Shared metacognition in online CoI as two interdependent dimensions: self-regulation and co-regulation¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 1 study (1 associational), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study

Description¶

Within the online CoI, metacognition is defined as higher knowledge and skills to monitor and regulate cognitive processes of self and others, consisting of monitoring (awareness) and managing (regulation strategies). It has two interdependent dimensions: self-regulation, reflecting metacognitive monitoring and managing during personal reflective learning, and co-regulation, which "reflects metacognitive monitoring and managing strategies and skills when engaged in a collaborative learning process as a member of a purposeful and coherent group of learners." The difference between the dimensions reflects the transition from an individual to a shared process. The article treats these as distinct but highly correlated constructs measured by the Garrison and Akyol (2015) questionnaire.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A collaborative learning environment where learners take both individual and shared responsibility for managing inquiry

Constraints¶

• An EFA by Garrison and Akyol (2015) did not load monitoring and managing sub-elements as hypothesized, making those sub-elements difficult to interpret

Target Learners¶

• online graduate students

Target Learning Objectives¶

• metacognitive awareness and regulation in collaborative inquiry

Claims¶

• Self Co Regulation Highly Correlated Online Cbi [+M]
• Co Regulation Stronger Presence Relationships Than Self Regulation [+M]

Related Theories¶

• Metaconceptual processes framework: metacognitive knowledge and processes specific to concept learning, classified as knowledge, awareness, monitoring, and evaluation

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Sadaf, A., Kim, S. Y., & Olesova, L. (2022). Relationship between metacognition and online Community of Inquiry in an online case-based course. Online Learning, 26(4), 79-93. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i4.3474