A Systematic Review of Group Metacognition Researches on Online and Face-to-Face Learning Environments

Abstract

Group metacognition involves a collective understanding of cognitive processes and collaborative problem-solving mechanisms within a group. This study, conducted through a systematic review of 54 studies, aims to present the evolutionary trajectory of research on group metacognition in (predominantly) online and face-to-face learning environments. It explores the definitional shifts, methodological trends, and potential connections between the quality of collaboration and studies on group metacognition in online learning environments. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used to report the study's results. In investigating determinants influencing group metacognition, the research examined the distribution of effective variables such as group size, composition, task complexity, and time constraints. This systematic review provides an overview of the evolutionary path for definitions of the group metacognition concept, accumulated methodological approaches, and key insights into studies that may be associated with group metacognition. Thus, it underscores the importance of customized interventions that appropriately consider variables that could affect group metacognition effectively.

Keywords

• online learning
• group metacognition
• collaboration quality
• learning environments
• instructional design

References

1. Bakhtiar, A., Webster, E. A., & Hadwin, A. F. (2018). Regulation and socio-emotional interactions in a positive and a negative group climate. Metacognition and Learning, 13(1), 57–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-017-9178-x
2. Biasutti, M., & Frate, S. (2018). Group metacognition in online collaborative learning: validity and reliability of the group metacognition scale (GMS). Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(6), 1321–1338. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11423-018-9583-0/FIGURES/1
3. Binali, T., Tsai, C. C., & Chang, H. Y. (2021). University students’ profiles of online learning and their relation to online metacognitive regulation and internet-specific epistemic justification. Computers & Education, 175, 104315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104315
4. Borge, M., Aldemir, T., & Xia, Y. (2022). How teams learn to regulate collaborative processes with technological support. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(3), 661–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10103-1
5. Borge, M., Ong, Y. S., & Rosé, C. P. (2018). Learning to monitor and regulate collective thinking processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(1), 61–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9270-5
6. Brannen, S. F., Beauchamp, D., Cartwright, N., Liddle, D., Tishinsky, J., Newton, G., & Monk, J. (2021, November 30). Effectiveness of Group Work Contracts to Facilitate Collaborative Group Learning and Reduce Anxiety in Traditional Face-to-Face Lecture and Online Distance Education Course Formats. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2021.150205
7. Castañer, X., & Oliveira, N. (2020). Collaboration, Coordination, and Cooperation Among Organizations: Establishing the Distinctive Meanings of These Terms Through a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Management, 46(6), 965–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320901565
8. Chiu, M. & Kuo, S.W. (2009). Social metacognition in groups: Benefits, difficulties, learning, and teaching. Metacognition: New Research Developments. 117-136.

