Group Metacognition

J Sci Educ Technol (2012) 21:325341
DOI 10.1007/s10956-011-9326-z
Filling in the Distance Between Us: Group Metacognition During

Problem Solving in a Secondary Education Course
Marcelle A. Siegel
Published online: 14 July 2011

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract While a body of research exists on individual

metacognition, research on reflective communities is just
beginning. This study generated a framework for conceptualizing metacognition in groups by describing likely
components of group metacognition. I focused on a group
of five preservice science teachers engaged in problembased learning (PBL). The purpose of the PBL course was
to help students gain useful concepts from the learning
sciences to apply to teaching. I investigated forms of
metacognition and the role reflective discourse played
during the learning process. The group and facilitator were
videotaped during PBL sessions. A segment of video to
study further was identified through interaction analysis. I
analyzed the discourse of this segment of the transcribed
group discussion, and I examined the groups final paper.
Supplementary data sources included the interaction analysis transcript of the full 8-h videotape and, specifically, the
comments the group made about the resources they used to
solve the problem. Categories of group metacognition were
identified, claims proposed, and recombined or rejected
until saturation. I identified three components of group
metacognition that helped the group members solve the
instructional redesign problem: (1) metasocial awareness
about other members expertise, (2) monitoring of understanding, and (3) monitoring of process. Future research
directions and instructional implications are discussed.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this

article (doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9326-z) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
M. A. Siegel (&)
Department of Learning, Teaching, & Curriculum,
Department of Biochemistry, University of Missouri, MUSEC,
303 Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
e-mail: siegelm@missouri.edu
Keywords Metacognition Group learning Problem

based learning Teacher education
Everyday, people engage in metacognition to control

and monitor cognitive processes involved in learning.
Activities such as planning how to approach a problem,
checking progress, and evaluating the solution are all
metacognitive in nature. Metacognition is essential for
successful problem solving. Loughran (1996) defined
reflection, or metacognition, as the deliberate and
purposeful act of thinking which centers on ways of
responding to problem situations in teaching and learning.
This definition represents the core of metacognition as
purposeful thinking about learning, yet reflection is often
seen as only one element of metacognition. Planning,
monitoring, and reflecting are regulatory skills (White and
Frederisken 2005) that are distinguished by time of
occurrence (plan for future, monitor the present, reflect on
the past). However, a broader definition of metacognition
should include regulatory skills, as well as knowledge of
cognitionsuch as knowledge of task demands and ones
self as a learner (Flavell 1979). Metacognition is widely
acknowledged as an important part of learning, yet
researchers lack theoretical models for explaining its
mechanisms (Goos et al. 2002). We also lack understanding of how subject matter knowledge and metacognition
work together to enhance thinking in the disciplines.
Moreover, while metacognition is recognized as a key part
of learning (e.g., Marzano and Kendall 2007), it is less
discussed in reference to teaching.
In this study, I begin to develop a framework that
defines components of metacognition occurring in a team. I
focused on a group of preservice science teachers (PSTs)
engaged in a particular type of student-centered learning
123
326
environmentPBL. The PBL course was designed to help

PSTs learn useful instructional knowledge and reasoning
skills with the help of technology designed for an Educational Psychology course.
Metacognition in Groups
Organizations, from businesses to schools to governments,
rely on group collaboration to accomplish goals. Part of the
interest in investigating group cognition is to learn ways to
maximize group performance. Effective teams benefit from
individual as well as inter-individual learning (Levine et al.
1993). Metacognition has been studied primarily in individuals; a lack of studies exists on how metacognition
manifests in social contexts involving group learning (Goos
et al. 2002). New models and methods that connect the gap
between fundamentally cognitive and fundamentally
social studies of human thought and action are necessary
for the next generation of educational research (Schoenfeld
1999).
Research is beginning to demonstrate key components
that contribute to the success of reflective communities.
One component is the role that group members play. For a
group to succeed, each member enacts a role to contribute
to the work (Johnson and Johnson 1999). Another component is strategies for overcoming distances (Fischer
2005) that separate members. For example, spatial distances that physically separate people (Olson and Olson
2001); conceptual distances, between intellectual backgrounds (Fischer 2001; Olson and Olson 2001); and social
distances that are seen when the views of higher-status
members overwhelm valuable ideas of lower-status members (Anderson and Nashon 2007 in ODonnell and Derry
2005). A third component of successful teams is engaging
in multiple types of reflection. Radinsky (2000) and Schon
(1983) discuss effective groups that reflect privately and
publicly, individually and collectively, and during and after
action. Metacognition is useful for certain purposes, such
as negotiating conflict (Flower 2000). Debating alternative
ideas is crucial for learning and helpful for increasing
engagement (Engle and Conant 2002), yet managing conflict in groups is tricky. Metacognitive behaviors, for
instance, recognizing conditions that should trigger
reflective processes (Fischer 2005) can help overcome
conflicts that could derail a team.
Research has also addressed if individual metacognition
can be improved through group work. One study found that
interactions with a group can help or hinder metacognition
during problem solving, based on whether students are
flexible in sharing metacognitive roles, such as calculation
checker and procedural assessor (Goos and Galbraith 1996).
Another study claimed that solving mathematical problems
123
in small groups helped students gain access to ideas for

critical examination (Arzt and Armour-Thomas 1992). The
coding method of the study focused on individuals though,
and did not distinguish between monitoring ones own
thinking versus a partners thinking (Goos et al. 2002). Goos
et al. (2002) study distinguished this with three codes:
Self-disclosure: responses that clarify, evaluate, or

justify ones own thinking.
Feedback request: questions that invite a partner to
critique ones own thinking.
Other-monitoring: statements that attempt to understand anothers thinking.
However, there are no studies in the sciences or in

teacher education that examine metacognition with similar
distinctions.
Metacognition for Teaching

Although increasing teachers scientific knowledge base
has been identified as a challenge for teacher education
(e.g., NCES 1996), the skills used to identify how knowledge is constructed and the skills necessary to collaboratively solve a problem have been less discussed. For
example, Shulman suggested a scientific knowledge base
for teachers that includes subject matter content, pedagogical content, general pedagogy, and an understanding of
learners, educational aims, and curriculum (Shulman 1987).
Subject matter knowledge is composed of knowing how the
basic concepts of a discipline are organized and understanding the concepts. However, metacognitive knowledge
of thinking skills is not included in Shulmans or most
authors conceptualization of knowledge for teaching; (see
Zohar 1999 for an exception). Metacognition needs to be an
additional category, or even a subset of each of the other
categories because it works along with each type of
knowledge. Teachers require the space, time, and preparation to discuss and debate science ideas and instructional
issues with their colleagues and with their students. Moving
away from a teacher-centered, fact-giver model of science
education requires a shift from feeding facts to students to
guiding students through their own inquiries.
Because metacognition performs a significant role in
learning, it is important for teachers to learn ways to
develop students metacognitive skills. Teachers have not
had ample support to help students gain metacognitive
skills, yet metacognition is one of the most powerful
strategies for improving student learning (Baird 1991; Chin
and Brown 2000; Zohar 1999; Hewson et al. 1998).
Recently, a few research programs have been addressing
this need (e.g., Davis 2006; Lin et al. 2005; White and
Frederisken 2005).
Metacognition is often left out of frameworks for teacher knowledge. While US curricular standards do not
emphasize metacognitive knowledge as goals for student
learning (NRC 1996; White and Frederisken 2005), the
three Professional Development Standards in science education do focus on reflection, one aspect of metacognition:
Standard A:
Standard B:
Standard C:
Incorporate ongoing reflection on the

process and outcomes of understanding
science through inquiry.
Inquiry into practice is essential for effective
teaching. Teachers need continuous opportunities to do so. Through collaborations with
colleagues, teachers should inquire into their
own practice.
Provide regular, frequent opportunities for
individual and collegial examination and
reflection on classroom and institutional
practice (NRC 1996).
Problem-Based Learning Context

Problem-based learning is a specific instructional method
that involves collaborative problem solving through intense
discussion and background research. PBL was first developed in medical school programs (Barrows 1988; Hung
et al. 2008) and has been adapted for use in professional
(legal, business), college, secondary, and primary schools
(Hmelo and Williams 1998). During PBL, students in small
working groups learn subject matter on an as-needed basis
in order to solve real-world problems. Unlike traditional
instruction in which students learn content and then solve
problems, PBL begins with problems. These problems are
typically ill-structured and complex. This approach fosters
understanding of why the content is being learned and how
it is applicable (Barrows 1996; Gallagher et al. 1995).
Problem-based learning has a similar theoretical orientation to cognitive apprenticeship (Collins et al. 1989). In a
cognitive apprenticeship, learners engage in real-world
tasks while the teacher makes tacit thinking processes
explicit. Similarly in PBL, students solve problems in
groups and are guided by a facilitator who models problem
solving and question asking processes and challenges students to think deeply and use resources to solve the problem at hand.
With teachers, PBL is a means for cultivating the type of
professional reflection defined by Loughran (1996). With
such skills, teachers learn to be professional decision
makers rather than passive receivers of information (NRC
1996; Valli 1997). Problem solving capacity in a group is
helpful before teachers carry out leadership roles in their
schools and communities.
327
Teachers also require student-centered discussion strategies to employ with their students. Student discourse,
even in a small group situation, tends to mirror the discourse style of the teacher (Webb et al. 2006). Learning to
solve problems helps students learn to monitor their
understanding and recognize when they have a gap in
knowledge (Chi and Bassock 1989). Problem solving in
small groups has been found to hinge on sharing explanations, rather than just answers, and constructively
applying feedback (e.g., Webb and Mastergeorge 2003).
Research has shown that PBL is effective in promoting
certain types of learning. Students gain a more in-depth
understanding of content than traditional methods that
focus on breadth (e.g., Dods 1997; Newble and Clarke
1986). PBL also has a positive effect on students abilities
to transfer skills from the classroom to their professions
(Lohman and Finkelstein 2000; Woods 1996). PBL is
helpful for developing metacognitive skills. For example,
PBL tutors working with surgery students helped to promote clinical reasoning skills by modeling questions that
an expert doctor would ask (Mayo et al. 1993).
Limited work with PBL has been conducted in teacher
education (Oberlander and Talbert-Johnson 2004) or
looking at metacognition. One study found that the collaborative group work in PBL enhanced students metacognitive skills (Martin et al. 1998). In the present study,
PSTs focused on ill-structured design problems (Jonassen
2000) to restructure instruction using concepts from the
learning sciences (see below: defined in Course section).
Research Questions
While researchers have investigated individual metacognition and team cognition, studies of group metacognition are
rare. In this study, I begin to define tentative components of
group metacognition by looking at a PBL group in detail. The
overarching questions were: What forms did metacognition
take and what role did the metacognitive discourse play
during the learning process? In particular, the components of
group metacognition were examined as hypotheses:
1.
2.
3.
Awareness of the group and roles enacted

Monitoring understanding of the group
Monitoring process of the group
Method
Participants
The participants for this study were fourth-year undergraduates in a teacher certification program enrolled in an
123
328
Educational Psychology course. Out of 67 undergraduate

students in the course, 26 volunteered to participate in
research. The science group that was selected for this study
contained all research participants and a teaching assistant
who agreed to be videotaped and participate in research.
This study thus focused on five science students (all science teaching majors) from one PBL group. The group had
one facilitator, a graduate teaching assistant, Janica, who
was not a research assistant.
Course
The course was designed to help teachers use the learning
sciences to enhance instruction (Derry et al. 2002, 2003).
The learning sciences (e.g., www.isls.org) denotes the
interdisciplinary field of research on how people learn that
builds from work in such disciplines as anthropology,
computer science, and cognitive science. PSTs used written
and video-based cases of real instructional situations; videos
were found on a web site and were linked to research-based
information from the learning sciences. The web site formed
a complex network of interactive conceptual relationships
among cases and ideas within the domain of applying the
learning sciences to teaching. The web site consisted of the
following features (Derry et al. 2002, 2003):
casesstories of lessons, and of student learning and

development resulting from lessons, in actual classroomsthat include edited video of the classroom,
expert commentary and case analyses, plus additional
materials that supply information about context;
instructional problems and projects that make use of
cases and are designed to promote in-depth analysis
and, through such analysis, development of knowledge about how to support student growth through
instruction;
a network of case-related links to web pages and other
resources discussing core concepts from the learning
sciences, organized in three theoretical areas: sociocultural, sociocognitive, and cross-theory;
a home for facilitated online asynchronous discussions
of video cases;
links to additional tools and resources that teachers can
use to help them adapt and implement ideas acquired
from study of cases; and
navigational support.
After a short lecture, PSTs spent lecture and discussion

time in discipline-specific PBL groups with a tutor/facilitator. Facilitators were graduate students in Educational
Psychology who had attended a PBL facilitator training.
The course was designed to engage teachers in collaborative problem solving in a way that required them to use
theory as a tool for addressing real instructional problems.
123
PSTs worked in PBL groups to:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
study cases of actual instruction and redesign instruction to enhance student learning;
formulate hypotheses about cases that prompted
investigation into the content of the learning sciences;
use the web site to guide investigations into relevant
concepts from the learning sciences, such as conceptual change, scaffolding, zone of proximal development, cognitive apprentieceship, metacognition;
develop instructional solutions based on their research;
and
develop analyses of cases from their field experiences.
Problem-Based Learning with Video Cases

Preservice science teachers used videotapes to think about
instruction, and the researchers watched videotapes of the
PSTs. In the remainder of the paper, the term video case
will be used to refer only to the cases of teaching that the
PSTs watch, and videotape will be used to refer to the
videorecord of the PSTs PBL process that is analyzed by
the researchers.
The PBL group viewed a video case from the project Web
site showing a traditional-style teacher leading two classes
on static electricity and atomic structure. The problem that
PSTs were asked to solve was to redesign instruction to
improve student learning by analyzing the beneficial and
deficient aspects of the class and recommending changes.
The group had 4 weeks to discuss the problem during 8 h of
class-time and to complete research outside of class. By the
fifth week, the analysis was written in a group paper that
included justification of ideas using cognitive theory. More
details from the problem are shown in Table 1.
Four Data Sources
Two sources of data for the study were the groups paper in
which they described a solution to the PBL problem, and a
videotape segment in which they discussed the problem.
Two supplemental data sources are also described below:
the analysis of the full videotape through interaction
analysis and the examination of resources used to solve the
problem.
Data Source: Groups Final Paper
The paper assignment was to answer the problem (Table 1)
with evidence from the learning sciences. The final paper
was used to see how the group reportedly understood the
solution and what was learned and not learned (see
Appendix 1 online). After completing the research and four
PBL sessions, the group assigned individuals to draft and
329
Table 1 Excerpt of problem assignment

Problem
I. Background
Teachers from secondary schools in your region recently attended a summer institute to learn current scientific knowledge about student
learning and development
Blair Johnson, a popular and experienced teacher, has just presented a problem for the community to consider:
II. Instructional design problem
An instructional unit that is required by state standards and that Blair has been teaching for many years is not working to Blairs satisfaction.
Although some students seem to enjoy the unit, many do not become involved and few if any students appear to gain a truly useful
understanding of the concepts being taught. Blair says budgetary and time constraints make it necessary to reuse many of instructional
materials (textbook, supplies, equipment, etc.) already available for the unit. Also, the unit must be taught in the same number of
days.Blair also made a video of the instruction that can be downloaded and viewed by the workgroup and other members of the
community
III. Steps
(Note: In order to easily refer back to this problem, you should either print out this page or keep it open by opening another browser.)
1. The general goal for your group will be to function as Blairs workgroupto analyze Blairs unit from a learning sciences perspective
and propose a redesign strategy
2. Locate the case you will be using with this problemThree types of materials will be associated with the case:
*Case description (including video) of Blairs instruction
*Conceptual curriculumlinks to relevant scientific information about student learning and development
*Inquiry materialsfurther information and details about Blairs classroom
3. Before meeting with your group, carefully examine the case description, including the video
4. Meet with your group to view and discuss the case. The web is designed to support increasingly in-depth problem analysis, which your
group will need to do. You will not have time to study all the relevant issues in depth, so you will need to decide as a group what
psychological concepts should be explored in depth
edit sections of the paper, and the result was to be their

group consensus. This data source provided additional
context for how the problem was approached and how it
was completed.
Data Source: Videotape of the PBL Group
Videotapes were recorded of the 5-person group plus
facilitator engaging in PBL during 4 class periods of about
2 h each. Tape was shot from a camera that was usually
stationary and an operator occasionally zoomed in on student work or an individual speaking.
While video offers more interaction, expression and
details to observe than notes or audiotape, it is still limited
in that the whole context cannot be present on the screen,
and it only offers a snapshot of time. The camera also has
a potential effect on the way students and teachers act
(Stigler et al. 2000). In an attempt to overcome these
limitations of using video, observers visited the classroom
to note the overall context and take periodic field notes.
Observers were graduate students in Educational Psychology who were research assistants on the larger project.
One segment in which the PSTs identified a need for
more knowledge was selected according to the process
described in the next section. The segment analyzed further
was 8 min and 23 s out of Day 1 (7:0315:23).
Selection of Videotape Segment and Supplemental

Data Source: Interaction Analysis
First, I identified a relevant video segment(s) to analyze by
conducting three interaction analysis sessions and audiotaping the sessions. Interaction analysis is an interdisciplinary approach for investigating the interaction of people
with each other and with their environment (Jordan and
Henderson 1995). The goal is to identify regularities in the
ways in which people utilize the resources of the complex
social and material world and to see how social order is
attained by how people make sense of each others actions
and words (Jordan and Henderson 1995). Having experts
with specialized skills analyze a tape from different perspectives can be especially useful (Stigler et al. 2000). The
five experts who participated in interaction analysis sessions had expertise in one or more of the following areas:
teaching, educational psychology, science education,
technology, sociology, and/or conversation analysis. They
included professors, postdocs, and graduate students.
The experts identified multiple events in which PSTs
showed or identified a need for additional scientific
knowledge during the first PBL session. Thus, the 8 min,
23 s segment was selected. Quotes from the audiotaped
interaction analysis sessions of the remaining videotape are
interspersed to supplement the Results section.
123
330
Supplemental Data Source: Resources for Solving

the Problem
The course included several resources for researching
subject matter. These included:
science mentor (a graduate student in physics who was

available for online consultation),
the internet,
textbooks, and
other resources PSTs might have at their disposal, such
as a physics professor from another course.
Preservice science teachers consulted these resources

while trying to solve the problem. Examining how they
used the resources provides more context for understanding
how a solution was reached. Quotes from the full videotape
are offered in the first section of the Results to provide a
thorough picture of the groups efforts.
Data Analysis
The videotape was examined, roughly transcribed, summarized, and then transcribed in detail. The transcript used
Jeffersonian notation to reveal the interactions between
members, such as the length of pauses, direction of gaze,
and details of overlapping talk (Atkinson and Heritage
1984). The richness of interaction at a micro levelhow
students manage the challenging task of solving problems
together, how meaning develops over time, which resources are utilized, and the types of contributions made and
how they are taken up by the grouphelp explain group
outcomes (Barron 2000).
Next, I coded the transcript and quantified the results. I
developed codes for the different types of utterances by
summarizing and re-categorizing the utterances. The purpose was to distinguish between (1) requests or statements
of a need for more information, (2) answers or comments,
(3) metacognitive statements about what was understood,
(4) metacognitive statements about the process, and (5)
self- or other-directed monitoring. The notation system was
developed by adapting prior narrative analyses of questioning, in particular, Sahas (1984) taxonomy of forms of
English questions and Goos et al. (2002) distinction of selfversus other-monitoring during metacognition in teams.
Codes and examples of the notation system are shown in
Table 2.
In discourse analysis, Fairclough (1999) argues one
cannot properly analyze content without simultaneously
analyzing form, because contents are always necessarily
realized in forms, and different contents entail different
forms and vice versa. In brief, form is a part of content.
With this argument in mind, I used both the form and
content of each utterance as a marker when coding.
123
After detailed coding and summarizing of the codes by

number, I categorized the video and paper data into preliminary forms of metacognition. These forms served as
hypotheses about components of group metacognition.
These were identified, written up as claims to review, and
then rejected, accepted, or recombined. I employed several
methodological strategies to establish the trustworthiness
of results, including triangulation of data sources and
methods, negative case analysis, and analysis of researchers role (Lincoln and Guba 1985).
Results
Introduction to the Selected Videotape
In the video segment selected, it was the first day of a new
problem, and the first time the group worked with this
facilitator. The task was to discuss the video case and
construct ways to redesign instruction to enhance student
learning. The video case showed a classroom doing a unit
on static electricity. In the videotape, the group began
discussing the video-case teachers use of models related to
static electricity. They asked questions about static electricity. They focused on one of the demonstrations shown
in the video case, during which the video-case teacher rubs
a piece of fur along a rod to create static electricity. This
demonstration became the topic of the next 8 min.
Claim 1. Metasocial Awareness of the Group: Roles
of Each Member
In this section, I explain the finding that the preservice
teachers used each others skills and expertise in an attempt
to solve the problem. I claim that their knowledge and use
of each others skills was part of their metacognition during
problem solving, specifically their metasocial awareness
about the group as a resource to solve the problem.
I found that the PSTs presented themselves as resources
with distinct roles to help solve the problem. Each role was
reacted to and thus instantiated by other members of the
group relying on or challenging that function. They knew
each other as part of a cohort for the past two semesters.
They knew that Deans major was Chemistry and that Lou
switched from Engineering to Education and that he had
taken many Physics and Engineering courses. Paula and
Cindy were Biology majors and Bo specialized in Earth
Science. I describe below how each participant enacted a
specific resource role during PBL discussions.
Dean, who uttered the most science answers, presented
himself as an expert among his peers. He also considered
Lou, who had a background in chemistry, to be at a similar
level and offered to share the research workload with Lou.

Table 2 Discourse categories
331
Forms of discourse
Code
abbreviations
Questions (Q)
Examples (quotes or
paraphrases from transcript)
Utterances with a rising intonation

Clarification (c)
Qc
What?
Challenge to previous statement (ch)
Qch
Did you explain it right?
About science (s)
Qs
What does static mean?
Thats the one thing abouttheyre not just floating

around
Questioning statement
Statement with explicit questioning purposes
Statement that shows a lack of understanding.
Followed by an answer
Answers
Statements or comments
Agreement (a)
Aa
Yeah
Deflate (d)
Ad
This isnt my background
Puff (p)
Ap
I have the background, but

Im not telling
About science (s)
As
This is just the transfer of

electrons
Understandings
Metacognitive comments about the state of understanding
Codes indicate that a PST is

speaking. To show that the
facilitator is speaking, a T is
added before the code, for
instance Tup
Metacognitive codes (U and P)
were further categorized as selfor other-directed
Understanding is made public by hypothesizing (h)
Uh
What Im picturing is
Comment about understanding by saying, no I dont

get this particular aspect (n)
Un
Okay thats the part that I

dont understand
Understanding is shown about what the problem at

hand is, or planning for what is needed to do next
conceptually for the problem (p)
Up
So this has nothing to do with

this
Comment about understanding by saying, yes that

makes sense (y)
Uy
Makes sense
Questions (q) about the process
Pq
Should I do this now?
Comments about the process
Pa
Write that down
Process
Metacognitive comments about the groups process
He utilized many physical science terms, such as earth

ground potential and voltage. The body language of
other PSTs, such as Bo at 11:32 crossing his arm, possibly
indicated that these were not terms that everyone was
comfortable with, thus creating a barrier between Dean and
his peers (Levine and Moreland 1991).
The experts initial impression of Dean, based on
interaction analysis, was that he seemed to know a lot
about science, but we were not sure if he really did, or if he
wanted the group to think that he was an expert. We also
agreed that he was a dominant force in the group. One
expert commented, Is he taking over this class or what?!
Another expert noted that his peers enabled him to have
authority: The people are allowing it. Its co-constructed.
Theyre looking at him [Dean] for the answer. Theyre not
distributing the science resource authority at all.
Deans peers and the facilitator also considered him to

be a resource in the group. For example, at 7:08, 8:18 and
8:31, Paula asked a direct or indirect science question, after
Dean made a science statement. Lou also suggested that
Dean could answer a science question uttered by Paula at
10:21. The facilitator, for example at 7:15, nods in agreement with Deans statement.
It was also evident that at 14:36, despite Deans confidence in providing science answers to the group, there was
tension in Deans talk Um the, energy, ah, Im getting
this (confused x). As he continued to defend answers to
questions asked, the vague explanations left him vulnerable
to giving up the notion that he would solve all the groups
questions about static electricity.
Paula played the role of non-expert and questioner in
the group. At 7:45 Paula said, I was explained that once
123
332
but dont ask me to repeat it ((PAULA chuckles)). She

confessed that she did not have the expertise in the group as
resource for the science question that they discussed.
Although Paula admits that she is not an expert in static
electricity, she was an active participant, constantly questioning and challenging Dean. She asked the most science
questions among her peers, uttering 77% of the questions
(see Table 3). For example at 8:30, Dean began, So it
takes the electricity and Paula asks Where are they
coming from? Nevertheless, Paula also agreed with Dean
many times throughout the talk. Paula was also actively
answering science questions, participating in 7 out of 49
turns (14%) of science answers. From these percentages of
participation, I argue that Paula held the role of the active
questioner of the group.
Lou was the expert collaborator and questioner in the
group. His first time speaking he asked how static electricity actually works. In this way, he presented himself as
a chemistry resource who did not have answers for
everything. For example at 7:29, he displayed his desire to
know about science and asked his questions publicly while
professing his uncertainty on the subject matter Ah no.
Ah? The one thing I was wondering when people do this is
why is there things. [I] dont know why. At other times,
he presented himself as a resource by participating in 7
turns of science talk, for example at 10:33 Lou said Oh I
can answer that part and at (13:58?) cause it doesnt
want them that much. Otherwise it wouldnt (give up to
this) plastic stick. Lou also displayed acceptance of Dean
being the subject matter expert and afforded him that role
at 10:21 You can answer it, when Paula asked at 10:17
Where do the electrons come from that transfer. Lou was
a collaborator asking an important question at 7:39,
which led to the groups discussion about static electricity
for the next 7 min. He was also active in answering science
questions, but was not overbearing in his contribution.
Table 3 PSTs participation in scientific discourse

