Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Peer feedback mediates the impact of self-regulation procedures on strategy use and reading comprehension in reciprocal teaching groups

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The goal of this research was to highlight the role social regulatory processes play in making students’ teamwork in reciprocal teaching (RT) groups (a classroom activity in which students take the teacher’s role in small group reading sessions) effective. In addition to teamwork quality, we expected peer feedback to be a key factor in enhancing students’ reading comprehension achievements. Because previous research (Schünemann et al. in Contemp Educ Psychol 38:289–305, 2013) has shown that procedures of self-regulated learning (SRL) augment the effects of RT methods, we further assumed that such procedures would promote the quality of students’ collaborative efforts. In a cluster-randomized trial, students in 12 fifth-grade classes practiced a strategic approach to reading either in a RT condition or in a RT + SRL condition. In one of the 14 sessions, students’ interactive behavior was videotaped. Strategy use and reading comprehension were assessed at pretest, posttest, and maintenance. Performance differences between conditions were reliable only at maintenance. A multilevel mediation analysis showed that relative to RT students, RT + SRL students were better able to provide their teammates with informative feedback and organize their group work in a task-focused manner. Only feedback quality mediated the sustainability of treatment effects on strategy use and reading comprehension. In essence, this research suggests that effective reading comprehension trainings should integrate explicit instruction and practice in reading strategies, SRL, and focus on supportive peer processes in small groups with extensive instruction and practice in peer feedback.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

  • Andreassen, R., & Bråten, I. (2011). Implementation and effects of explicit reading comprehension instruction in fifth-grade classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 21, 520–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition—Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, D. J. (2003). Estimating multilevel linear models as structural equation models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 28, 135–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, C. C., & Duffy, G. G. (2008). Research on teaching comprehension. Where we’ve been and where we’re going. In C. C. Block & S. R. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction. Research-based best practices (2nd ed., pp. 19–37). New York: Guilford Press.

  • Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 & Instruction, 38, 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Corte, E., Mason, L., Depaepe, F., & Verschaffel, L. (2011). Self-regulation of mathematical knowledge and skills. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 155–172). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H.-P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3, 101–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dole, J. A., Nokes, J. D., & Drits, D. (2009). Cognitive strategy instruction. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 347–372). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairchild, A. J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2009). A general model for testing mediation and moderation effects. Prevention Science, 10, 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies (pp. 3–26). New York: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. H., & Zito, J. (2005). Promoting internal and external validity: A synergism of laboratory-like experiments and classroom-based self-regulated strategy development research. In G. D. Phye, D. H. Robinson, & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Educational psychology series. Empirical methods for evaluating educational interventions (pp. 235–265). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, E. R., & Speece, D. L. (1998). Reciprocal teaching goes to college: Effects for postsecondary students at risk for academic failure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 670–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London; New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organizational Science, 12, 435–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P. (2011). Socially shared metacognition of dyads of pupils in collaborative mathematical problem-solving processes. Learning & Instruction, 21, 379–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory Into Practice, 38, 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazdin, A. E. (2007). Mediators and mechanisms of change in psychotherapy research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 & Learning, 9, 287–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 249–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Aect. handbook of research for educational communications and technology. A project of the association for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 745–783). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2015). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  • O’Donnell, A. M. (2006). The role of peers and group learning. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 781–802). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning. A review. Educational Psychologist, 20, 190–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., Kirschner, P. A., Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., & Järvenoja, H. (2015). How individual self-regulation affects group regulation and performance: A shared regulation intervention. Small Group Research, 46, 431–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parr, J. M., & Townsend, M. A. R. (2002). Environments, processes, and mechanisms in peer learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 403–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452–501). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pituch, K. A., Stapleton, L. M., & Kang, J. Y. (2006). A comparison of single sample and bootstrap methods to assess mediation in cluster randomized trials. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 367–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schünemann, N., Spörer, N., & Brunstein, J. C. (2013). Integrating self-regulation in whole-class reciprocal teaching: An analysis of incremental effects on fifth graders’ reading comprehension, reading strategies and self-efficacy for reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Souvignier, E., Trenk-Hinterberger, I., Adam-Schwebe, S., & Gold, A. (2008). Frankfurter Leseverständnistest (FLVT 5-6). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spörer, N., & Brunstein, J. C. (2009). Fostering the reading comprehension of secondary school students through peer-assisted learning: Effects on strategy knowledge, strategy use, and task performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 289–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spörer, N., & Schünemann, N. (2014). Improvements of self-regulation procedures for fifth graders’ reading competence: Analyzing effects on reading comprehension, reading strategy performance, and motivation for reading. Learning & Instruction, 33, 147–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volet, S., Summers, M., & Thurman, J. (2009a). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction, 19, 128–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009b). Self- and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44, 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (2010). Peer learning in the classroom. In P. L. Peterson, E. L. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 636–642). Oxford: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behavior in peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by German Science Foundation Grant SP 1269/1-1 to Nadine Spörer and Joachim C. Brunstein. The work presented herein was conducted in partial fulfillment of Nina Schünemann’s dissertation at the University of Giessen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Giessen, Otto-Behaghel-Strasse 10F, 35394, Giessen, Germany

    Nina Schünemann, Vanessa A. Völlinger & Joachim C. Brunstein

  2. University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Strasse 24-25, 14476, Potsdam, Germany

    Nadine Spörer

Authors
  1. Nina Schünemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nadine Spörer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vanessa A. Völlinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joachim C. Brunstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadine Spörer.

Appendix

Appendix

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schünemann, N., Spörer, N., Völlinger, V.A. et al. Peer feedback mediates the impact of self-regulation procedures on strategy use and reading comprehension in reciprocal teaching groups. Instr Sci 45, 395–415 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9409-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9409-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation