Instructional Science

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 559–588 | Cite as

Exploring the potential impact of reciprocal peer tutoring on higher education students’ metacognitive knowledge and regulation

  • Liesje De Backer
  • Hilde Van Keer
  • Martin Valcke
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

It is widely recognized that metacognition is an important mediator for successful and high-level learning, especially in higher education. Nevertheless, a majority of higher education students possess insufficient metacognitive knowledge and regulation skills to self-regulate their learning adequately. This study explores the potential of reciprocal peer tutoring to promote both university students’ metacognitive knowledge and their metacognitive regulation skills. The study was conducted in a naturalistic higher education setting, involving 67 students tutoring each other during a complete semester. A multi-method pretest–posttest design was used combining a self-report questionnaire, assessing students’ metacognitive knowledge and their perceived metacognitive skilfulness, with the analysis of think-aloud protocols, revealing students’ actual use of metacognitive strategies. Results indicate no significant pretest to posttest differences in students’ metacognitive knowledge, nor in their perception of metacognitive skill use. In contrast, significant changes are observed in students’ actual metacognitive regulation. At posttest, students demonstrate significantly more frequent and more varied use of metacognitive regulation, especially during the orientation, monitoring, and evaluation phases. Furthermore, our findings point to an increase in more profound and higher-quality strategy use at posttest.