9. Costley, J. (2021). How role-taking in a group-work setting affects the relationship between the amount of collaboration and germane cognitive load. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00259-w
10. Çini, A., Malmberg, J., & Järvelä, S. (2020). How individual metacognitive awareness relates to situation-specific metacognitive interpretations of collaborative learning tasks. Educational Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1834359
11. Çini, A., Järvelä, S., Dindar, M., & Malmberg, J. (2023). How multiple levels of metacognitive awareness operate in collaborative problem solving. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09358-7
12. *Daniel, S. R., & Jordan, M. E. (2017). Effects of a heedful interrelating intervention on collaborative teams. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(3), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417715201
13. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9141-7
14. De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2015a). Exploring evolutions in reciprocal peer tutoring groups’ socially shared metacognitive regulation and identifying its metacognitive correlates. Learning and Instruction, 38, 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.04.001
15. De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2015b). Promoting university students’ metacognitive regulation through peer learning: the potential of reciprocal peer tutoring. Higher Education, 70(3), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9849-3
16. De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2017). Is collaborative learners’ adoption of metacognitive regulation related to students’ content processing strategies and the level of transactivity in their peer discussions? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(4), 617–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0323-8
17. De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2020). Variations in socially shared metacognitive regulation and their relation with university students’ performance. Metacognition and Learning, 15(2), 233–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09229-5
18. De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2021). Collaborative learning groups’ adoption of shared metacognitive regulation: examining the impact of structuring versus reflection-provoking support and its relation with group performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(4), 1075–1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00511-3
19. Dindar, M., Järvelä, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2020). Interplay of metacognitive experiences and performance in collaborative problem solving. Computers and Education, 154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103922
20. Erkens, M., & Bodemer, D. (2019). Improving collaborative learning: Guiding knowledge exchange through the provision of information about learning partners and learning contents. Computers and Education, 128, 452–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.009
21. Fabelico, F. L. (2020). Collaboratıve Metacognıtıve Actıvıtıes, Students’ Socıally Motıvated Metacognıtıve Experıences, And Stoıchıometrıc Problem-Solvıng. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 8(4), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8428
22. Flechsenhar, A., Kanske, P., Krach, S., Korn, C., & Bertsch, K. (2022). The (un)learning of social functions and its significance for mental health. Clinical Psychology Review, 98, 102204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102204
23. Haataja, E., Malmberg, J., Dindar, M., & Järvelä, S. (2022). The pivotal role of monitoring for collaborative problem solving seen in interaction, performance, and interpersonal physiology. Metacognition and Learning, 17(1), 241–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09279-3
24. Fonteijn, H. T. H., & Dolmans, D. H. J. M. (2019). Group Work and Group Dynamics in PBL. The Wiley Handbook of Problem‐Based Learning, 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119173243.ch9
25. Hadwin, A. F., Bakhtiar, A., & Miller, M. (2018). Challenges in online collaboration: effects of scripting shared task perceptions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(3), 301–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9279-9
26. Halmo, S. M., Bremers, E. K., Fuller, S., & Stanton, J. D. (2022). “Oh, that makes sense”: Social Metacognition in Small-Group Problem Solving. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-01-0009
27. *Hayashi, Y. (2020). Gaze awareness and metacognitive suggestions by a pedagogical conversational agent: an experimental investigation on interventions to support collaborative learning process and performance. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(4), 469–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09333-3
28. Hogenkamp, L., Van Dijk, A. M., & Eysink, T. H. S. (2021). Analyzing socially shared regulation of learning during cooperative learning and the role of equal contribution: A grounded theory approach. Education Sciences, 11(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090512
29. Iiskala, T., Volet, S., Jones, C., Koretsky, M., & Vauras, M. (2021). Significance of forms and foci of metacognitive regulation in collaborative science learning of less and more successful outcome groups in diverse contexts. Instructional Science, 49(5), 687–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09558-1
30. Isohätälä, J., Näykki, P., & Järvelä, S. (2020). Cognitive and Socio-Emotional Interaction in Collaborative Learning: Exploring Fluctuations in Students’ Participation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(6), 831–851. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1623310
31. Khosa, D. K., & Volet, S. E. (2013). Promoting effective collaborative case-based learning at university: A metacognitive intervention. Studies in Higher Education, 38(6), 870–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.604409
