Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Metacognitive scaffolding during collaborative learning: a promising combination

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article explores the effect of computerized scaffolding with different scaffolds (structuring vs. problematizing) on intra-group metacognitive interaction. In this study, we investigate 4 types of intra-group social metacognitive activities; namely ignored, accepted, shared and co-constructed metacognitive activities in 18 triads (6 control groups; no scaffolds and 12 experimental groups; 6 structuring scaffolds and 6 problematizing scaffolds). We found that groups receiving scaffolding showed significantly more intra-group interactions in which the group members co-construct social metacognitive activities. Groups receiving problematizing scaffolds showed significantly less ignored and more co-constructed social metacognitive interaction compared to groups receiving structuring scaffolds. These findings indicate that scaffolding positively influenced the group members’ intra-group social metacognitive interaction. We also found a significant relation between students’ participation in intra-group social metacognitive interaction and students’ metacognitive knowledge. Twelve percent of the variance in students’ metacognitive knowledge was explained by their participation in intra-group shared social metacognitive interaction. Therefore, future research should consider how to design scaffolds that elicit intra-group social metacognitive interaction among group members to enhance the development of students’ metacognitive knowledge.

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

Notes

  1. We use the effect size r for both the parametric and non-parametric test following Rosenthal (1991) as described in (Field 2005). The r for non-parametric data is calculated on the basis of the data from the Mann–Whitney test, namely r= \( \frac{z}{\sqrt{N}} \)

References

  • Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. G. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in Collaborative Problem-Solving Groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 94(4), 403–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A. (1999). Intelligent agents as cognitive tools for education. Educational Technology, 39(2), 36–40.

  • Chi, M. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S., Jeong, H., & Hausmann, R. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: the untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, 331–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowlegde integration; Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doise, W. (1990). The development of individual competencies through social interaction. In H. C. Foot, M. J. Morgan, & R. H. Shute (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 43–64). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics with SPSS. London: Sage.

  • Field, A. (2012). Discovering statistics with SPSS. London: Sage.

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleiss, J. (1981). Statistical itletlzods for rates and proportions. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke, R. H., & Kaul, J. D. (1978). The Hawthorne experiments: first statistical interpretation. American sociological review, 623–643.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, co-regulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113(6)

  • 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, NY: Routledge.

  • Hatano, G. (1993). Time to merge Vygotskian and constructivist conceptions of knowledge acquisition. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 153–166). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P. (2011). Socially Shared metacognition within primary school pupil dyads’ collaborative processes. Learning and Instruction, 21, 379–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. (2013). New frontiers: regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (2002). Promoting thinking through peer learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(1), 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., & Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Computer context for supporting metacognitive learning. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (Vol. 1, pp. 281–298). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Liskala, T., Vauras, M., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Socially-shared metacognition in peer learning? Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 1(2), 147–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, J., Veenman, M. V., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. (2006). metacognitive activities in text-studying and problem-solving: development of a taxonomy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(3), 209–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molenaar, I. (2003). Exploration-net: Online collaboration. In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2003 (pp. 398–400). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

  • Molenaar, I., & Järvelä, S. (2014). Sequential and temporal characteristics of self and social regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-014-9114-2.

  • Molenaar, I., & Roda, C. (2008). Attention management for dynamic and adaptive scaffolding. Pragmatics ∓ Cognition, 16(2), 224–271.

  • Molenaar, I., & Roda, C. (2011). Attention management for dynamic and adaptive scaffolding. In I. E. Droir (Ed.), Technology Enhanced Learning and Cognition (pp. 51–96). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

  • Molenaar, I., Chiu, M. M., Sleegers, P. J. C., & van Boxtel, C. A. M. (2011). Scaffolding of small groups’ metacognitive activities with an avatar. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 601–624.

  • Molenaar, I., van Boxtel, C. A. M., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). The effects of scaffolding metacognitive activities in small groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1727–1738.

  • Molenaar, I., van Boxtel, C. A. M. & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2013). Dynamic metacognitive scaffolding in small groups. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International Handbook of Metacognition and Learning Technologies (pp. 561–574). New York: Springer Science.

  • Molenaar, I., van Boxtel, C.A. M., & Sleegers, P. J.C. (2014). Metacognitive scaffolding during collaborative learning: A promising combination. Metacogntion and learning.

  • Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, 102–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1932). The language and thought of the child (2nd ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: what have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafal, C. (1996). From co-construction to takeovers: science talk in a group of four girls. Journal of Learning Sciences, 5, 279–293.

  • Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1996). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 209–248). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (revised). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: an instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions; psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoor, C., & Bannert, M. (2012). Exploring regulatory processes during a computer-supported collaborative learning task using process mining. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1321–1331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J., & De Laat, M. (2010). Developing the role concept for computer-supported collaborative learning: an explorative synthesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 495–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2010). A framework for conceptualizing, representing and analyzing distributed interaction. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 5–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teasley, S. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Saljo, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361–384). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Boxtel, C. (2004). Studying peer interaction from three perspectives: the example of collaborative concept learning. In J. L. v d Linden & P. Renshaw (Eds.), Dialogic learning: shifting perspectives to learning, instruction and teaching (pp. 125–144). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: a decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.

  • Veenman, M. V. J., Kok, R., & Blote, A. W. (2005). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills in early adolescence. Instructional Science, 33(3), 193–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning, 1(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veldhuis-Diermanse, A. E. (2002). CSCL-Learning? Participation, learning activities and knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education. University of Wageningen

  • Volet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009). Self- and social regulation in learning contexts: an integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, M. (2009). The teacher's role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2010). Self-regulated learning and socio-cognitive theory. In B. McGaw, E. Baker, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd Edition). New York.

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory Into Practice, 42(2), 64–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, Montesorrilaan 3, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Inge Molenaar

  2. Department of Educational Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Peter Sleegers

  3. Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Carla van Boxtel

Authors
  1. Inge Molenaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Sleegers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carla van Boxtel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inge Molenaar.

Appendixes

Appendixes

Appendix 1 Coding Schema

Table 8 Subcategories of cognitive activities
Full size table
Table 9 Subcategories of metacognitive activities
Full size table
Table 10 Subcategories of relational activities
Full size table

Appendix 2 screenshots

figure a
figure b

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Molenaar, I., Sleegers, P. & van Boxtel, C. Metacognitive scaffolding during collaborative learning: a promising combination. Metacognition Learning 9, 309–332 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9118-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9118-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation