Reciprocal Peer Tutoring and Metacognitive Regulation of Learning

Socially Shared Regulation, Socially Shared Regulation of Learning and Socially Shared Metacognitive Regulation. Throughout the literature we’ve found all three terms that are reduced to a similar general definition which relates with the regulatory learning process within a group. In this Series we’ve seen research that includes work groups, student groups and even governmental groups. However, we have not discussed the dynamics of shared regulation among mutual contributions in pairs. In a study conducted by De Backer and colleagues (2015) the correlation between SSMR with both collaborative learners’ content processing strategies and the level of transactivity in discussions was examined. An innovative aspect of this research was that an authentic higher education reciprocal peer tutoring (RPT) setting was used for the analysis. All sessions of a semester long RPT-intervention of five randomly selected RPT-groups were videotaped for 70 hours. The data analysis consisted of literature-based coding instruments for the RPT-groups’ SSMR, content processing strategies (i.e., questioning and explaining), cognitively-oriented and metacognitively-oriented transactive discussions. Additionally, a binary logistic regression analyses were conducted for analyzing the relationship between RPT-groups’ SSMR and the content processing and transactive discussions. The results reported that both questioning and explaining are positively associated with SSMR. One of the salient results was that the probability of RPT-groups engaging in SSMR increased significantly in the presence of cognitively-oriented and metacognitively-oriented transactive discussions. Interestingly, when the participants elaborated on their peer’s metacognitive regulation it was conducive to the transactive discussions of RPT, while the non-transactive discussions were not significantly associated with SSMR. 

In a more recent research conducted by De Backer and colleagues (2016), metacognitive regulation was directly examined within the collaborative learning activities in a higher education reciprocal peer tutoring (RPT) setting. The research carried out a similar design: 1) the sample size was of 64 Educational Sciences students participants whom were undergoing a semester-long RPT-intervention and tutored one another in small groups of six. The data was collected via video recordings of 70 hours. Videotaped. Therefore, consequently, the analyses were similar but focused on the new research goals by running a logistic regression for interpreting the frequency of occurrence of metacognitive regulation, the low-/deep-level approach to regulation, and the initiative (by tutors/tutees) for metacognitive regulation. The findings of this research, as expected, suggest that RPT-groups continuously adopted metacognitive regulation over time throughout the RPT. More importantly, the results showed that tutees started to initiate RPT-groups’ monitoring more frequently as they became more familiarized with the RPT-setting. Orientation, planning, and evaluation remained tutor-centered responsibilities. 

Therefore, based on the findings of this research, let's revaluate the question set on the previous post: "Would the presence of a leader affect the learners experience and the shared regulation and collaborative dynamics?" According to the results reported on both of these studies about peer tutoring, we could conclude, with certain reservations, that a leader role (such as a tutor) would not hinder but would rather increase the metacognitive regulations of learners and moreover this social dynamic would create a two way learning pathway. These results may be contingent to factors such as role, leader responsibilities, group dynamics and metacognitively-oriented transactive discussions. Future research should examine the relationship between these factors. 

Sources and further readings:

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(2), 187-213.

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 transactional discussions. Instructional Science , 43 (3), 323-344.

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning - a closer look

In a study conducted by Zheng, Li, and Huang (2017), a socially shared regulated learning (SSRL) embedded collaborative learning tool was developed to enable learners to collectively regulate their learning. In essence, in the study the authors examined the effect of the socially shared regulation approach on learning performance through the use of digital collaborative tasks. This study had a sample size of 66 participants whom were undergraduates. These students ranged in age from 19 to 21 years, were in majority women with only three men participating, and were randomly assigned to two groups: experimental (socially shared regulation approach) and control (non-socially shared regulation approach). In total, there were 11 experimental groups of 3 participants with 11 control groups of the same amount. The collaborative Learning Tasks consisted of the cultivation of abilities related to the psychology course they were taking. The group product was a Word document which was composed of the opinions and solutions to three discussion problems that were posted online. The data was collected with a pre-test, a post-test, and questionnaires of learning achievement, technology acceptance and cognitive load. Additionally, a content analysis was used to analyze the frequency of socially shared regulation behaviors. Experimental groups learned using a CSCL tool that included elements of SSRL, while the control group used the same CSCL tool without the SSRL elements. Finally, eight students were interviewed after the collaborative learning activities. The results indicated that the proposed approach significantly improved participants’ learning achievements, group performance, and socially shared regulation frequency. Moreover, it was found that the socially shared regulation promotes awareness and frequency of collective regulatory behaviors.

