online collaborative activities. The validity and reliability of the scale were verified calculating descriptive statistics, the KMO and Bartlett tests, exploratory factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha, a confirmatory factor analysis and multi-group invariance testing. The findings showed that the instrument is sufficiently valid and reliable. To demonstrate its utility, the scale was used to observe differences in the processes among students attending several courses. Trainee teachers of primary school reported a higher metacognitive level than students in psychology, for example. The findings indicate that metacognition should also be considered in a group dimension rather than only as a reflection of individual behavior, and it should be a relevant construct for understanding online collaborative processes. Ways in which the scale could be applied to improve CSCL and further research for assessing the correlation between metacognition and other constructs are also discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Biasutti, M. (2011). The student experience of a collaborative e-learning university module. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1865–1875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.006.
Biasutti, M. (2012). Teaching beliefs: A comparison between primary and secondary school trainee teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching; Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 38(3), 231–244.
Biasutti, M. (2015). Assessing a collaborative online environment for music composition. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 49–63.
Biasutti, M. (2017). Flow and optimal experience. In J. P. Stein (Ed.), Reference module in neuroscience and biobehavioral psychology. New York: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.06191-5.
Biasutti, M., & Frate, S. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the attitudes toward sustainable development scale. Environmental Education Research, 23(02), 214–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1146660.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). The study process questionnaire (SPQ): Manual. Hawthorn, Vic.: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. (2011). Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1043–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.014.
Buder, J. (2011). Group awareness tools for learning: Current and future directions. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1114–1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.012.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504.
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.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2013). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 17, 84–89.
Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., Kuljanin, G., Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Chao, G. T. (2016). The dynamics of team cognition: A process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(10), 1353–1385.
Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 240–264.
Heyne, K., Pavlas, D., & Salas, E. (2011). An investigation on the effects of flow state on team process and outcomes. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 475–479). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1105–1125.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Group awareness tools: It’s what you do with it that matters. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1046–1058.
Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., et al. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 125–142.
Khosa, D. K., & Volet, S. E. (2014). Productive group engagement in cognitive activity and metacognitive regulation during collaborative learning: Can it explain differences in students’ conceptual understanding? Metacognition and Learning, 9(3), 287–307.
Kim, M., & Ryu, J. (2013). The development and implementation of a web-based formative peer assessment system for enhancing students’ metacognitive awareness and performance in ill-structured tasks. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 549–561.
Kwon, K., Hong, R. Y., & Laffey, J. M. (2013). The Educational impact of metacognitive group coordination in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1271–1281.
Kyprianidou, M., Demetriadis, S., Tsiatsos, T., & Pombortsis, A. (2012). Group formation based on learning styles: Can it improve students’ teamwork? Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 83–110.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283.
O’Neil, H. F., & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive inventory: Potential for alternative assessment. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(4), 234–245.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., García, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351–371.
Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1989). Statistical methods (8th ed.). Iowa City: Iowa State University Press.
Valcke, M., De Wever, B., Zhu, C., & Deed, C. (2009). Supporting active cognitive processing in collaborative groups: The potential of Bloom’s taxonomy as a labeling tool. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3), 165–172.
Veenman, M. V. J. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: A discussion. Metacognition Learning, 6, 205–211.
Vrugt, A., & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 30, 123–146.
Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Weinstein, C. E., Schulte, A. C., & Palmer, D. R. (1987). Learning and study strategies inventory (LASSI). Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838.
Zion, M., Adler, I., & Mevarech, Z. (2015). The effect of individual and social metacognitive support on students’ metacognitive performances in an online discussion. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(1), 50–87.
Acknowledgements
Individual contribution: MB was the idea originator of the paper, decided the method of study, contributed with the literature review and results interpretation. SF contributed with the literature review, data collection and the statistical analysis of the data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No potential conflict of interest are reported by the author.
Appendix1: Group metacognition scale (GMS)
Appendix1: Group metacognition scale (GMS)
Considering what generally happened in your group during collaborative online activities, please indicate the extent of your agreement/disagreement with the statements by using the following scale:
Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly agree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. We know our strengths as learners | |||||
2. We know how to select relevant information | |||||
3. We know how to use the material | |||||
4. We know how to organize new information | |||||
5. We know how to connect new information with prior knowledge | |||||
6. We plan the activities | |||||
7. We determine what the task requires | |||||
8. We select the appropriate tools | |||||
9. We identify the strategies depending on the task | |||||
10. We organize our time depending on the task | |||||
11. We modify our work according to other group participants’ suggestions | |||||
12. We ask questions to check our understanding | |||||
13. We check our approach to improve our outcomes | |||||
14. We improve our work with group processes | |||||
15. We detect and correct errors | |||||
16. We make judgments on the difficulty of the task | |||||
17. We make judgments on the workload | |||||
18. We make judgments on the instruments | |||||
19. We make judgments on our learning outcomes | |||||
20. We make judgments on the teamwork process |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Biasutti, M., Frate, S. Group metacognition in online collaborative learning: validity and reliability of the group metacognition scale (GMS). Education Tech Research Dev 66, 1321–1338 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9583-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9583-0