Socially Shared Metacognition of Students in Computer-Supported Programming Tasks and Their Stance on the Difficulty of the Task

Muhammad Khalid Shaikh

Authors

Muhammad Khalid Shaikh Department of Computer Science, Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science & Technology, Karachi

Keywords:

Socially Shared Metacognition, Computer Supported Collaboration, Computer Programming, Difficulty

Abstract

The internet has brought much emphasis to online collaborative learning, where learning is connected to co-constructing understanding and knowledge about subjects and tasks through collaboration and conversation. This research centers on several groups of students undertaking a programming project in a Zoom-based environment” or “via Zoom meetings. The paper proposes that socially shared metacognition is most effective in group-based problem-solving. It is a process in which one member of the group helps regulate the whole group’s process of solving a problem and elicits other members’ reactions to this proposal. The feeling of difficulty in performing the task helps ascertain and display the role of group interaction in individual learning. The paper also proposes that the increase in socially shared metacognition decreases the level of difficulty of a problem and thus alleviates individuals’ feelings of task difficulty.

References

M. Vauras, T. Iiskala, A. Kajamies, R. Kinnunen, and E. Lehtinen, “SHARED-REGULATION AND MOTIVATION OF COLLABORATING PEERS: A CASE ANALYSIS,” PSYCHOLOGIA, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 19–37, 2003, [Online]. Available: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/psysoc/46/1/46_1_19/_article

R. S. Tindale and T. Kameda, “‘Social Sharedness’ as a Unifying Theme for Information Processing in Groups,” Gr. Process. Intergr. Relations, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 123–140, 2000, doi: 10.1177/1368430200003002002.

W. H. G. Pieter J. Beers,, Paul A. Kirschner, Henny P. A. Boshuizen, “Coercing knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments,” CSCL ’05 Proc. th 2005 Conf. Comput. Support Collab. Learn., 2005, [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1149293.1149295

M. M. Kristiina Kumpulainen, “The situated dynamics of peer group interaction: an introduction to an analytic framework,” Learn. Instr., vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 449–473, 1999, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00038-3.

N. Ding, “Visualizing the sequential process of knowledge elaboration in computer-supported collaborative problem solving,” Comput. Educ., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 509–519, 2009, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.009.

S. Järvelä, M. Veermans, and P. Leinonen, “Investigating student engagement in computer-supported inquiry: A process-oriented analysis,” Soc. Psychol. Educ., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 299–322, Aug. 2008, doi: 10.1007/S11218-007-9047-6/METRICS.

T.-R. Hurme, K. Merenluoto, and S. Järvelä, “Socially shared metacognition of pre-service primary teachers in a computer-supported mathematics course and their feelings of task difficulty: a case study,” Educ. Res. Eval., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 503–524, Oct. 2009, doi: 10.1080/13803610903444659.

M. T. H. Chi, “Quantifying Qualitative Analyses of Verbal Data: A Practical Guide,” J. Learn. Sci., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 271–315, 1997, doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS0603_1.

Jacob Cohen, “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales,” Educ. Psychol. Meas., vol. 20, no. 1, 1960, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644600200010.

A. Efklides, “Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process?,” Educ. Res. Rev., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–14, 2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2005.11.001.

P. Van Den Bossche, W. H. Gijselaers, M. Segers, and P. A. Kirschner, “Social and Cognitive Factors Driving Teamwork in Collaborative Learning Environments,” Small Gr. Res., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 490–521, 2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406292938.