This study is relevant to this series given that it supports the previous studies discussed in this series which argue that socially shared regulation has a significant positive effect on collaborative learning. In this study it was observed that the members of the groups assisted each other to regulate their learning, beliefs, motivation, emotions, metacognitions and behaviors collectively. All the research presented in this Series thus far, place importance on the social interactions among peers. However, it would be beneficial to examine the role of an authoritarian figure or leader in a collaborative learning intervention. Perhaps, the leader might be responsible for distributing responsibilities, delegation, evaluation, monitoring processes and providing feedback. Would the presence of a leader affect the learners experience and the shared regulation and collaboration dynamics?

Sources and further readings:

Zheng, L., Li, X., & Huang, R. (2017). The Effect of Socially Shared Regulation Approach on Learning Performance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 20 (4), 35–46. 

Collaborative Learning and Government

Social learning has been rarely studied within the public and governmental context. Specially, studies regarding the effect of cognitive and regulatory processes among groups. Most studies, including the sample included in this Series, have been focused on educational or business settings rather. However, there is, although limited, research regarding collaborative learning in government. In this post I highlight two different studies that reflect how collaboration both through inter-groups and inter-organizations can affect collective learning.

The first study was done by Speer (2011) where he conducted a review to explore international practices in Europe and Africa, macro-level peer learning among government organizations, and their implications at the micro level. Speer (2011) used the learning activities of the VET program that are organized by the ETF (European Training Foundation). A content analysis was carried out where four national peer evaluation and learning programs are found: The African Peer Review Mechanism, ENQA-VET, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, and ETF. This research is useful for our Practicum given that it presents the option to investigate and explore if there are agreements, programs or transnational learning initiatives that use collaborative learning. It was found that these governments are nourished by external knowledge for their own policies. They are always oriented towards shared goals, implicit standards and learning through good practices.

The second study was conducted by Getha (2008) where the author examined the relationship between social learning and collaborative capacity in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This study examined collaborative capacity from active learning, which is a critical component of collaborative capacity. Getha (2008) used the Learning Organization Questionnaire and the Federal Human Capital Survey to examine key indicators of active learning at the federal level. Getha (2008) used data from the FHCS, previously collected, to examine indicators of active learning indirectly, after a confirmatory factor analysis. This research is relevant to our Practicum because it presents the option of exploring how active learning practices increase the levels of collaboration in teams. The data suggest that DHS employees lack their ability to assess gaps in the performance and collaborative learning practices, which could affect the ability to examine and address deficiencies in the learning and development of their teams.

It must be taken into consideration that learning between nations is not equal or similar to the learning of small groups in more traditional research schemes, such as the ones that have been previously discussed in this Series. However, I include these articles given that they contributes to the discussion on the development of collaborative learning, and in this context it gives us a perspective of group learning on a larger scale. After all, inter-organizational collaborative learning is part of the Social Learning literature. It remains to be explored if metacognition mediates active learning in teams or groups, and what is the effect that Shared Regulation may have on collaborative processes within government.

Sources and further readings:

Speer, S. (2011). Organized Governmental Learning: vocational education and training practices between peer review and peer learning. Research in Comparative and International Education. Vol (6) Num. 3. RCIE.

Getha-Taylor, H. (2008). Learning Indicators and Collaborative Capacity: Applying Action Learning Principles to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Public Administration Quarterly. Vol. 32 Is. 2.