Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 327–351 | Cite as

Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learning by teaching

  • Rod D. RoscoeEmail author
Article

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.

Keywords

Learning by teaching Peer tutoring Metacognition Explaining Question-answering Expertise Personal epistemology 

Notes

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.

References

  1. Alexander, P. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Research, 32, 10–14.Google Scholar
  2. Annis, L. (1983). The processes and effects of peer tutoring. Human Learning, 2, 39–47.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buehl, M., & Alexander, P. (2006). Examining the dual nature of epistemological beliefs. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chi, M. (2009). Active–constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chi, M., deLeeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. (1986). Theoretical considerations of peer tutoring. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, P., Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Duit, R., Roth, W., Komorek, M., & Wilbers, J. (2001). Fostering conceptual change by analogies—between Scylla and Charybdis. Learning and Instruction, 11, 283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ericsson, K., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Fox, S. (1996). Human physiology (5th ed.). Chicago: WCB Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glenburg, A., Wilkinson, A., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 10, 597–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldstein, E. B. (1999). Sensation and perception. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  25. Graesser, A., & Person, N. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ismail, H., & Alexander, J. (2005). Learning within scripted and non-scripted peer-tutoring session: The Malaysian context. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. Maki, R., Shields, M., Wheeler, A., & Zacchilli, T. (2005). Individual differences in absolute and relative metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 723–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McDaniel, M., Roediger, H., & McDermott, K. (2007). Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 200–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McDaniel, M., Howard, D., & Einstein, G. (2009). The Read-Recite-Review study strategy: Effective and portable. Psychological Science, 20, 516–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rekrut, M. (1994). Peer and cross-age tutoring: The lessons of research. Journal of Reading, 37, 356–362.Google Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roediger, H., & Karpicke, J. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roscoe, R., & Chi, M. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of instructional explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36, 321–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 142–175.Google Scholar
  51. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schunn, C., & Anderson, J. (1999). The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 23, 337–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.Google Scholar
  56. Topping, K., & Ehly, S. (2001). Peer assisted learning: A framework for consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Webb, N. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Sciences InstituteArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations