Vai ai contenuti. | Spostati sulla navigazione | Spostati sulla ricerca | Vai al menu | Contatti | Accessibilità

| Crea un account

Frate, Sara (2016) La valutazione dell'apprendimento collaborativo online. Una ricerca sul campo. [Tesi di dottorato]

Full text disponibile come:

[img]
Anteprima
Documento PDF
2650Kb

Abstract (inglese)

Many theorists have addressed the issue of social interation for the development and the construction of knowledge. The effectiveness of online collaborative learning is confirmed by several studies (Campbell, Gibson, Hall, Richards, and Callery, 2008; Francescato, Mebane, Porcelli, Attanasio, and Pulino 2007; Johnson & Johnson 1999; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; Slavin, 1995; Ward, Peters & Shelley, 2010). There are many features and factors such as metacognitive activities that underlie effective learning. Recently a construct of socially shared metacognition in online collaborative learning is emerging (Jarvela and Hadwin 2013; Volet et al. 2009). The research aims to evaluate the learning processes in a collaborative online environment analyzing the components of social metacognition through the creation of an instrument for measuring the metacognitive skills. The instrument shows that differences can be observed regarding gender, and degree courses the students attended. A further comparison was made on teachers from different disciplines who attended the online courses in order to assess whether the nature of metacognitive skills were linked to the content of the material or could be considered general skills. Firstly the model of the construct of metacognition was identified: Brown (1987), and Schraw Moshman (1995) distinguish knowledge of cognition from regulation of cognition. The first refers to the declarative knowledge about the interaction between people, activities, and characteristics of cognitive strategies. The second refers to metacognitive activities that help control thinking and learning. In the latter, the authors identify three essential skills: planning, monitoring and evaluation. The planning involves the selection of appropriate strategies and allocation of resource which could affect performance. The monitoring refers to the awareness and control of the task. Evaluation is based on evaluating products and learning processes. Starting from the theories and assessment tools in the literature (Flavell 1979 Schraw Moshman and 1995 Akyol Garrison and 2013) a questionnaire was implemented. Individual and social metacognitive constructs were identified as knowledge of cognition, planning, monitoring, evaluation. Both students and in training teachers (N=362) who have attended online collaborative courses of University of Padua completed the questionnaire. The validity and reliability of the scale were statistically calculated by descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha, a confirmatory factor analysis and multi-group invariance test. The results of the main analysis show the validity of the four dimensions of the scale on metacognitive group skills: Knowledge of cognition, planning, monitoring, evaluation. The model suggested was statistically validated. About differences between gender, women reported a higher use of planning skills even the effect size was low. Regarding the differences between the corse, students in bachelor degree of education reported an higher use of metacognitive skills than students in psychology and teachers involved in training corse. The analysis of the Anova show that there were no differences between teachers’ disciplines confirming the hypothesis that metacognitive skills are generalizable across different domains and contexts. The results indicate that, to better understand a collaborative online learning, metacognition should be considered in a social view than just individual contributions. The research also reported suggestions for teaching and further researches

Abstract (italiano)

Molti teorici hanno affrontato il tema dell’interazione sociale per lo sviluppo e la costruzione della conoscenza. L’efficacia delle metodologie di apprendimento collaborative online è ormai ben consolidata da numerosi e svariati studi (Campbell, Gibson, Hall, Richards, e Callery, 2008; Francescato, Mebane, Porcelli, Attanasio, e Pulino 2007; Johnson & Johnson 1999; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; Slavin 1995; Ward, Peters & Shelley, 2010 ). Data questa premessa molte sono le caratteristiche e i fattori che sottendono un buon apprendimento e che hanno risvegliato un interesse nell’attuale panorama scientifico della ricerca tra cui le attività metacognitive. Recentemente si sta ampliando l’idea che in ambienti collaborativi online emerga un costrutto della metacognizione socialmente condiviso e che questo tipo possa influenzare l’apprendimento collaborativo online (Jarvela e Hadwin 2013; Volet et al. 2009). La ricerca ha lo scopo di valutare i processi di apprendimento in un ambiente collaborativo online analizzando gli elementi metacognitivi sociali attraverso la creazione di uno strumento sulle abilità metacognitive e di mostrare quali differenze possano essere riscontrate rispetto al genere, ai corsi di laurea frequentati. Un ulteriore confront è stato fatto sugli insegnanti di diverse discipline che frequentavano i corsi online di tirocinio formativo attivo allo scopo di valutare se la natura delle abilità metacognitive fosse legata ai contenuti della materia o potessero definirsi generali. Come primo passo è stato identificato il modello del costrutto della metacognizione: Brown (1987), Schraw and Moshman (1995) distinguono le conoscenze metacognitive dalla regolazione della metacognizione. La prima si riferisce alla conoscenza dichiarativa circa l'interazione tra individui, le attività, e le caratteristiche delle strategie cognitive, dalla regolazione delle attività. La seconda si riferisce alle attività metacognitive che aiutano il controllo del proprio pensiero o dell’apprendimento. In quest'ultima Brown (1987), Schraw and Moshman (1995) individuano tre abilità essenziali: la pianificazione, il monitoraggio e la valutazione. La pianificazione comporta la selezione di strategie appropriate e l'allocazione delle risorse che influiscono sulle prestazioni. Il monitoraggio si riferisce alla consapevolezza e al controllo delle prestazioni richieste. La valutazione si riferisce a valutare i prodotti e i processi del proprio apprendimento. A partire dalle teorie presenti in letteratura (Flavell 1979, Schraw and Moshman 1995, Garrison and Akyol 2013) e degli strumenti di valutazione sono stati individuati i costrutti metacognitivi individuali e sociali: la conoscenza della cognizione, la pianificazione, il monitoraggio, la valutazione per la costruzione di un questionario che potesse adattarsi all’apprendimento collaborativo online. Hanno preso parte alla ricerca 362 studenti e insegnati in formazione che hanno frequentato corsi online di tipo collaborativo nell’Università di Padova compilando il questionario costruito. La validità e l'affidabilità della scala sono state calcolate attraverso le statistiche descrittive, l'alpha di Cronbach, un'analisi fattoriale confermativa e un test di invarianza multi-gruppo. I risultati delle principali analisi mostrano la validità delle quattro dimensioni della scala sulle abilità metacognitive di gruppo: consapevolezza, pianificazione, monitoraggio, valutazione validando il modello ipotizzato. Per quanto riguarda i confronti rispetto al genere, le donne hanno riportato un più alto utilizzo di abilità di pianificazione rispetto agli uomini anche se solo in minima parte. Rispetto alle differenze tra i diversi corsi, si sono riscontrate alcune differenze rispetto agli insegnanti in formazione e gli studenti di psicologia con un più alto uso di abilità metacognitive nei primi, mentre gli studenti che frequentano i corsi di scienze delle formazione hanno riscontrato un utilizzo più alto nelle abilità metacognitive rispetto agli insegnanti impegnati in corsi di aggiornamento e perfezionamento. Da ultima non sono presenti differenze nelle abilità tra gli insegnanti di diverse discipline che hanno affrontato il tirocinio formativo attivo confermando l’ipotesi che le abilità metacognitive sono generalizzabile in diversi domini e contesti. I risultati indicano che, per comprendere meglio la struttura e la dinamica della metacognizione in ambienti collaborativi online e permettere un apprendimento più profondo, è necessario considerare la metacognizione in termini sociali e di co-regolazione più che rispetto ai soli contributi individuali. La ricerca inoltre ha permesso di proporre alcuni suggerimenti per la didattica e per ulteriori sviluppi di ricerca

Statistiche Download - Aggiungi a RefWorks
Tipo di EPrint:Tesi di dottorato
Relatore:Biasutti, Michele
Dottorato (corsi e scuole):Ciclo 28 > Scuole 28 > SCIENZE PEDAGOGICHE, DELL'EDUCAZIONE E DELLA FORMAZIONE
Data di deposito della tesi:29 Gennaio 2016
Anno di Pubblicazione:29 Gennaio 2016
Parole chiave (italiano / inglese):CSCL, metacognizione socialmente condivisa, questionario/CSCL, mutually shared metacognition, questionnaire,
Settori scientifico-disciplinari MIUR:Area 11 - Scienze storiche, filosofiche, pedagogiche e psicologiche > M-PED/04 Pedagogia sperimentale
Struttura di riferimento:Dipartimenti > Dipartimento di Filosofia, Sociologia, Pedagogia e Psicologia Applicata
Codice ID:9342
Depositato il:07 Ott 2016 09:35
Simple Metadata
Full Metadata
EndNote Format

Bibliografia

I riferimenti della bibliografia possono essere cercati con Cerca la citazione di AIRE, copiando il titolo dell'articolo (o del libro) e la rivista (se presente) nei campi appositi di "Cerca la Citazione di AIRE".
Le url contenute in alcuni riferimenti sono raggiungibili cliccando sul link alla fine della citazione (Vai!) e tramite Google (Ricerca con Google). Il risultato dipende dalla formattazione della citazione.

AbuSeileek, A. F. (2012). The effect of computer-assisted cooperative learning methods and group size on the EFL learners’ achievement in communication skills. Computers & Education, 58(1), 231-239. Cerca con Google

Afflerbach, P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers_ main idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 31– 46. Cerca con Google

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183-190. Cerca con Google

Alexander, J. M., Carr, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development of metacognition in gifted children: Directions for future research. Developmental Review, 15, 1 – 37. Cerca con Google

Alexander, S. (2001). E-learning developments and experiences. Education & Training, 43 (4/5), 240–248. Cerca con Google

Anderson, B., & Simpson, M. (2004). Group and class contexts for learning and support online: learning and affective support online in small group and class contexts. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(3). Cerca con Google

Barbaranelli, C., & D'Olimpio, F. (2007). Analisi dei dati con SPSS vol. 2 Le analisi multivariate. LED Edizioni Universitarie. Cerca con Google

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological bulletin,107(2), 238. Cerca con Google

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. Cerca con Google

Biasutti, M. (2011). The student experience of a collaborative e-learning university module. Computers & Education, 57, 1865–1875. Cerca con Google

Biasutti, M. (2015). Assessing a Collaborative Online Environment for Music Composition. Educational Technology & Society, 18 (3), 49–63. Cerca con Google

Biasutti, M. & EL-Deghaidy, H. (2012). Using Wiki in teacher education: Impact on knowledge management processes and student satisfaction, Computers & Education, 59 (3), 861–872 Cerca con Google

Biasutti, M. & EL-Deghaidy, H. (2014). Interdisciplinary project based learning: an online wiki experience in teacher education, Technology, Pedagogy and Education DOI.org/10.1080/1475939X.2014.899510 Cerca con Google

Biggs, J. (1987). Learning Processes Questionnaire. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Cerca con Google

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398. Cerca con Google

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley. Cerca con Google

Brewer, S., & Klein, J. D. (2006). Type of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynchronous, collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54 (4), 331 e 354. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11423-006-9603-3 Vai! Cerca con Google

Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwer (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65−116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cerca con Google

Byrne, B. M. (1998).Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Psychology Press. Cerca con Google

Cacciamani, S. (2008). Imparare cooperando dal Cooperative Learning alle comunità di ricerca. Roma : Carocci Cerca con Google

Campbell, M., Gibson, W., Hall, A., Richards, D., & Callery, A. (2008). Online vs. face-to-face discussion in a web-based research methods course for postgraduate nursing students: A quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45 (5), 750-759. Cerca con Google

Chan, C. K. K. (2012). Co-regulation of learning in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), 63–73. Cerca con Google

Chiari G. (2011). Educazione interculturale e apprendimento cooperativo: teoria e pratica della educazione tra pari. Trento. Quaderno del Dipartimento di Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, Università di Trento Cerca con Google

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Ed.). hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Cerca con Google

Comoglio 2005. Il cooperative learning strategie di sperimentazione Torino : Gruppo Abele Cerca con Google

Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 105–122. Cerca con Google

De Backer L., Van Keer H., Valcke M. (2012). Exploring the potential impact of reciprocal peer tutoring on higher education students’ metacognitiveknowledge and regulation Instructional Science 40:559–588 Cerca con Google

Dettori G., Giannetti T., Persico D. (2006). SRL in Online Cooperative Learning: implications for pre‐service teacher training. European Journal of Education 41(3‐4) 397-414 Cerca con Google

Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–152. Cerca con Google

Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 10, pp. 275–319). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Cerca con Google

DeVellis, R. F. 2003. “Scale development: Theory and application”. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. Cerca con Google

Dewey J (1916) Democracy and education The Free Press, New York Cerca con Google

Dewey J (1949). Scuola e società [prefazione di Ernesto Codignola] Firenze : La nuova Italia, 1949. Cerca con Google

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, pp. 1-19. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Cerca con Google

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in Humans & Machines: Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science (pp. 189-211). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Cerca con Google

Downing, K., Kwong, T., Chan, S.W., Lam, T.F. & Downing, W.K. (2009). Problem-based learning and the development of metacognition, Higher Education, 57(5), pp 609-621. Cerca con Google

Fernandez-Duque, D., Baird, J. A., & Posner, M. I. (2000). Executive attention and metacognitive regulation. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 288 – 307 Cerca con Google

Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. Cerca con Google

Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children's oral communication skills (pp. 232). New York: Academic Press. Cerca con Google

Francescato, D., Mebane, M., Porcelli, R., Attanasio, C., & Pulino, M. (2007). Developing professional skills and social capital through computer supported collaborative learning in university contexts. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65 (2), 140-152. Cerca con Google

Garrison, D.R:, Akyol, Z. (2013).Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education 17 (2013) 84–89. Cerca con Google

Greeno, J.G. (2006). Learning in Activity. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, (pp.79–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Hadwin, A. F., Jarvel¨a, S. &Miller,M. (2010). Self-regulated, co-regulated,and socially shared regulation of learning. In B. Zimmerman&D. Schunk(Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp.65–84). New York, NY: Routledge. Cerca con Google

Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 240–264. Cerca con Google

Harasim, L. (1989). Online Education: A New Domain. In R. Mason and T. Kaye, eds. Mindweave: Computers, Communications and Distance Education, (50-62). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Cerca con Google

Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills intervention on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99 – 136. Cerca con Google

Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M. And Vedder, P. (2006), The relationship between the quality of cooperative learning, students’ goal preferences, and perceptions of contextual factors in the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47: 9–21. Cerca con Google

Hurme, T. R., & Järvelä, S. (2001). Metacognitive processes in problem solving with CSCL in mathematics. In European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 301-307). Cerca con Google

Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P. (2011). Socially shared metacognition of dyads of pupils in collaborative mathematical problem-solving processes. Learning and instruction, 21(3), 379-393. Cerca con Google

Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar G. (2012). Task-related and social regulation during online collaborative learning. Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), 25–43. Cerca con Google

Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. (2013). New frontiers: regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48, 25–39. Cerca con Google

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 5 edition Cerca con Google

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. e Holubec, E.J.( 1994) The Nuts and Bolts of Cooperative Learning, Edina, Interaction Book Company, trad. It. Apprendimento cooperativo in classe. Migliorare il clima emotivo e il rendimento. Trento, Erickson,1996. Cerca con Google

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29. Cerca con Google

Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cerca con Google

Kaye, A.R., (1994) Computer supported collaborative learning, Open University Cerca con Google

Kelemen, W. L., Frost, P. J., & Weaver, C. A., III (2000). Individual differences in metacognition: Evidence against a general metacognitive ability. Memory & Cognition, 28, 92–107. Cerca con Google

Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling. London New Delhi: Sage Publications. Cerca con Google

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 Learning 9:287–307 Cerca con Google

Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., & Cress, U. (2011). Using Wikis for Learning and Knowledge Building: Results of an Experimental Study. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (4), 138–148. Cerca con Google

Kirschner, P. A. (2001). Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/learning. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 2(1), 1–10. Cerca con Google

Krajcik J.S, Blumenfeld P. C (2006). Project-Based Learning In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, (pp.79–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335–353. Cerca con Google

Kwon, K., Hong, R. Y., & Laffey, J. M. (2013). The educational impact of metacognitive group coordination in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1271-1281. Cerca con Google

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper. Cerca con Google

Lewin, K. (1961). Principles of topological psychology, Mc Graw, New York, trad. it. a cura di Ossicini A. Principi di Psicologia Topologica, Ediz. OS, Firenze. Cerca con Google

Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Revital T. T. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063–1080. Cerca con Google

Masari, G & Anghel, O. (2012). Comparative study on developing metacognitive abilities of students from technical, vocational and human sciences, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 46, 4418-4422 Cerca con Google

McIinnerney, J., Roberts, T.S., (2004c). Collaborative or cooperative learning?. In Online collaborative learning theory and practice Tim S. Roberts Hershey Pa. Information Science Pub. Cerca con Google

Meijer, J., Veenman, M.V.J., & van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. (2006). Metacognitive activities in text studying and problem solving: Development of a taxonomy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 209-237. Cerca con Google

Nam, C. W., & Zellner, R. D. (2011). The relative effects of positive interdependence and group processing on student achievement and attitude in online cooperative learning. Computers & Education, 56(3), 689–699. Cerca con Google

Nietfeld, J. L., Shores, L. R., & Hoffmann, K. F. (2014). Self-regulation and gender within a game-based learning environment, Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 961-973. Cerca con Google

O’Neil, H. F., & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive inventory: Potential for alternative assessment. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(4), 234 – 245. Cerca con Google

O’Neill, S., Scott M., & Conboy, K. (2011). A Delphi study on collaborative learning in distance education: the faculty perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology. Cerca con Google

Olguin, C. J., Delgado, A. L. N., & Ricarte, I. L. M. (2000). An agent infrastructure to set collaborative environment.Educational Technology & Society, 3(3) Cerca con Google

Panitz, T. (1999) Collaborative versus Cooperative Learning: A Comparison ofthe Two Concepts Which Will Help Us Understand theUnderlying Nature of Interactive Learning. Collaborative learning and College Teaching, 8(2) Cerca con Google

Paulus, T.M., (2005c). Collaboration or cooperation? analyzing small group interactions in educational environments. In Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education Tim S. Roberts Hershey, Pa. Idea Group Publishing. Cerca con Google

Paz Dennen, V. (2000). Task structuring for on-line problem based learning: a case study. Educational Technology and Society. v3 i3. 329-336. Cerca con Google

Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (pp. 703–732). New York: Wiley. Cerca con Google

Piaget J. (1977). Le operazione logiche e la vita sociale. Franco Angeli, Milano. Cerca con Google

Piaget, J. (1977a). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: The Viking Press. Cerca con Google

Piaget, J. (1977b). Problems of equilibration. In M. H. Appel & L. S. Goldberg (Eds.), Topics in cognitive development, Vol. 1 (pp. 3–14). New York: Plenum. Cerca con Google

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33 – 40. Cerca con Google

Pintrich, P.R., & Garcia, T. (1993). Student goal orientation and self regulation in the college classroom. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 7, 371–402. Cerca con Google

Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI.: National Center for Research to Improve Post-secondary Teaching and Learning (ERIC Document reproduction Service No. ED 338 122). Cerca con Google

Rivet, A., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(7), 669–692. Cerca con Google

Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). New York: Springer-Verlag. Cerca con Google

Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319–332. Cerca con Google

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265–283. Cerca con Google

Schraw, G., Crippen, K., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139. Cerca con Google

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460 – 475. Cerca con Google

Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., Bendixen, L. D., & Roedel, T. D. (1995). Does a general monitoring skill exist? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 433–444. Cerca con Google

Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351–371. Cerca con Google

Schraw, G., & Nietfeld, J. (1998). A further test of the general monitoring skill hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 236–248. Cerca con Google

Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York:Columbia University. Cerca con Google

Shiha, W.-C., Tsenga, S.-S., & Yangc, C.-T. (2008). Wiki-based rapid prototyping for teaching-material design in e-learning grids. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1037–1057 Cerca con Google

Slavin, R.E. (1995c). Cooperative learning theory, research, and practice. Boston Allyn and Bacon. Cerca con Google

Slavin, R. E. (1997). Educational psychology: theory and practice (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Cerca con Google

So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336. Cerca con Google

Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 51-79. Cerca con Google

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. A Cerca con Google

Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980, May). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. In annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA (Vol. 758). Cerca con Google

