Abstract
The present study investigates collaborative learners’ adoption of key regulation activities (i.e., orienting, planning, monitoring, and evaluating) and a deep-level regulation approach in relation to characteristics of their collaboration on the cognitive and communicative level. More specifically, the correlation of collaborative learners’ regulation behavior with respectively their content processing strategies and the level of transactivity in their discussions is analyzed. The study is conducted in a naturalistic reciprocal peer tutoring (RPT) setting in higher education. Sessions of five randomly selected RPT groups participating in a semester-long RPT intervention were videotaped (70 h). Binary logistic regressions were performed to examine how RPT participants’ metacognitive regulation is related to their content processing and transactive discussions. Results reveal that students’ adoption of key regulation activities is significantly correlated with their adoption of content processing strategies, although different correlations are revealed for particular regulation activities. Additionally, RPT participants’ adoption of regulation activities is significantly related to students’ transactive discussions, both when reacting to each other’s cognitive and metacognitive contributions. With regard to RPT participants’ adoption of a deep-level regulation approach, the results show significant correlations with higher-order content processing as well as with representational and operational transactive discussions, in which students respectively paraphrase or elaborate on each other’s contributions. The present study’s micro-analytical examination of RPT participants’ learning and regulation processes contributes important insights to the literature on collaborative learners’ regulation, providing input for stronger theoretical models and facilitating instructors’ adequate support of collaborative learners.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For more information on how RPT groups’ socially shared metacognitive regulation is related to particular discourse moves and processing strategies demonstrated during collaborative learning, we would like to refer the reader to De Backer et al. (2015).
It should be noted that while questioning and explaining are addressed from a peer tutoring perspective in the present study, the processes and dynamics unfolding during tutees’ questioning and explaining are also applicable to other collaborative learning settings in which students question each other’s mental models and problem solving strategies to clarify and reinforce or correct their own (Barron 2003; Dillenbourg 1999). Similarly, the questioning and explaining behavior of peer tutors is up to some level comparable to the instructional practices of professional teachers (Roscoe and Chi 2008; Webb 2009).
Given that 64 students participated in the RPT intervention, nine groups of six students and two groups of five students were formed. All data collected for the present study was obtained from RPT groups of six students.
All three coding instruments have been adopted in previous studies. The coding instrument RPT_MCR is integrated in De Backer et al. (2016). The coding instruments RPT_CON and RPT_TRANS were originally designed for a study on socially shared metacognitive regulation. Exemplified versions of both are presented in De Backer et al. (2015).
It should be noted that statements of content processing and statements of metacognitive comprehension monitoring were sometimes closely related. Nevertheless, these statements were only allocated one general code, referring either to metacognitive regulation (i.e., comprehension monitoring) or content processing (i.e., questioning or explaining). When students explicitly verbalized that they were checking and controlling their comprehension (e.g., “Is that correct? Not so? Am I right? Do I interpret that correctly?”), statements were coded as comprehension monitoring. In contrast, when such explication was absent, questions and explanations concerning theoretical learning contents were coded as statements representing content processing (see Appendix 3).
It should be noted that in total, six logistic regression models were run: four models to answer the first research question (i.e., one model for each key regulation activity under study) and two models to answer the second research question (i.e., one with deep-level orientation and one with deep-level monitoring as dependent variable).
Given the low frequency of occurrence of deep-level planning and evaluation (i.e., both <1 %), the second logistic regression model (i.e., with respectively deep-level planning and deep-level evaluation a binary dependent variable) was not run for these regulation activities.
Given their low frequency of occurrence (i.e., 1.1 %), hybrid transactive discussions were excluded from logistic regression analysis.
References
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359.
Berkowitz, M. W., Althof, W., Turner, V. D., & Bloch, D. (2008). Discourse, development, and education. In F. K. Oser & W. Veugelers (Eds.), Getting involved. Global citizenship development and sources of moral values (pp. 189–201). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
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, New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Chi, M., Siler, S., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–533.
De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2012). Exploring the potential impact of reciprocal peer tutoring on higher education students’ metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Instructional Science, 40, 559-588.
De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2015). Socially shared metacognitive regulation during reciprocal peer tutoring: Identifying its relationship with students’ content processing and transactive discussions. Instructional Science, 43, 323-344.
De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., Moerkerke, B., & Valcke, M. (2016). Examining evolutions in the adoption of metacognitive regulation in reciprocal peer tutoring groups. Metacognition and Learning, 11, 187-213.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–15). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 193–223.
Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104–137.
Hadwin, A. F., Wozney, L., & Pontin, O. (2005). Scaffolding the appropriation of self-regulatory activity: a socio-cultural analysis of changes in teacher-student discourse about a graduate research portfolio. Instructional Science, 33, 413–450.
Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 65–84). New York: Routledge.
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.
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, 287–307.
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.
Michinov, N., & Michinov, E. (2009). Investigating the relationship between transactive memory and performance in collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 19, 43–54.
Molenaar, I., & Järvelä, S. (2014). Sequential and temporal characteristics of self and socially regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 9, 75–85.
Molenaar, I., Sleegers, P., & van Boxtel, C. (2014). Metacognitive scaffolding during collaborative learning: a promising combination. Metacognition and Learning, 9, 309–332.
Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, 102–116.
Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: a review. European Psychologist, 20, 190–203.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407.
Rogat, T. K., & Adams-Wiggins, K. R. (2015). Interrelation between regulatory and socioemotional processes within collaborative groups characterized by facilitative and directive other-regulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 589–600.
Rogat, T. K., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2011). Socially shared regulation in collaborative groups: an analysis of the interplay between quality of social regulation and group processes. Cognition and Instruction, 29, 375–415.
Roscoe, R. D. (2014). Self-monitoring and knowledge building in learning by teaching. Instructional Science, 42, 327–351.
Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. (2008). Tutor learning: the role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36, 321–350.
Schoor, C., Narciss, S., & Körndle, H. (2015). Regulation during cooperative and collaborative learning: a theory-based review of terms and concepts. Educational Psychologist, 50, 97–119.
Teasley, S. (1997). Talking about reasoning: how important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: essays on situated cognition (pp. 361–384). Berlin: Springer.
Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 631–645.
Volet, S., Summers, M., & Thurman, J. (2009). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: how does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction, 19, 128–143.
Webb, N.M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1–28.
Webb, N. M., Ing, M., Kersting, N., & Nemer, K. M. (2006). Help seeking in cooperative learning groups. In S. A. Karabenick & R. S. Newman (Eds.), Help seeking in academic settings. Goals, groups, and context (pp. 45–88). New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17, 416–426.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 279–306). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Liesje De Backer. Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2, Ghent 9000, Belgium. Tel: +32 9 264 62 59. E-mail: Liesje.DeBacker@UGent.be.
Current themes of research:
The research of Dr. Liesje De Backer focuses on fostering individual and socially shared metacognitive regulation in higher education settings. She more specifically investigates the potential impact of collaborative learning (particularly peer tutoring) in this respect. Her research is both output- and process-oriented.
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:
De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2012). Exploring the potential impact of reciprocal peer tutoring on higher education students’ metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Instructional Science, 40, 559–588.
De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2015). Exploring evolutions in reciprocal peer tutoring groups’ socially shared metacognitive regulation and identifying its metacognitive correlates. Learning and Instruction, 38, 63–78.
De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., Moerkerke, B., & Valcke, M. (2016). Examining evolutions in the adoption of metacognitive regulation in reciprocal peer tutoring groups. Metacognition and Learning, 11, 187–213.
Hilde Van Keer. Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2, Ghent 9000, Belgium. Tel: +32 9 264 86 62. E-mail: Hilde.VanKeer@UGent.be
Current themes of research:
Prof. Dr. Hilde Van Keer’s actual field of research focuses on (a) output-related and process-oriented investigations of innovative didactical approaches, in particular peer tutoring and student tutoring; (b) assessing and fostering self-regulated learning in authentic learning environments in both primary and higher education; and (c) language didactics in primary education.
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:
De Naeghel, J. & Van Keer, H. (2013). The relation of student and class-level characteristics to primary school students’ autonomous reading motivation: a multi-level approach. Journal of Research in Reading, 36, 351–370.
Merchie, E. & Van Keer, H. (2016). Stimulating graphical summarization in late elementary education: the relationship between two instructional mind map approaches and student characteristics. Elementary School Journal, 116, 487–522.
Ruys, I., Van Keer, H., & Aelterman, A. (2012). Examining pre-service teacher competence in lesson planning pertaining to collaborative learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44, 349–379.
Vandevelde, S., Van Keer, & Merchie, E. (in press). The challenge of promoting self-regulated learning among primary-school children with a low socio-economic and immigrant background. Manuscript accepted for publication in Journal of Educational Research.
Van Keer, H. & Vanderlinde, R. (2013). A book for two! Peer tutoring and reading comprehension in elementary school practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 94, 54–58.
Martin Valcke. Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2, Ghent 9000, Belgium. Tel: +32 9 264 86 75. E-mail: Martin.Valcke@UGent.be
Current themes of research:
Building on his PhD work in the field of educational information sciences, Prof. Dr. Martin Valcke’s actual field of research focuses now on the innovation of secondary and higher education as well as the integrated use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:
Bourgonjon, J., De Grove, F., De Smet, C., Van Looy, J., Soetaert, R., & Valcke, M. (2013). Acceptance of game-based learning by secondary school teachers. Computers & Education, 67, 21–35.
Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R. & Schellens, T. (2010). Students’ perceptions about the use of video games in the class room. Computers & Education, 54, 1145–1156.
De Naeghel, J., Valcke, M., De Meyer, I., Warlop, N., van Braak, J., & van Keer, H. (2014). The role of teacher behaviour in adolescents’ intrinsic reading motivation. Reading and Writing, 27¸1547–1565.
De Smet, C., Bourgonjon, J., De Wever, B., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2012). Researching instructional use and the technology acceptation of learning management systems by secondary school teachers. Computers & Education, 58, 688–696.
Van Steenbrugge, H., Lesage, E., Valcke, M. & Desoete, A. (2014). Preservice elementary school teachers’ knowledge of fractions: a mirror of students’ knowledge? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46, 138–161.
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
De Backer, L., Van Keer, H. & Valcke, M. Is collaborative learners’ adoption of metacognitive regulation related to students’ content processing strategies and the level of transactivity in their peer discussions?. Eur J Psychol Educ 32, 617–642 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0323-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0323-8