Script-supported groups mainly engaged in accepted intra-group metacognitive interaction, with co-constructed interaction infrequent and highly variable between groups¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In pre-task regulation, 363 (75.00%) of the 484 pre-task metacognitive episodes (938 across pre- and post-task) were coded as accepted interaction and only 29 (5.99%) as shared. → Kielstra 2022 q2 i? In post-task regulation, 302 (66.52%) episodes were accepted and only 16 (3.52%) were co-constructed. → Kielstra 2022

Evidence¶

Kielstra 2022¶

Kielstra, J., Molenaar, I., van Steensel, R., & Verhoeven, L. (2022). 'Supporting socially shared regulation during collaborative task‑oriented reading'. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 17, 65–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-022-09365-x

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Analysis of 938 metacognitive episodes coded for the four types of intra-group social metacognitive interaction (ignored, accepted, shared, co-constructed). "47 episodes (9.71%) were coded as co-constructed intra-group metacognitive interactions during pre-task discussions." Diversity across groups was great, e.g. Groups E, H co-constructed most.

"During pre-task regulation, 363 (75.00%) metacognitive episodes were coded as accepted intra-group interactions. On average per group, accepted interaction occurred during 33 (SD = 12.44) episodes."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Metacognition — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Shared and co-constructed intra-group interaction were significantly correlated with deep-level metacognitive activities during pre-task regulation — related
• With a scripted collaboration designed to elicit metacognition, deep-level metacognitive regulation stays rare and students mostly accept rather than co-construct or share regulation — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• The 'Y-read?' collaboration script elicited mainly low-level metacognitive regulation during pre- and post-task discussions, with deep-level activities rare — related
• Online PBL group interaction follows the scripted sequence initially, but co-regulation derails over time into social bonding with fewer high-cognitive interactions — related
• A collaborative script embedding solitary reading between planning and review episodes shaped a group's regulative activity, but only low-level regulation — related
• IMR occurred mainly in less successful outcome groups and was absent or rare in more successful outcome groups — related
• Explicit group regulation in online PBL was infrequent, emerged in response to challenges, and often involved teacher support — related
• PBL group discussion during problem analysis mainly concerns theory building, with less data exploration and meta-reasoning — related
• Cognitive interactions were the most studied participation form (61 studies), with solo active (45), metacognitive (26 or 22 per table), socioemotional (19), and coordinative (16) trailing — related
• In wiki-supported ESL literature circles, the high-performing group engaged in content regulation through cognitive activities while the low-performing group used only self-regulation of content. — related