Thomas, G., Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2008). Development of an instrument designed to investigate elements of science students’ metacognition, self-efficacy and learning processes: The SEMLI-S. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1701-1724. Cerca con Google

Valcke, M., De Wever, B., Zhu, C., Deed, C. (2009). Supporting active cognitive processing in collaborative groups: The potential of Bloom's taxonomy as a labeling tool. Internet and Higher Education 12 165–172 Cerca con Google

Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments. Small Group Research, 37, 490-521. Cerca con Google

Vauras, M., Kinnunen, R., Kajamies, A., & Lehtinen, E. (2013). Interpersonal regulation in instructional interaction: a dynamic systems analysis of scaffolding. In V. Volet (Ed.), Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation: methodological advances (New perspectives on learning and instruction, pp. 125–146). London: Routledge. Cerca con Google

Van der Meijden, H., & Veenman, S. (2005). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in a primary school setting. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 831–859. Cerca con Google

Veenman, M. V. J. (1993). Intellectual ability and metacognitive skill: Determinants of discovery learning in computerized learning environments. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Cerca con Google

Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: what can be learned from multi-method designs? In C. Artelt, & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und metakognition: Implikationen fu¨r forschung und praxis (pp. 77e99) Berlin: Waxmann. Cerca con Google

Veenman,M. V. J., (2011) Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: a discussion. Metacognition Learning 6:205–211 Cerca con Google

Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., & Meijer, J. (1997). The generality vs domain-specificity of metacognitive skills in novice learning across domains. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 187 – 209. Cerca con Google

Veenman, M. V. J., Prins, F. J., & Elshout, J. J. (2002). Initial learning in a complex computer simulated environment: The role of metacognitive skills and intellectual ability. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 327–342. Cerca con Google

Veenman, M. V. J., van Hout-Wolters, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning, 1, 3-14. Cerca con Google

Veenman,M. V. J.,Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction,14, 89–109. Cerca con Google

Vivian, R., Falkner, K., Falkner, N., (2013) Building consensus: students’ cognitive and metacognitive behaviours during wiki construction. Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering Cerca con Google

Volet, S. E., Summers, M., & Thurman, J. (2009b). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 128–143 Cerca con Google

Volet, S., & Vauras, M. (Eds.). (2013). Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation: methodological advances. New perspectives on learning and instruction. London: Routledge. Cerca con Google

Vrugt, A., & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic achievement.Metacognition and Learning, 30, 123–146. Cerca con Google

Vygotskij, L. S. (1987). Il processo cognitivo, Torino: Bollati Boringhieri editore. Cerca con Google

Ward, M. E., Peters, G. & Shelley, K. (2010). Student and faculty perceptions of the quality of online learning experiences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11 (3), 57-77. Cerca con Google

Weinberger, A., Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46 (1) 71–95. Cerca con Google

Weinert, F. E. (1987) Introduction and overview: metacognition and motivation as determinants of effective learning and understanding, in: F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds) Metacognition, motivation and understanding (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum), 1–19. Cerca con Google

Weinstein, C.E., Schulte, A.C., & Palmer, D.P. (1987). Learning and study strategies inventory. Clearwater, FL.: H & H Publishing. Cerca con Google

West, J. A., & West, M. L. (2009). Using wikis for online collaboration: The power of the read-write web. San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons. Cerca con Google

Williams, M., & Linn, M. (2003). WISE Inquiry in fifth grade biology. Research in Science Education,32 (4), 415–436. Cerca con Google

Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R.Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 532–564). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press. Cerca con Google

Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students_ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10, 268–288. Cerca con Google

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 65–70. Cerca con Google

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51–59. Cerca con Google

Zion, Adler & Mevarech (2015) The Effect of Individual and Social Metacognitive Support on Students’ Metacognitive Performances in an Online Discussion. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2015, Vol. 52(1) 50–874 Cerca con Google

Zumeta L. N., Oriol X. Telletxea S., Amutio A.and Basabe1 N. (2016) Collective Efficacy in Sports and Physical Activities: Perceived Emotional Synchrony and Shared Flow. Frontiers in psychology vol. 6 Cerca con Google

Download statistics

Solo per lo Staff dell Archivio: Modifica questo record