Preservice teachers
(PSTs)
Turns of science talk
Dean
Lou
As
Qs
Aa
Qch
30
11
Bo
Cindy
Paula
10
Total
49
13
31
These were a sample of the types of talk coded

As science answer, Qs science question, Aa agreement, Qch question
in the form of a challenge to a previous statement, S statement with
explicit questioning purpose
123
Cindy, who took notes on the whiteboard during this

PBL discussion, seemed to be the synthesizer for the group.
She was an active contributor to the groups talk, but at
8:12 quickly announced to the group that she had a background in biology only:
(8:12) CINDY:
(8:17) DEAN:
(8:18) CINDY:
(I dont know isnt-) ((to group)) Isnt

there a rule like on the x table that talks
about- Im biology so
[No. No
But [DONT metals always accept
electrons?
Also, she constantly validated her peers science

answers. Cindy asked an average number of science
questions and answered an average number compared to
others in the group. As a synthesizer in the group, when she
agreed with a statement, she would repeat the answer. At
7:10, Cindy repeated The Bohr model, and she completed utterances started by others or further elaborated
these utterances, for example at 10:53, 11:00 and 13:11.
Bo displayed a peripheral role in the segment selected,
asking and answering the least science questions. He gave
only one science-related answer at 11:29, but was cut off
by Dean at 11:30. Cindy also cut him off during a science
question at 14:14. His peers tacit practice of cutting him
off while he was talking perhaps suggested that his contribution was not highly appreciated. Another time he tried
to participate in the science talk and challenged Dean at
10:47.
The PSTs mentioned the role of the resources for solving the problem often throughout the videotape segment
and full videotape. The science mentor and internet were
perceived as useful overall, while the textbook and professor were not. While the science mentor was not used as
a live science resource by the PSTs, but instead was
cited the way a static textbook might be referenced, the
PSTs appeared to learn from and agreed with the mentor,
but did not interact with him, ask him questions or follow
up a discussion. Some trust in the mentor is suggested by
quoting him in Deans summary paper and the groups final
paper. The facilitator also displayed confidence in the
mentor in the first week of PBL discussion (9:52).
Dean presented how he used the Web as a resource at
the second weeks PBL session. When asked by Janica
about how valuable the Web site was that he found, he
mentioned that he knew enough about the topic to know
whether it was a good Web site. Also, the group felt that
the internet was more useful than the textbook. Dean
mentioned that a college Physics text did not mention static
electricity.
Lou reported to the group that he asked his physics
professor about why certain items give negative charge
while other items give positive charge (25:5326:30). I
asked the physic professor about that, he didnt know so

(all students laugh). Probably something to do with electronegativity and he nevera satisfactory answer.
The PSTs used each others skills and expertise in an
attempt to solve the problem. I will argue more below that
their knowledge and use of each others skills was part of
their metacognition during problem solving, specifically
their metasocial awareness about the group as a resource to
solve the problem.
Claim 2. Monitoring Group Understanding: Identifying
a Need for Knowledge
While problem solving, the group generated five science
questions that they needed to know more about. Understanding what is not known is a major metacognitive skill
to solve problems. The second claim is that the group
identified difficult science questions through intense discussion and that this constituted a form of group
metacognition.
The group identified five science questions shown in
Table 4. First, the group asked why certain materials were
used by the video-case teacher to demonstrate static electricity: I dont know why like cat hair and, plastic work
the best (7:39). The question originated while Dean was
speaking at 7:25, and the facilitator, Janica, asked Lou to
speak by commenting on his facial expression (7:27):
(7:27) JANICA:
(7:29) LOU:
(7:38) DEAN:
(7:39) LOU:
(7:43) DEAN:
(7:45) PAULA:
(7:48) LOU:
(7:50) JANICA:
((to LOU)) You look like you

Ah no. Ah? The one thing I was
wondering when people do this is why
is there things [I] dont know why
[Yeah.]
I dont know why like cat hair and,
plastic work the best
Yeah I wonder that, myself (Lou)
(I was) explained that once but dont
ask me to repeat it. ((PAULA
chuckles))
((to JANICA)) So this has nothing to do
with this so. ((LOU laughs))
Oh I think it could. I think it could
because it may have been a question,
that the students might have that (the
students can) address
The facilitator added that all ideas were appreciated

during this brainstorming part of the discussion (8:04).
Instead of ideas, more questions were raised. Janicas
comment was followed by two more science questions, first
by Cindy at 8:18 and then by Paula at 8:31; (see Table 4).
The group was being metacognitive by raising several
questions about science while they began to solve the
instructional redesign problem.
333
Next, Lou stated the question for the group as perhaps a

more general statement of Cindys question, saying, Ah,
why, I dont know. Why different materials [accept or
donate] electrons (9:08). Dean then followed with another
reflective statement (9:12), stating what he wanted to know
about insulators and conductors:
(8:47) JANICA:
(8:50) CINDY:
(8:55) JANICA:
(9:04) LOU:
(9:05) JANICA:
(9:08) LOU:
(9:12) DEAN:
(9:43) JANICA:
I think we have a couple of things,

going on here, that we need to (help).
That we need [to slow down and maybe
EVEN if we can write down too, the
learning issues
[((reaches for PAULAS hand)) (Watch)
((they both raise their hands and then
laugh))
We need to, ah, make sure that we get
down, that, one possible thing we want
to change is to explain, ah why different
materials
Um
accept, different kinds ((to LOU)) You
say it
Ah, why I dont know. Why different
materials [accept or donate] electrons
[Yeah,] electrons. And ah, we also,
wanted, I think we need, we need to
explain more about, conductors versus
insulators because he sort of talked about
it, but for the thirty seconds he did, he
then expected them to understand
exactly why charges would line up on,
different sides of something and, thats
not really intuitively obvious unless you
REALLY understand what a conductor
means. It means that electrons are free to,
((raises hands with palms downward))
float around the surface
So we need to handle insulators and
conductors, better
Interestingly, the science answer to Deans question

would also answer Lous original question: Hair and plastic
readily create static electricity because they are insulators.
Conductors do not show static electricity (charge imbalance)
because the electrons move so readily the object cant
hold a charge (the imbalanced charge spreads out). Later,
Lou returned to the terms cat hair and the stick while he
was answering Paulas question. This continued for a few
turns. Towards the end of the clip, Dean mentioned insulator
and conductor issues again and wanted to split up the
research on scientific questions with Lou at 15:13. The
question of why insulators work well for creating static
electricity was not solved publicly by the group, although
perhaps Dean had some inkling of the answer.
123
334
Table 4 List of PSTs science
questions during PBL
discussion
Question
#
Time speaker
Discourse
code
Uncertainties about science
7:39 LOU
Un
=I dont know why like cat hair and, plastic work the best.
8:18 CINDY
Qs
But [[DONT metals always accept electrons?\
8:31 PAULA
Qs
Where are they [the electrons] coming from?
Thats the one thing abouttheyre not just floating around
Qs
But, arent you going to be changing the chemical

composition?
AND AGAIN
AT
10:17 PAULA
11:20 PAULA
4
11:56 PAULA
8:32 PAULA
AND AGAIN
AT
11:26?PAULA
8:40 PAULA
10:27 PAULA
AND 13:09
AND 13:53
PAULA
And why doesnt it change the chemical composition if youre

taking electrons away and why (doesnt) it all of a sudden
want to bond with something?
Let us review the questions. Question 1, as just shown in

the transcript, involved why particular insulators were best to
demonstrate static electricity. Questions 2, 3 and 4 involved
the source and destination of electrons. Question 5 was if
electrons affected chemical composition. Of the five questions identified, not all were phrased as typical questions
with rising intonation. There were three of these with rising
intonation (Qs), plus one statement (S), and one reflective
statement about understanding (Un). The five questions arose
out of the conversations that were dominated by the PSTs
rather than the facilitator. Three people in the group raised the
five questions. Notice in Table 4 that Paula raised questions
more than once at different points in the conversation.
The five learning issues the PSTs generated were indeed
quite difficult. Science experts interviewed disagreed with
each other about the answers and said that these questions
were excellent (Siegel and Lee 2001). One methods teacher
explained that these ideas were hard to reason about
because they involved the intersection of two usually
distinct domains (chemical bonding and the physics of
electrostatics)that are normally taught in isolation from
one another (Siegel and Lee 2001). In fact, the issue of
lost electrons during static electricity affecting bonding
behavior is a question rarely considered. This rarity suggested that the questions generated by the PSTs represented
probing discourse about the topic.
they did not monitor their progress well. The third claim is
that: (a) monitoring occurred in multiple forms, yet
(b) would have been beneficial more often.
While the group was reflective and successful at building answers to some of the scientific questions they identified, they did not monitor their progress well. First, when
the PBL group made sense out of each others ideas, they
progressed in understanding static electricity. The group
realized that during the static electricity demonstration,
electrons were transferred from the cat hair to the plastic
rod.
Claim 3a: Monitoring the Process of Self and Others
(13:05) CINDY:
(13:06) PAULA:
While the group was reflective and successful at building

answers to some of the scientific questions they identified,
123
(12:49) LOU:
(12:55) PAULA:
(12:55?)LOU:
(12:57) PAULA:
(13:01) LOU:
(13:02) PAULA:
(13:04) LOU:
Its going to lose the electrons, but I

think it will probably pick them up
somewhere else
So [the, the
[I think thats what happens. Im not
sure about that but [its not going to
[So if I charge this thing, so where
have the electrons gone on this thing
((demonstrating with his hands)) So
you have your cat hair [and your stick
[So all of a sudden its going onto the
[stick
[They go from onto the [stick, and then
Next, they figured out what happened to the extra

electrons on the rod.
[They go back to the air and [then,
[And then I have a whole bunch of
these. ((continuing to diagram on the
board))
(13:08) LOU:
(13:11) CINDY:
(13:18) LOU:
(13:18?)DEAN:
(13:19) CINDY:
(13:20) DEAN:
(13:21) CINDY:
(13:21?)DEAN:
(13:23) CINDY:
(13:24) DEAN:
(13:26) PAULA:
[Well they stay on the stick and I dont

know where the cat hair picks up its
electrons
((pointing to paper on table)) But
(well) when the stick gets (into) here
eventually this thing, this, the stick
puts them on here, but eventually this
doesnt work anymore
Yeah
Yeah because they were,
Because (they) went back to
Because they were dissipated,
Yeah
into the air um, [as soon as, as soon as
he takes the cat fur and puts it on the
table,
[(The ground other things)
It can pick up electrons from the table
Yeah well that makes sense
Paula concluded in a reflective statement at 13:26 that it

was making sense. The electrons from the cat hair went to
the plastic stick, into the air. The cat hair picked up extra
electrons from the table. They seemed to have built a
picture of where the electrons came from and where they
ended up. However, the more difficult questions did not get
fully answered during this conversation, such as Question 3
about free-floating electrons.
Individuals made comments to monitor their own as
well as others understanding. For example, Paulas statement at 13:26 was coded as other oriented, because she
is commenting on what others said. In addition to ideas,
they also monitored the PBL process and referred to both
their own as well as others behavior. Not surprisingly, the
tutor, Janica, made the most other oriented process
statements, such as Yeah, you can answer it [that question]. Monitoring the procedure of others was the most
common type of monitoring in this segment (see Table 5).
While monitoring occurred, the group did not regulate
the state of their understanding thoroughly. One example
was that the participants did not summarize their learning
issues separately at the end of their session. One out of two
issues to research further was how does static electricity
work rather than the probing questions they came up with
during the discussion (cf., Table 4). This is how the
learning issues unfolded: The facilitator wrapped up the
discussion, saying that it was valuable time spent on scientific ideas:
(14:54) JANICA:
Well okay lets lets lets (turn) it off

for here right now but lets think
about this more because I think this is
good because you do need to think
335
(15:06) PAULA:
(15:06?)JANICA:
(15:13) DEAN:
about the things, that are important

for him to teach and, how, we think
he needs to teach them
Uh hm
And these are all, the domain
knowledge is incredibly important,
to, to (teaching). So, I [found this,
very valuable
((PAULA smiles at camera))
[So, so what IF, for next time, Ill
split this up with Lou since he seems
to be the other person who,
Janica asked for the rest of Deans sentence, but then

requested a more specific learning issue:
(15:24) JANICA:
(15:26) DEAN:
(15:27) JANICA: So
(15:30) DEAN:
(15:33) JANICA:
(15:33?)DEAN:
(15:43) BO:
(15:43) PAULA:
(15:45) DEAN:
(15:51) DEAN:
[We can we can make it a learning

issue something that we need [to
write about
[Okay
where do electrons come from
((CINDY writes on whiteboard))
Well how does conduction and,
how does (it all) work anyhow
What?
I mean how does THIS, ((waving
hands at papers on table)) all work
anyhow, is I think the question we
could ask. ((JANICA nodding))
And you can quote me on that
[]
[(I guess) how does static electricity
work (I guess)
((PAULALOU, BO, and then
DEAN all look at the camera))
Oh you dont like my, ambiguous
(slang)?
((BO chuckles))
I was priding myself on that
They did not list all the questions, but instead presented
a very general question of how does static electricity
work. The learning issues written on the whiteboard were:
(1) Where does negative charge come fromwhy not
change chemical compound? and (2) How does it all
work (static electricity). The first learning issue was not
clearly statedit asked where the charge came from, not
where the electrons came from, and it asked why the
compound was not changed, instead of the chemical
composition, and behavior (terms they used earlier).
The second, very general learning issue was interesting
given that they correctly solved some of their queries but
not others. Perhaps, they did not realize that they had
reached the correct conclusions on some questions and not
123
336
Table 5 Direction of metacognitive statements (out of 133) during video segment

Statement is reflective about others (Other) or own (Self) thinking
Other
Statement is about
Understanding
Process
Understanding
Process
10
12
11
others. This would add more evidence that the groups

metacognitive monitoring was limited. Another possibility
was that this question how does it all work? (emphasis
added) showed that they felt they lacked a broad, foundational knowledge in this area of science.
I found that the group monitored their process and their
understanding. Monitoring occurred in multiple forms, yet
would have been beneficial more often. Thus, I will argue
below that the group discourse points to another form of
group metacognition (monitoring) to add to the preliminary
framework.
Claim 3b: Monitoring Process: Solution Shifted
to Instructional Questions
The final claim was that the focus on scientific questions
shifted to instructional issues and, while the final paper
provided an informed discussion of the science and students alternative conceptions, the five scientific questions
(Table 4) were not resolved. Usually, at the end of a PBL
session, the participants review the learning issuesideas
to investigate and learn aboutand assign people to particular issues for the week. At the end of the discussion
here, the questions about science became learning issues in
an unusual way.
Cindy turned the conversation toward the crux of the
assigned problem, how to teach static electricity.
(16:15) CINDY:
OH. How does this apply to like what

theyre- WHO cares. ((? laughs,
JANICA nodding)) I- Like if youre
sitting here who cares theyre going to
be like great. Im going to poke Paula
and shes (getting) a shock who cares.
What-How is this going to help them in
the real world kind of
The next 4 min were spent exploring the idea of

teaching about relevant, real-world issues, and the many
shades of meaning of the term authentic instruction (see
Siegel and Lee 2001). After this initial PBL discussion
during which the PSTs discussed and hypothesized about
five questions regarding static electricity, the topic did not
arise again. Instead, the science questions turned into
instructional questions.
The shift in focus from science questions to instructional
questions was notable, yet not surprising. The science was
123
Self
not the focus of the problem, remember, but an instructional solution to teaching static electricity was. The turn to
instructional issues was also reflected in the PSTs final
paper assignment:
We feel that Blair should focus less on individual
issues, such as static electricity and more on providing his students with a deep understanding of certain
models. This would enable the students to understand
and incorporate all knowledge of static electricity
concerning atoms, charge, and movement of electrons. Specifically, Mr. Johnson can use static electricity to further explore the structure of the atom in
terms of electron transfer and flow (or lack thereof).
We shall term this approach deep knowledge from
this point forward.
The PSTs were quite aware of the importance of student
conceptions about static electricity, but did not mention
the scientific issues that came up during their initial
discussion.
Static electricity is a difficult subject to fully understand because it involves invisible processes that
require the development of mental models in order to
get a feel for what is happening during the process.
Learning about static electricity involves understanding how and why electrons flow from one substance to another and the consequences of such an
action. Before a unit on static electricity can be
taught, students would have to have a firm grasp on
the structure and function of an individual atom and
its electrons. For this to be most successful, Mr.
Johnson must be aware of his students misconceptions about static electricity and about models of the
atom. He must also avoid using teaching strategies
that will reinforce these misconceptions or even give
students new ones.
The final paper addressed misconceptions quite well. It
explained how both words static and electricity were
misleading. Electricity referred to a wide range of phenomena, and the static (unmoving) aspect was irrelevant
to the occurrence of charge separation (or imbalance).
While they did not explain the deeper issues, their basic
knowledge of electrostatics is in line with secondary science goals (e.g., Goldberg and Otero 2003; NRC 1996). By
the end of the problem, the PSTs have learned that static
electricity is not static. The paper went on to describe

use of models and nave conceptions associated with
electricity and with the model of the atom. However, it did
not address any of their own five initial questions from the
first day of PBL.
Toward a Framework of Group Metacognition

Here I discuss the implications for what it means to do
group metacognition that were mentioned in each subsection of the Results. I propose three components of group
metacognition. Group members reduced the distances
between them using these components:
1.
Metasocial awareness: Know who has what expertise.

Awareness of self, other, group, and groups resources
that is public.
2.
Monitoring understanding: Monitor self- and otherknowledge publicly.

One subtype found: Identification of need for
knowledge: Make the holes in groups knowledge
visible to the group.
3.
Monitoring process: Monitor the process of the group

publicly.
One subtype found: Shifting goals: Adjust the goals
of the group.
Metasocial Awareness
Members use of each other as resources to solve the
problem constituted metasocial awareness about the group.
While roles are not new to studies of group collaboration,
the new aspect of what is being proposed involves the
framework for group metacognitionto count group
awareness as a form of group metacognition. Several points
in the analysis above indicate that the PSTs were
employing knowledge about the group with awareness.
Dean sees Lou as also having the needed scientific background. Also, Lou tells Dean to go ahead and answer a
question (10:21). Often, the group looks at and asks Dean
for answers.
In addition, the group is aware of other resources they
employ to solve the problem. For example, they publicly
acknowledge contributions of the mentor and the web site,
while publicly discussing the lack of usefulness of a
physics textbook and a physics professor. Thus, this group
is aware of how tools and people contribute to solving the
problem. The discourse analysis provides an example of
metasocial awareness.
337
Monitoring Understanding
A second component of group metacognition proposed is
monitoring the understanding of the group. This includes
making public the state of knowledge of individuals, own
and other, as well as the knowledge of the group. Results
showed that the group monitored their process more than
their understanding (Table 5).
One subtype of monitoring understanding of the group
was to identify a need for knowledge. While problem
solving, the group generated five science questions that
they needed to know more about. The group identified
difficult science questions through intense discussion.
Understanding what is not known is a major metacognitive
skill to solve problems. I claimed that the group should
have monitored their understanding more. For example,
they should have summarized their learning issues more
thoroughly at the end of the session.
Monitoring Process
A third component of group metacognition is monitoring
the process of the group. The facilitator and members
participated in this by asking about the next steps and what
the focus of the discussion should be. The shift in goals
provides a detailed example of how a group can monitor
and alter their process. The focus on scientific questions
shifted to instructional issues and, while the final paper
provided an informed discussion of the science and students alternative conceptions, all five scientific questions
were not resolved. Monitoring the group process informed
what types of knowledge were built. So group metacognition affected group learning.
As shown in Table 5, the group monitored scientific
understanding significantly more often than process (c2 (1,
N = 35) = 5.22, p \ .05). They also made more metacognitive statements about others than themselves. These
two factors provide a way to operationalize group metacognition. If individuals in a group make more metacognitive statements about other members knowledge, this is
proposed as a sign that group metacognition is occurring. If
the group or individuals monitor understanding more than
process, this is another sign of productive group metacognition (GMC). I offer these two proposals as initial
hypotheses that merit further research.
Relation of GMC to Prior Work
These components are similar in certain ways and go
beyond the key processes of self-awareness (metaknowledge) and self-regulation (executive control) that have
123
338
been studied in individuals (Table 6). Metaknowledge, or

awareness of ones own cognitive processes, styles of
learning, and strengths and weaknesses is an aspect of
metacognition that can be useful for strategizing about
how to tackle a problem. This definition is close to
Browns concept of knowledge about cognition (1987)
and similar to White and Frederiksens (2005) concept of
knowledge of the cognitive, social, and metacognitive
processes needed for learning through inquiry. Instead,
metasocial awareness proposed in this study entails
awareness of community resources to solve a problem.
This definition is similar to Kerr and Tindale (2004)
notion of shared metacognition, or members knowledge
of what other group members know (p. 283). It is a
narrower definition than that provided by Anderson et al.
(2009, p. 513) for metasocial metacognitive knowledge:
those elements of an individuals metacognitive knowledge related to social interactions, and relationships and
how these affect cognition, learning processes, and task
behaviors. Future research could examine how differences in awareness of resources, accuracy of this
knowledge, and use of this knowledge affect group
performance.
Executive control, involving a suite of processes for
regulating learning (Brown 1978, 1987), is similar to
components 2 and 3 of the framework. Past research on
individuals describes being able to interpret a task, determine what is unknown, and map the problem space.
Another example is selecting, adapting, and inventing
strategies. A third type of regulation is monitoring. Monitoring the problem solving process in a group involves a
public assessment of progress and decisions about continuing or re-directing.
Group metacognition goes beyond the metacognitive
acts of individuals and is found in the collective activity of
the group. Simply thinking in a group is different than
being metacognitive in a group, such as discussing the
groups resources, or planning the next move. The group
dynamic has synergetic properties that make the whole
greater than the sum of the parts. Wegner (2000) writes
about the repertoire developed in a community of practicehow the community uses tools, concepts, and languages. This study found that the group had some
awareness about the repertoire developed. They had shared
knowledge about each others backgrounds. They also
publicly recommended or downplayed the other text and
human resources available for solving the problem. Evidence of a shift in learning outcomes due to group metacognition also supports the synergetic nature of the group
process. The GMC framework proposed should be considered to have this synergetic nature also.
123
Discussion
Interaction of GMC and Subject Matter Knowledge
The discourse analysis revealed that participants made
conjectures, agreed and disagreed, and challenged each
others ideas. They engaged in a sense-making episode, or
what the computer-supported collaborative learning literature would call knowledge building, in that they
struggled to explain static electricity beyond the surface
level. Knowledge building involves the refinement of ideas
of value to the group and collective responsibility for
learning (e.g., Bereiter 2002). It focuses on not just participation and knowledge acquisition, but knowledge creation (Paavola et al. 2004). This view of subject matter
knowledge that includes reasoning and sense making
revises the current notion of subject matter knowledge for
teaching. It redefines effective teaching as offering
opportunities for building knowledge and facilitating students sense making about challenging concepts.
Much previous research on students understanding of
electricity has shown that the domain is difficult (e.g.,
Eylon and Ganiel 1990; Gutwill et al. 1999). Gutwill et al.
(1999) found that high school students were able to use
simpler particle models, but not more sophisticated models
of static electricity. This study found that the PSTs
struggle was not with using simpler models, but when they
tried to explain whether the bonding behavior of the rod
and fur change when they are charged. An expert would
use a quantum model (with conduction bands etc.) in
order to begin to answer this question, rather than a simple
Bohr model, complex Bohr model, or energy model (with
bonding potentials and stability arguments about bonding)
(Siegel and Lee 2001).
One reason for requiring competence in domain
knowledge is because small-group discussions require
constant and local management (Fox 1993). Researchers
such as Chi et al. (2001) and van Zee and Minstrell (1997)
concur that competence in domain knowledge is an
important contribution to the successful facilitation process
and student learning. Siegel and Lee (2001) suggest that
the facilitation of reflective discourse requires at least
minimal domain knowledge, knowledge about common
misconceptions, and typical trajectories of learning. Chi
et al. (2001) also state that scaffolding in tutoring sessions
requires an understanding of the students utterances
(correct, incorrect, incomplete, or flawed). Therefore, the
tutors domain knowledge may affect the use of facilitation
strategies and tutoring moves. Effective facilitation of
group metacognition by teachers and for teachers is a ripe
area to investigate.

Table 6 Components of group
metacognition
339
Group metacognition
Versus individual
1. Awareness of self, other, group, and groups resources that is public
Knowledge of self
2. Monitoring understanding of self, other, and group that is public
Monitoring own understanding
3. Monitoring process of self, other, and group that is public
Monitoring own procedure
Studying Group Metacognition: Limitations

and Further Directions
Group metacognition is considerably under-researched
and its effects on learning and behavior are highly underappreciated (Anderson et al. 2009). New methods of
measuring group cognition are needed, especially as we
consider the comparison of an individuals knowledge with
a groups knowledge. How does the nature of the task affect
GMC? Affect has been proposed as an element of cognition
(e.g., Schoenfeld 1985); do we need to include affect and
attitudes in a framework for GMC? A better variety of
assessments are needed to probe different forms of GMC.
We need measures to find out why the synergetic nature of
group collaboration works and how we know if it is working. Traditional measures of group cognition elicit knowledge from individuals and then average the data to represent
the groups knowledge (Cooke et al. 2004). Rather than
focusing on individual reflection, I observed the metacognitive progress of the group as a whole. More data could
have informed the study, however, by using additional
measures to identify individuals knowledge and metacognitive strategies. This study only examined one group and
focused on one episode of problem solving. Thus the new
framework for GMC proposed is based on a particular
context and will need further study in multiple contexts.
Understanding the community resources of members
and tools was proposed as metasocial awareness. The roles
played by the participants in this analysis were unique and
co-constructed by the participants. In Lemkes study
(1990) on science classroom dialogue, he argued that patterns of relationships are social constructions as a result of
history where individuals actions recreate and change
these patterns over periods of time. These patterns depended on the social role an individual represents. Further
studies could investigate the notion of metasocial awareness; What if there is disagreement about individuals
resources, contributions, and roles? In what ways does
having more or less awareness affect the groups effectiveness in solving problems? Anderson et al. (2009) found
that a group with strong social relationships restricted their
discussion of ideas for the sake of harmonyor, reducing
the distances between the members. How might metasocial
awareness influence the learning of a group positively or
negatively? How could teachers foster metasocial awareness in a way most effective for learning?
I proposed monitoring of the groups understanding and

process as another part of the GMC framework. The study
showed that the group identified a need for knowledge in
the form of five science questions. Identifying learning
issues is central to the PBL process. Further studies to learn
ways to improve this process would be useful for those
conducting PBL instruction as well as those studying the
metacognition of groups. This study showed several ways
that the group monitored understanding and the problem
solving process. Reflecting not just on ones own learning,
but that of a group appears to be a powerful process that
requires more research attention. A study in electrostatics
found that when students did not make their assumptions
explicit to each other, progress was inhibited (Otero et al.
1999). Studies that distinguish between self- and othermonitoring are rare. More work examining, for example
self-disclosures, feedback requests, and other monitoring
(Goos et al. 2002) should have a large impact for
improving team cognition.
Shifting goals was a subtype of the PBL groups monitoring their process. In this study, the PSTs shifted the
learning issues that arose during science inquiry to instructional questions. What they learned during the remaining
PBL sessions were instructional approaches to the topic of
static electricity. Through connecting their own intuitions
with research, they decided that static electricity was not a
suitable topic to teach, and instead proposed a focus on
atomic models and charge separation. The PSTs in effect
decided to focus on developing their pedagogical content
knowledge towards the end of the problem by figuring out
how to teach about models and charge separation. In their
final paper, they were able to professionally present an
instructional rationale for models, misconceptions, and
model use. Further work on how GMC interacts with subject
matter and pedagogical content knowledge is recommended.
In this study, three preliminary components of group metacognition were proposed. Future research can use this
framework to investigate learning in reflective communities.
Acknowledgments This research was a long-term effort! I would
especially like to thank Sharon Derry and the Secondary Teacher
Education Project, Julia Lee, and Jenna Seymour, who were critical to
this work. I also gratefully acknowledge: the UC Berkeley writing
support group, Erin Olkowski, Joshua Gutwill-Wise, Michael
Schneider, Steve Peterson, Constance Steinkuehler, William Beaty,
John Rudolph, and the student teachers, mentors, and facilitators from
the Educational Psychology course.
123
340
References
Anderson D, Nashon SM (2007) Predators of knowledge construction: interpreting students metacognition in an amusement park
physics program. Sci Educ 91:298320
Anderson D, Nashon SM, Thomas GP (2009) Evolution of research
methods for probing and understanding metacognition. Res Sci
Educ 39(2):181195
Arzt A, Armour-Thomas E (1992) Development of a cognitivemetacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical
problem solving in small groups. Cogn Instr 9:137175
Atkinson JM, Heritage J (1984) Jeffersons transcript notation. In:
Atkinson JM, Heritage J (eds) Structures of social action:
studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Baird JR (1991) The importance of reflection in improving science
teaching and learning. J Res Sci Teach 28(2):163182
Barron B (2000) Achieving coordination in collaborative problemsolving groups. J Learn Sci 9(4):403436
Barrows HS (1988) The tutorial process. Southern Illinois University,
Illinois, pp 1569
Barrows HS (1996) Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond:
a brief overview. In: Wilkerson L, Gijselaers WH (eds) Bring
problem-based learning to higher education: theory and practice.
New Dir Teach Learn, vol 68, pp 312
Beaty WJ (2000) Static electricity misconceptions. [On-line].
http://www.eskimo.com/*billb/emotor/stmiscon.html
Bereiter C (2002) Education and mind in the knowledge age.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
Brown AL (1987) Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation,
and other more mysterious mechanisms. In: Weinert FE, Kluwe
RH (eds) Metacognition, motivation, and understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 65116
Chi MTH, Bassock M (1989) Learning from examples via selfexplanations. In: Resnick LB (ed) Knowing, learning, and
instruction: essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 251282
Chi MTH, Siler SA, Jeong H, Yamauchi T, Hausmann RG (2001)
Learning from human tutoring. Cogn Sci 25:471533
Chin C, Brown DE (2000) Learning in science: a comparison of deep
and surface approaches. J Res Sci Teach 37(2):109138
Collins A, Brown JS, Newman SE (1989) Cognitive apprenticeship:
teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In:
Resnick LB (ed) Knowing, learning, and instruction: essays in
honor of Robert Glaser. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 453494
Cooke NJ, Salas E, Kiekel PA, Bell B (2004) Advances in measuring
team cognition. In: Salas E, Fiore SM (eds) Team Cognition:
understanding the factors that drive process and performance.
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 83
106
Davis EA (2006) Characterizing productive reflection among preservice elementary teachers: seeing what matters. Teach Teach
Educ 22(3):281301
Derry SJ, Siegel M, Stampen J, STEP* (2002) The STEP system for
collaborative case-based teacher education: design, evaluation
and future directions. In: Stahl G (ed) Computer support for
collaborative learning: foundations for a CSCL community.
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 209216 (*Steinkuehler CA, Hmelo
C, Spiro R, Woods D, Street J, Sung Y-K, DelMarcelle M,
Seymour J, Feltovich P, Feltovich J, Koo H)
Derry SJ, Seymour J, Steinkuehler C, Lee J, Siegel MA (2003) From
ambitious vision to partially satisfying reality: an evolving sociotechnical design supporting community and collaborative learning in teacher education. In: Barab S, Kling R, Gray J (eds)
123

Designing virtual communities in the service of learning.
Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 256295
Dods RF (1997) An action research study of the effectiveness of
problem-based learning in promoting the acquisition and retention of knowledge. J Educ Gift 20:423437
Engle RA, Conant FR (2002) Guiding principles for fostering
productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent
argument in a community of learners classroom. Cogn Instr
20:399484
Eylon BS, Ganiel U (1990) Macro-micro relationships: the missing
link between electrostatics and electrodynamics in students
reasoning. Int J Sci Educ 12:7994
Fairclough N (1999) Linguistic and intertextual analysis in DA. In:
Jaworski A, Coupland N (eds) The discourse reader. Routledge,
London, p 310
Fischer G (2001) Communities of interest: learning through the
interaction of multiple knowledge systems. Paper presented at
the 24th Annual Information Systems Research Seminar In
Scandinavia (IRIS24), Ulvik, Norway
Fischer G (2005) From reflective practitioners to reflective communities. In: Proceedings of HCI international conference (HCII)
(CD). Las Vegas
Flavell JH (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new
area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am Psychol
34:906911
Flower L (2000) The rival hypothesis stance and the practice of
inquiry. In: Flower L, Long E, Higgins L (eds) Learning to rival:
a literate practice for intercultural inquiry. Erlbaum, Mahwah,
NJ, pp 2748
Fox B (1993) The human tutorial dialogue project. Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
Gallagher SA, Stepien WJ, Sher BT, Workman D (1995) Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. Sch Sci Math
95(3):136146
Goldberg F, Otero V (2003) The roles of laboratory and computer and
simulator experiments in helping students develop a conceptual
model of static electricity. In: Psillos D, Kariotoglou P, Tselfes
V, Hatzikraniotis E, Bisdikian G, Kallery M, Fassoulopoulos G
(eds) Science education research in the knowledge based society.
Kluwer, Dordrecht
Goos M, Galbraith P (1996) Do it this way! Metacognitive
strategies in collaborative mathematical problem solving. Educ
Stud Math 30:229260
Goos M, Galbraith P, Renshaw P (2002) Socially mediated
metacognition: creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educ Stud Math
49:193223
Gutwill J, Frederiksen J, White B (1999) Making their own
connections: students understanding of multiple models in
basic electricity. Cogn Instr 17(3):249282
Hewson PW, Beeth ME, Thorley NR (1998) Teaching for conceptual
change. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of
science education. Kluwer, Great Britain, pp 199218
Hmelo CE, Williams SM (1998) Special issue: learning through
problem solving. J Learn Sci 7
Hung W, Jonassen D, Liu R (2008) Problem based learning. In:
Spector JM, Merrill MD, van Merrienboer J, Driscoll MP (eds)
Handbook of research on educational communications and
technology. Taylor & Francis, New York, pp 486498
Johnson D, Johnson R (1999) Making co-operative learning work.
Theory Pract 38(2):6773
Jonassen DH (2000) Toward a design theory of problem solving.
Educ Tech Res Dev 48(4):6385
Jordan B, Henderson A (1995) Interaction analysis: foundations and
practice. J Learn Sci 4(1):39103

Kerr NL, Tindale RS (2004) Group performance and decision
making. Annu Rev Psychol 55:623655
Lemke JL (1990) Talking science: language, learning, and values.
Albex Publishing, Norwood, pp 190192
Levine JM, Moreland RL (1991) Culture and socialization in work
groups. In: Resnick LB, Levine JM, Teasdale SD (eds)
Perspectives on socially shared cognition. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 257279
Levine JM, Resnick LB, Higgins ET (1993) Social foundations of
cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 44:585612
Lin X, Schwartz DL, Hatano G (2005) Teachers adaptive metacognition. Educ Psych 40(4):245255
Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Establishing trustworthiness. In:
Lincoln YS, Guba EG (eds) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, Newbury
Park, pp 289331
Lohman MC, Finkelstein M (2000) Designing groups in problembased learning to promote problem-solving skill and selfdirectedness. Instr Sci 28:291307
Loughran JJ (1996) Developing reflective practice: learning about
teaching and learning through modelling. Falmer Press, London
Martin KJ, Chrispeels JH, Deidio-Caston M (1998) Exploring the use
of problem-based learning for developing collaborative leadership skills. J Sch Leadersh 8:470500
Marzano RJ, Kendall JS (2007) The new taxonomy of educational
objectives. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks
Mayo P, Donnelly MB, Nash PP, Schwartz RW (1993) Student
perceptions of tutor effectiveness in a problem-based surgery
clerkship. Teach Learn Med 5(4):227233
National Research Council (1996) The national science education
standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
NCES (1996) Issue brief: are high school teachers teaching core
subjects without college majors or minors in those subjects?
(Ingersoll, R.) (NCES 96-839) [On-line]. http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs/96839.html 7/24/2000
Newble DI, Clarke RM (1986) The approaches to learning of students
in a traditional and in an innovative problem-based medical
school. Med Educ 20:267273
Oberlander J, Talbert-Johnson C (2004) Using technology to support
problem-based learning. Action Teach Educ 25(4):4857
ODonnell A, Derry SJ (2005) Cognitive processes in interdisciplinary groups: problems and possibilities. In: Derry SJ, Schunn CD,
Gernsbacher MA (eds) Interdisciplinary collaboration: an
emerging cognitive science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah
Olson GM, Olson JS (2001) Distance matters. In: Carroll JM (ed)
Humancomputer interaction in the new millennium. ACM
Press, New York, pp 397417
Otero VK, Johnson A, Goldberg F (1999) How does the computer
facilitate the development of physics knowledge by prospective
elementary teachers? J Educ 181(2):5789
341
Paavola S, Lipponen L, Hakkarainen K (2004) Models of innovative
knowledge communities and the three metaphors of learning.
Rev Educ Res 74:557577
Radinsky J (2000) A framework for studying students development
of reflective inquiry dispositions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University
Saha PK (1984) Bengali. In: Chisholm WS, Milic LT, Greppin JAC
(eds) Interrogativity: a colloquium on the grammar, typology,
and pragmatics of questions in seven diverse languages. John
Benjamin, Philadelphia
Schoenfeld AH (1985) Mathematical problem solving. Academic
Press, Orlando
Schoenfeld AH (1999) Looking toward the 21st century: challenges
of educational theory and practice. Educ Res 28(7):414
Schon DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think
in action. Basic Books, New York
Shulman LS (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new
reform. Harv Educ Rev 57(1):122
Siegel MA, Lee JA-C (2001) But electricity isnt static: science
discussion, identification of learning issues, and use of resources
in a problem-based learning education course. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO
Stigler JW, Gallimore R, Hiebert J (2000) Using video surveys to
compare classrooms ad teaching across cultures: examples and
lessons from the TIMSS video studies. Educ Psychol 35(2):87100
Valli L (1997) Listening to other voices: a description of teacher
reflection in the United States. Peabody J Educ 72(1):6788
van Zee EH, Minstrell J (1997) Reflective discourse: developing
shared understandings in a high school physics classroom. Int J
Sci Educ 19:209228
Webb NM, Mastergeorge A (2003) The development of students
learning in peer-directed small groups. Cogn and Instr 21(4):
361428
Webb NM, Nemer KM, Ing M (2006) Small-group reflections:
parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peerdirected groups. J Learn Sci 15(1):63119
Wegner E (2000) Communities of practice and social learning
systems. Organization 7:225246
White B, Frederisken J (2005) A theoretical framework and approach
for fostering metacognitive development. Educ Psychol 40:
211223
Woods DR (1996) Problem-based learning for large classes in
chemical engineering. New Dir Teach Learn 68:9199
Zohar A (1999) Teachers metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher order thinking. Teach Teach Educ 15:413429
123

Group Metacognition

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Group Metacognition

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

J Sci Educ Technol (2012) 21:325341

Filling in the Distance Between Us: Group Metacognition During

Published online: 14 July 2011

Abstract While a body of research exists on individual

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this

Keywords Metacognition Group learning Problem

Everyday, people engage in metacognition to control

environmentPBL. The PBL course was designed to help

J Sci Educ Technol (2012) 21:325341

in small groups helped students gain access to ideas for

Self-disclosure: responses that clarify, evaluate, or

However, there are no studies in the sciences or in

Metacognition for Teaching

J Sci Educ Technol (2012) 21:325341

Incorporate ongoing reflection on the

Problem-Based Learning Context

Awareness of the group and roles enacted

J Sci Educ Technol (2012) 21:325341

Educational Psychology course. Out of 67 undergraduate

casesstories of lessons, and of student learning and

After a short lecture, PSTs spent lecture and discussion

PSTs worked in PBL groups to:

Problem-Based Learning with Video Cases

J Sci Educ Technol (2012) 21:325341

Table 1 Excerpt of problem assignment

edit sections of the paper, and the result was to be their

Selection of Videotape Segment and Supplemental

J Sci Educ Technol (2012) 21:325341

Supplemental Data Source: Resources for Solving

science mentor (a graduate student in physics who was

Preservice science teachers consulted these resources

After detailed coding and summarizing of the codes by

J Sci Educ Technol (2012) 21:325341

Utterances with a rising intonation

Challenge to previous statement (ch)

Did you explain it right?

About science (s)

What does static mean?

Thats the one thing abouttheyre not just floating

This isnt my background

I have the background, but

About science (s)

This is just the transfer of

Metacognitive comments about the state of understanding

Codes indicate that a PST is

Understanding is made public by hypothesizing (h)

Comment about understanding by saying, no I dont

Okay thats the part that I

Understanding is shown about what the problem at

So this has nothing to do with

Comment about understanding by saying, yes that

Questions (q) about the process

Should I do this now?

Comments about the process

Write that down

He utilized many physical science terms, such as earth

Deans peers and the facilitator also considered him to

J Sci Educ Technol (2012) 21:325341

but dont ask me to repeat it ((PAULA chuckles)). She

Table 3 PSTs participation in scientific discourse

Turns of science talk

These were a sample of the types of talk coded

Cindy, who took notes on the whiteboard during this