32. Khosa, D. K., & Volet, S. E. (2014). Productive group engagement in cognitive activity and metacognitive regulation during collaborative learning: can it explain differences in students’ conceptual understanding? Metacognition and Learning, 9(3), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9117-z
33. 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(1), 65–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11412-022-09365-X/FIGURES/6
34. Kolić-Vehovec, S., Pahljina-Reinić, R., & Rončević Zubković, B. (2022). Effects of collaboration and informing students about overconfidence on metacognitive judgment in conceptual learning. Metacognition and Learning, 17(1), 87–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09275-7
35. Komori, M. (2016). Effects of Working Memory Capacity on Metacognitive Monitoring: A Study of Group Differences Using a Listening Span Test. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00285
36. Kuhn, D., Capon, N., & Lai, H. (2020). Talking about group (but not individual) process aids group performance. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09321-7
37. Lai, K. R., & Liu, C.-C. (2018). Collaborative science simulations View project Cross-Lingual Dimensional Sentiment Analysis View project. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326551339
38. Lee, S., Kang, E., & Kim, H. B. (2015). Exploring the Impact of Students’ Learning Approach on Collaborative Group Modeling of Blood Circulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2–3), 234–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9509-5
39. Leinonen, R., Asikainen, M. A., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2017). Peer discussions in lecture-based tutorials in introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.010114
40. Leng, J., Yi, Y., & Gu, X. (2021). From cooperation to collaboration: investigating collaborative group writing and social knowledge construction in pre-service teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development 2021 69:5, 69(5), 2377–2398. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11423-021-10020-9
41. Li, S. C., Pow, J. W. C., & Cheung, W. C. (2015). A delineation of the cognitive processes manifested in a social annotation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12073
42. Lobczowski, N. G., Lyons, K., Greene, J. A., & McLaughlin, J. E. (2021). Socially shared metacognition in a project-based learning environment: A comparative case study. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100543
43. Malmberg, J., Fincham, O., Pijeira-Díaz, H. J., Järvelä, S., & Gašević, D. (2021). Revealing the hidden structure of physiological states during metacognitive monitoring in collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(3), 861–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12529
44. Malmberg, J., Haataja, E., Seppänen, T., & Järvelä, S. (2019). Are we together or not? The temporal interplay of monitoring, physiological arousal and physiological synchrony during a collaborative exam. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(4), 467–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09311-4
45. Mathabathe, K. C., & Potgieter, M. (2017). Manifestations of metacognitive activity during the collaborative planning of chemistry practical investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1465–1484. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1336808
46. Molenaar, I., Sleegers, P., & van Boxtel, C. (2014). Metacognitive scaffolding during collaborative learning: a promising combination. Metacognition and Learning, 9(3), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9118-y
47. Moores, T. T., Chang, J. C., Smith, D. K. (2006). Clarifying the Role of Self-Efficacy and Metacognition as Indicators of Learning: Construct Development and Test. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 37(2 & 3), 125-132
48. Näykki, P., Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., & Kirschner, P. (2017). Monitoring makes a difference: quality and temporal variation in teacher education students’ collaborative learning. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1066440
49. Newman, M., & Gough, D. (2019). Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application. Systematic Reviews in Educational Research, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_1
50. Ouyang, F., Chen, S., Yang, Y., & Chen, Y. (2022). Examining the Effects of Three Group-Level Metacognitive Scaffoldings on In-Service Teachers’ Knowledge Building. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(2), 352–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211030847
51. Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially Shared Regulation of Learning: A Review. European Psychologist, 20(3), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000226
52. Pifarré, M., Cobos, R., & Argelagós, E. (2014). Incidence of group awareness information on students’ collaborative learning processes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(4), 300–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12043
53. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
54. Pesout, O., & Nietfeld, J. (2020). The Impact of Cooperation and Competition on Metacognitive Monitoring in Classroom Context. The Journal of Experimental Education, 89(2), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2020.1751577
55. Pillay, H., Irving, K., & Tones, M. (2007). Validation of the diagnostic tool for assessing tertiary students’ readiness for online learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701310821
56. Puente-Díaz, R.; Cavazos-Arroyo, J.; Puerta-Sierra, L. Becoming Self-Aware of Feelings and Performance: The Influence of Creative Potential, Self-Evaluations, and Metacognitive Feelings on Creative Mindsets. J. Intell. 2023, 11, 138. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11070138
57. Rivers, M. L., Dunlosky, J., & Persky, A. M. (2020). Measuring Metacognitive Knowledge, Monitoring, and Control in the Pharmacy Classroom and Experiential Settings. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(5), 7730. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7730
58. Rogat, T. K., & Adams-Wiggins, K. R. (2014). Other-regulation in collaborative groups: implications for regulation quality. Instructional Science, 42(6), 879–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9322-9
59. Sercenia, J. C. ; Ibañez, E. & Pentang, J. (2023). Thinking Beyond Thinking: Junior High School Students’ Metacognitive Awareness and Conceptual Understanding of Integers. Mathematics Teaching-Research Journal 15 (1):4-24.
60. Schnaubert, L., & Bodemer, D. (2019). Providing different types of group awareness information to guide collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(1), 7–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9293-y
61. Schünemann, N., Spörer, N., Völlinger, V. A., & Brunstein, J. C. (2017). Peer feedback mediates the impact of self-regulation procedures on strategy use and reading comprehension in reciprocal teaching groups. Instructional Science, 45(4), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9409-1
62. Scott, B. M., & Schwartz, N. H. (2007). Navigational spatial displays: The role of metacognition as cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.11.008
63. Siqin, T., Van Aalst, J., & Chu, S. K. W. (2016). Fixed group and opportunistic collaboration in a CSCL environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(2), 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-014-9206-7
64. Sobocinski, M., Malmberg, J., & Järvelä, S. (2017). Exploring temporal sequences of regulatory phases and associated interactions in low- and high-challenge collaborative learning sessions. Metacognition and Learning, 12(2), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9167-5
65. Samsonovich, A. & Kitsantas, A. & Dabbagh, N. & De Jong, K. (2008). Self-awareness as metacognition about own self concept. AAAI Workshop - Technical Report.
66. Tang, H., Arslan, O., Xing, W., & Kamali-Arslantas, T. (2022). Exploring collaborative problem solving in virtual laboratories: a perspective of socially shared metacognition. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09318-1
67. Teng, F. (2020). Tertiary-Level Students’ English Writing Performance and Metacognitive Awareness: A Group Metacognitive Support Perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(4), 551–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1595712
68. Teng, M. F., & Huang, J. (2021). The effects of incorporating metacognitive strategies instruction into collaborative writing on writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1982675
69. Teng, M. F. (2022). Effects of cooperative–metacognitive instruction on EFL learners’ writing and metacognitive awareness. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1835606
70. Ucan, S., & Webb, M. (2015). Social Regulation of Learning During Collaborative Inquiry Learning in Science: How does it emerge and what are its functions? International Journal of Science Education, 37(15), 2503–2532. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1083634
71. Volet, S., Vauras, M., Salo, A. E., & Khosa, D. (2017). Individual contributions in student-led collaborative learning: Insights from two analytical approaches to explain the quality of group outcome. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.11.006
72. Vorhölter, K. (2021). Metacognition in mathematical modeling: the connection between metacognitive individual strategies, metacognitive group strategies and modeling competencies. Mathematical Thinking and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2021.2012740
73. Wang, X., Kollar, I., & Stegmann, K. (2017). Adaptable scripting to foster regulation processes and skills in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(2), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9254-x
74. Wu, L., Liu, Q., Mao, G., & Zhang, S. (2020). Using epistemic network analysis and self-reported reflections to explore students’ metacognition differences in collaborative learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101913
75. Yang, Y., van Aalst, J., & Chan, C. K. K. (2020). Dynamics of Reflective Assessment and Knowledge Building for Academically Low-Achieving Students. American Educational Research Journal, 57(3), 1241–1289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219872444
76. Temircan, Z. (2023). Exploring the Relationship Between Metacognition, Emotional Regulation and Perceived Stress Among College Students. Psikiyatride Guncel Yaklasimlar - Current Approaches in Psychiatry, 15(Ek 1), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.18863/pgy.1246718
77. Yazgı Yanık, Z., & Afat, N. (2022). Metacognitive awareness as a predictor of social emotional learning skills in gifted and talented students. Gifted and Talented International, 37(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2022.2053316
78. Zhang, W. X., & Hsu, Y. S. (2021). The interplay of students’ regulation learning and their collective decision-making performance in a SSI context. International Journal of Science Education, 43(11), 1746–1778. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1933250
79. Zheng, L., Li, X., Zhang, X., & Sun, W. (2019). The effects of group metacognitive scaffolding on group metacognitive behaviors, group performance, and cognitive load in computer-supported collaborative learning. Internet and Higher Education, 42, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.03.002
80. Zheng, L., Niu, J., Zhong, L., & Gyasi, J. F. (2021). Knowledge-building and metacognition matter: Detecting differences between high- and low-performance groups in computer-supported collaborative learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1988678
81. Zheng, L., Fan, Y., Huang, Z., & Gao, L. (2023). Impacts of three approaches on collaborative knowledge building, group performance, behavioural engagement, and socially shared regulation in online collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12860
82. Zion, M., Adler, I., & Mevarech, Z. (2015). The effect of individual and social metacognitive support on students’ metacognitive performances in an online discussion. Journal of Educational Computing Research (Vol. 52, Issue 1, pp. 50–87). Baywood Publishing Co. Inc. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633114568855