Keywords

Peer tutoring Collaborative learning Metacognitive knowledge Metacognitive regulation Higher education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Antonietti, A., Ignazi, S., & Perego, P. (2000). Metacognitive knowledge about problem-solving methods. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Artelt, C., Baumert, J., McElvany, N., & Peschar, J. (2003). Student approaches to learning. Results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  3. Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 137–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bannert, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2008). Assessment of metacognitive skills by means of instruction to think-aloud and reflect when prompted. Does the verbalization method affect learning? Metacognition and Learning, 3, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Branch, J. L. (2000). Investigating the information-seeking processes of adolescents: The value of using think-alouds and think-afters. Library and Information Science Research, 22, 371–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Butler, D. L. (1998). The strategic content learning approach to promoting self-regulated learning: A report of three studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 682–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chi, M., Siler, S., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cornford, I. (2002). Learning to learn strategies as a basis for effective lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21, 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coutinho, S., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Skowronski, J. J., & Britt, M. A. (2005). Metacognition, need for cognition, and use of explanations during ongoing learning and problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crain-Thoreson, C., Lippman, M., & McClendon-Magnuson, D. (1997). Windows on comprehension: Reading comprehension processes ad revealed by two think-aloud procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 579–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Desoete, A. (2007). Evaluating and improving the mathematics teaching-learning process through metacognition. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 5, 705–730.Google Scholar
  16. Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition. Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13, 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., Prosser, M., & O’Hara, A. (2006). How and what university students learn through online and face-to-face discussion: Conceptions, intentions, and approaches. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 244–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together. Peer tutoring in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  20. Fonteyn, M. E., Kuipers, B., & Grobe, S. J. (1993). A description of think aloud method and protocol analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 3, 430–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gynnild, V., Holstad, A., & Myrhaug, D. (2008). Identifying and promoting self-regulated learning in higher education: roles and responsibilities of student tutors. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hartman, H., & Sternberg, J. (1993). A broad BACIES for improving thinking. Instructional Science, 21, 401–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Hurme, T. L., Palonen, T., & Järvelä, S. (2006). Metacognition in joint discussions: An analysis of the patterns of interaction and the metacognitive content of the networked discussions in mathematics. Metacognition and learning, 1, 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P. K. (2011). Socially shared metacognition in dyads of pupils in collaborative mathematical problem-solving processes. Learning and Instruction, 21, 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ireson, J. (2004). Private tutoring: How prevalent and effective is it? London Review of Education, 2, 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ismail, H., & Alexander, J. (2005). Learning within scripted and non-scripted peer tutoring sessions. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. King, A. (1997). Ask to think-tell why©: A model to transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational psychologist, 32, 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 178–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lin, L., & Zabrucky, K. (1998). Calibration of comprehension: Research and implications for education and instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 345–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maclellan, E., & Soden, R. (2006). Facilitating self-regulation in higher education through self-report. Learning Environments Research, 9, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. McCrindle, A. R., & Christensen, C. A. (1995). The impact of learning journals on metacognitive and cognitive processes and learning performance. Learning and Instruction, 5, 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meeks, J. T., Hicks, J. L., & Marsh, R. L. (2007). Metacognitive awareness of event-based prospective memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 997–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meichenbaum, D., & Biemiller, A. (1992). In search of student expertise in the classroom: A metacognitive analysis. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 3–56). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. Meijer, J., Veenman, M. V. J., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2006). Metacognitive activities in text- studying and problem-solving: Development of a taxonomy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Molenaar, I., van Boxtel, C., & Sleegers, P. (2010). The effects of scaffolding metacognitive activities in small groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1727–1738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Self-efficacy and prior domain knowledge: to what extent does monitoring mediate their relationship with hypermedia learning? Metacognition and Learning, 4, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nath, L. R., & Ross, S. M. (2001). The Influence of a Peer-Tutoring Training Model for Implementing Cooperative Groupings with Elementary Students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parr, J. M., & Townsend, M. A. R. (2002). Environments, processes, and mechanisms in peer learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 403–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Perfect, T., & Schwartz, B. (2002). Applied metacognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41, 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pressley, M. (2000). Development of grounded theories of complex cognitive processing: Exhaustive within- and between study analyses of thinking-aloud data. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 262–296). Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.Google Scholar
  46. Prins, F. J., Veenman, M. V. J., & Elshout, J. J. (2006). The impact of intellectual ability and metacognition on learning: New support for the threshold of problematicity theory. Learning and Instruction, 16, 374–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Puntambekar, S. (2006). Analyzing collaborative interactions: divergence, shared understanding, and construction of knowledge. Computers & Education, 47, 332–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 334–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36, 321–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosé, C.P. & Torrey, C. (2005). Interactivity and expectation: Eliciting learning oriented behaviour with tutorial dialogue systems. In: Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2005 (pp. 323–336). Heidelberg: Springer Berlin.Google Scholar
  51. Schneider, W. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2, 114–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory development between two and twenty (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  53. Schraw, G. (1997). The effect of generalized metacognitive knowledge on test performance and confidence judgment. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schraw, G., & Dennisson, S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schraw, G., & Nietfeld, J. (1998). A further test of the general monitoring skill hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 236–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning for hypertext: Research issues and findings. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for education communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 605–620). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  58. Son, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Learning and Memory, 26, 204–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an expert student? Instructional Science, 26, 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stratman, J. F., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1994). Reactivity in concurrent think-aloud protocols: Issues for research. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (Vol. 8, pp. 89–111). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  61. Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. (2010). The development of metacognitive skillfulness: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 220–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The think-aloud method. A practical guide to modeling cognitive processes. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  64. Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-method designs? In C. Artelt, & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis (pp. 77–99). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  65. Veenman, M. V., & Beishuizen, J. (2004). Intellectual and metacognitive skills of novices while studying texts under conditions of text difficulty and time constraint. Learning and Instruction, 14, 621–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Veenman, M. V., Elshout, J. J., & Meijer, J. (1997). The generality vs. domain-specificity of metacognitive skills in novice learning across domains. Learning and Instruction, 7, 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Veenman, M. V. J., Kok, R., & Blöte, A. W. (2005). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills in early adolescence. Instructional Science, 33, 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Veenman, M. V., van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Volet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009). Self- and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44, 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behaviour in peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. White, C. J. (1999). The metacognitive knowledge of distance learners. Open Learning, 14, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40, 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Winne, P. H. (2004). Students’ calibration of knowledge and learning processes: Implications for designing powerful software learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 466–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self-reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yang, C. (2003). Reconceptualizing think-aloud methodology: refining the encoding and categorising techniques via contextualized perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. You, Y. L. & Joe, J. L. (2001). Investigating the metacognitive awareness and strategies of English-majored university student writers. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED465281&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED465281.
  77. Zabrucky, K. M. (2010). Knowing what we know and do not know: Educational and real world implications. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2, 1266–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liesje De Backer
    • 1
  • Hilde Van Keer
    • 1
  • Martin Valcke
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational StudiesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations