P. Salonen et al.

: Social Interaction in Learning European Psychologist 2005;10(3):1992 08 2005Hogrefe&HuberPubli shers

Social Interaction What Can It
Tell Us about Metacognition
and Coregulation in Learning?
Pekka Salonen
1
, Marja Vauras
1
, and Anastasia Efklides
2
1
Department of Teacher Education and Center for Learning Research, University of Turku, Finland
2
School of Psychology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Abstract. This article brings to the fore the sociocognitive aspect of metacognition and processes involved in coregulation. We
argue that coregulation in a learning situation that involves the interaction of teachers and students or peers is based on awareness
of the partners cognition, metacognition, affect, and motivation, as well as interpersonal perception processes and/or interpersonal
relational control processes. One aspect of metacognition, particularly relevant to coregulation of learning, is metacognitive
experience, i.e., how the interacting partners feel and what they think about the task at hand. Awareness of ones own and the
others cognition and of metacognitive experiences is necessary for metacommunication control processes. Evidence from two
independent studies suggests that there can be misperception of the interacting partners metacognitive experiences because of
theory-driven conceptions of the other person or lack of metacognitive coregulation because of the prevalence of relational
control processes. We suggest that this may lead to scaffolding mismatch in instruction, failure in coregulation, and negative
feelings and behaviors of the interacting partners in certain learning situations.
Keywords: learning, metacognitive experiences, coregulation, affect, metacommunication, microgenetic analysis
Current conceptualizations of learning have underscored
the social embeddedness of cognitive and metacognitive
processes as indicated by terms like shared, joint,
coconstructed, and coregulated (meta)cognition
(Doehler, 2002; King, 1998; McCaslin&Good, 1996; Par-
ent, Gosselin, & Moss, 2000; Vauras, Iiskala, Kajamies,
Kinnunen, & Lehtinen, 2003). Despite sophisticated at-
tempts todescribe sociocognitiveinteractiondynamics be-
tween parents and children (Pomerantz & Eaton, 2000),
teachers and students (Meyer &Turner, 2002), and collab-
orating peers (Barron, 2000; King, 1998), little is known
of the coordination between cognitive, metacognitive,
affective, and motivational processes, as well as of the
interpersonal patterns of relations shapingthe participants
transactions in learning settings.
In this article, we discuss cognitive, metacognitive,
affective, and motivational regulatory processes in learn-
ing settings. More specifically, following the scaffolding
metaphor we argue that coregulation in learning presup-
poses awareness of ones own as well as the partners
metacognitive experiences regarding the task at hand.
However, in sociocognitive interactions besides meta-
cognitive processes, there are also relational control pro-
cesses and interpersonal exchanges of affect and motiva-
tion. Through illustrative empirical evidence, we claim
that teachers or peers interactions in a learning situation
can be theory-driven that is, guided by interpersonal
theories/beliefs or evidence-based that is, based on
cues coming from the transactions taking place as the
learning partners interact and communicate. We suggest
that theory-based interaction may fail to promote coreg-
ulation of learning if there is misperception of the part-
ners metacognitive experiences; on the other hand, evi-
dence-based interaction may lead to limited metacogni-
tive coregulation if relational control processes prevail
over communicative ones. Such failures of coregulation
may have adverse impact on students learning.
Scaffolding, Metacognition, and
Instructional Match
The scaffolding process as an instructional mode essen-
tially comprises a gradual shift from other-regulation to
self-regulation where the learner is assisted to reach a
higher level of independent functioning (Vygotsky, 1978;
Winsler, Diaz, McCarthy, Atencio, &Chabay, 1999). Scaf-
DOI 10.1027/1016-9040.10.3.199
2005 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers European Psychologist 2005; 10(3):199208
folding aims at maximizing the learners independent
functioning both in terms of cognitive self-regulation and
motivational self-determination and autonomy (Meichen-
baum & Biemiller, 1998). Teachers or guiding peers typi-
cally try to promote a learners skills in an area just beyond
where he/she functions independently i.e., in the region
of sensitivity or zone of proximal development (Vygot-
sky, 1978). In an optimally scaffolded instruction, the
teacher
1
sensitively modulates task difficulty, assists the
learner to articulate the essential features through verbal
guidance, and provides the learner with minimally suffi-
cient assistance and external rewards to keep the task
appropriately challenging. The teacher also contingently
offers and withholds assistance as the learner is able to
perform more independently.
Optimal Scaffolding
In successful scaffolding, and individualized instruction
in general, learning regulation by the teacher presup-
poses a dynamic match between the levels of the teach-
ers cueing, and the learners moment-by-moment
changing independent functioning (see Lepola, Salonen,
Vauras, & Poskiparta, 2004; Meichenbaum & Biemiller,
1998; Vauras, Salonen, Lepola, & Lehtinen, 2001).
When the students level of independent functioning is
low, more directive teacher regulation (e.g., modeling of
subactivities, concrete cueing) and environmental struc-
turing is provided. When new levels of independent
functioning emerge, more nondirective teacher regula-
tion and less environmental structuring is given to shift
more responsibility to the learner.
To establish and maintain such a dynamic match, it is
essential for the teacher to show: (1) Flexibility, i.e., the
ability to accommodate flexibly to individual characteris-
tics and needs; (2) Sensitivity, i.e., the ability to sense and
to respond to online changes in each particular learners
cognitions, motivations, affects, and moods; and (3)
Responsiveness, i.e., the ability to respond systematically,
coherently, andas immediatelyas possibletolearnerscog-
nitive efforts, and motivational, affective, and social re-
sponses (Berliner, 2001; Salonen, Vauras, & Volet, 2003).
These three features are central components of what Ber-
liner (2001) calls (context-sensitive) adaptive expertise, a
characteristic of many experienced expert teachers.
Metacognition and Instructional Match
Teachers beliefs about teaching and about their students
as learners along with their awareness of how students
process the task at hand are the metacognitive underpin-
nings of context-sensitive adaptive expertise. Teachers
awareness of how students process the task at hand is
based on observation of students task performance as
well as on perception of cues indicating students meta-
cognitive experiences, i.e., what they think and how they
feel as they carry out the task at hand vis--vis task de-
mands (Efklides, 2001; Flavell, 1979). Cues informing
the teacher about students metacognitive experiences
come from the students verbal and nonverbal behavior,
including questions and other verbalizations, the direc-
tion of gaze or stops, body posture and movements, task
engagement and effort, emotional expressions, etc.
Metacognitive experiences are part of the persons
subjective experience; they monitor cognitive process-
ing as it takes place and the persons response to it; they
also trigger control decisions pertaining to both the task-
at hand (Efklides, Samara, & Pertropouloy, 1999) and
long-term involvement with similar tasks (Efklides &
Tsiora, 2002). Feelings of familiarity, of difficulty, and
of confidence are examples of metacognitive experi-
ences that contribute to studentsself-regulation of learn-
ing (Efklides, 2001).
Metacognitive experiences differ from metacognitive
knowledge, that is, declarative, memory-retrieved
knowledge (e.g., beliefs, theories, facts, etc.) regarding
goals, persons, tasks, and strategies, as well as from
metacognitive skills, that is, procedural knowledge or
what the person does to deliberately monitor and control
cognition
2
(Efklides, 2001, 2003). Teachers presumably
use their metacognitive knowledge regarding them-
selves and about the students as cognitive processors, as
well as about task demands and strategies, in order to
interpret students performance, affect, metacognitive
experiences, and metacognitive skills as observed during
learning and adapt their teaching accordingly. Teachers
perceptions of students metacognitive experiences,
however, contribute to the teachers online regulation of
help giving, feedback, or coregulation of task processing
as it takes place, leading to a better match of teachers
cueing with students changing needs.
Despite the importance of metacognition for learning
in a social context, metacognition is usually considered
an individual phenomenon. However, this conception is
changing. Developmental research on theory of mind
clearly links metacognition with communication needs
(for a review, see Bartsch & Wellman, 1995), while
experimental research on metacognitive judgments
stresses their similarity to social cognition (Lories, Dar-
denne, & Yzerbyt, 1998). Furthermore, changing stu-
dents social position in an interactive learning situation,
200 P. Salonen et al.: Social Interaction in Learning
European Psychologist 2005; 10(3):199208 2005 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
1 For the sake of simplicity, we use the term teacher throughout to also refer to such possible guidance-givers as parents and peers.
2 In what follows we use the generic term metacognition to refer to all aspects of metacognition and the specific terms wherever necessary.
by assigning them a fictitious expert or nonexpert status,
was found to change their metacognitive activity
(Chambres, Bonin, Izaute, & Marescaux, 2002). There-
fore, perception of students metacognitive experiences
is an important component of social interaction in learn-
ing and may guide teachersscaffolding and instructional
efforts so as to maximize learning.
Nonoptimal Scaffolding
Nonoptimal scaffolding is characterized by poor coordi-
nation between the learners moment-by-moment cogni-
tive, metacognitive, affective, and motivational behav-
iors and the teachers assistance and feedback. The mis-
match is indicated by teacher inflexibility, insensitivity,
and/or unresponsiveness (Salonen et al., 2003). Inflexi-
bility, insensitivity, and unresponsiveness may stem
from the teachers epistemological beliefs and theories
about teaching and learning if we extend Butlers self-
regulated learning model (Butler, 1998) to teachers and
from the lack of metacognitive awareness and self-regu-
lation of instruction based on the situational fluctuations
of students learning and metacognition.
Another possible factor contributing to context-insen-
sitive teaching efforts is teachers implicit theories of
ability (see, e.g., Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995), which
may influence their attributions regarding students
learning outcomes. Thus, teachers may consider ability
as an entity that students have or do not have, or as some-
thing that develops and changes depending on learning.
An entity conception of ability would entail that the
teacher responds flexibly and is sensitive to cues coming
from students who are considered able rather than to
cues from less able students. Students own conceptions
of ability as well as perception of their teachers beliefs
about them can also contribute to nonoptimal coregula-
tion of learning or, even, to conflicts and disruption of
communication between teachers and students, if teach-
ersscaffolding behaviors are not optimal. Consequently,
the way students and teachers perceive and interpret each
others online fluctuations of metacognition and affect
may have an impact on the success of the scaffolding
process and on students learning.
Scaffolding Mismatch
Several forms of regulatory incongruence are possible
between the level of external (teacher, parent, or peer)
control and the level of the learners independent func-
tioning (Harrist & Waugh, 2002; Lepola & Salonen,
2003; Vauras et al., 2001). With regard to the learners
actual level of independent functioning, the scaffolding
behavior may be, for example, overcontrolling, i.e., hav-
ing too low a threshold for giving assistance when faced
with the slightest cues of the learner. Or, it can be intru-
sive, i.e., intrusively blocking the learners ongoing inde-
pendent activity or, even, asynchronous, ie., showing
misplaced, poorly timed, or inadequately coordinated
assistance. If such regulatory imbalances continue they
may have adverse motivational, emotional, and learning
effects since they clash with the learners sense of control
and need for autonomy (Assor, Kaplan, Kanat-Maymon,
&Roth, in press; Bolhuis &Voeten, 2001) as well as with
the learners quality of learning.
An additional set of possible scaffolding mismatches
relates more directly to the domains of motivational and
emotional regulation. Motivational regulatory mis-
matches include, for instance, the teachers verbalized
negative expectations, deprecatory attributions, and fail-
ure to modulate the learners negative verbalized expec-
tations and attributions (see Dweck, Davidson, Nelson,
& Enna, 1978). Emotional regulatory mismatches com-
prise the teachers failure to modulate the learners neg-
ative feelings and behaviors, and responding negatively
to the learners negative feelings and behaviors, i.e.,
negative affect synchrony (Harrist, Pettit, Dodge, &
Bates, 1994), which, in many cases, develops into esca-
latory dyadic bursts of coercion (Patterson, 1976).
The above conjectures about scaffolding match or
mismatch and its effect on learning have not yet been
directly tested to our knowledge. In this article we pre-
sent evidence indicating possible sources of scaffolding
mismatch based on two independent studies performed
by the authors.
Perception of Students Metacognitive
Experiences
The study of metacognition as a sociocognitive phenom-
enon calls for methodologies that capture metacognition
in social interaction so that a possible match or mismatch
between students and teachers metacognition and reg-
ulatory behaviors can be identified. We argue that non-
optimal scaffolding may result from an incorrect percep-
tion of students metacognitive experiences.
There is not much research on how teachers or peers
perceive students metacognitive experiences. Astudy by
Atras and Efklides (2004) investigated this issue. The
assumption was that students judgments of their own
metacognitive experiences are more closelyrelatedtotheir
performance than the judgments of peers or teachers.
Peers and teachers judgments are presumably driven by
normative criteria of performance or by theory- or belief-
driven views about ability. In this study, students from 6
classes (N = 114; 3 classes of 4th grade and 3 classes of
5th grade) were asked to rank themselves as well as their
P. Salonen et al.: Social Interaction in Learning 201
2005 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers European Psychologist 2005; 10(3):199208
classmates in terms of math performance in school. The
ranking was in terms of good, moderately good, and not
so good in math. The classroomteacher provided a similar
rankingof all of his/her students. Thenstudents wereasked
to solve an easy math problemrequiring addition and sub-
traction, and a more difficult one requiring division, addi-
tion, and subtraction. Before and after solving each prob-
lemstudents were askedto report their feelingof difficulty,
estimate of effort, and estimate of solution correctness.
Specifically, the questions were How much difficulty do
you feel now that you have read (solved) this problem?,
How much effort do you need to invest (did you invest)
in order to solve the problem?, How correctly do you
think you can solve (you solved) this problem?, respec-
tively. Responses were on four-point scales ranging from
1 = not at all to 4 = very.
After all students had solved the problems, the
researchers, in consultation with the teacher of each
class, identified three students
3
as good, moderately
good, and not so good (N = 18 students), respectively.
The participating students were not aware of this consul-
tation. Then all students (N= 114 students) and the teach-
ers (N = 6 teachers) gave their judgment of the presumed
metacognitive experiences of each of the 18 identified
students in both the easy and the difficult problem. These
judgments were then compared with the 18 students
own previously reported metacognitive experiences. The
main findings of the study were:
1. All studentstask performance was moderately related
to students self-reported metacognitive experiences,
r = .26 to r = .56.
2. All students ranking of themselves, as regards math
performance in school, had a relatively low correla-
tion with their task-performance. Specifically, stu-
dents ranking of themselves correlated more with
their performance in the easy problem than in the dif-
ficult one, r = .269 and r = .186, respectively. The
correlation of students performance in the easy and
difficult problem with fellow-students mean ranking
of them was r = .255 and r = .233, respectively, and
with the teachers ranking was r = .346 and r = .320,
respectively.
3. The self-reported metacognitive experiences by the 18
identified students in the three performance categories
were not significantly related to the ratings of the
metacognitive experiences given by their fellow-stu-
dents and their teachers. However, inspection of the
mean ratings of the students, fellow-students, and
teachers for each metacognitive experience revealed
an interesting pattern of responses.
a) For the good students, teachers judgments and stu-
dents self-reported metacognitive experiences
were similar. They reflected no feeling of difficulty
at all, no need for effort, and high estimate of solu-
tion correctness for both the easy and the difficult
problem. Fellow-students judgments were in the
same direction, although more varied.
b) The moderately good students self-reported meta-
cognitive experiences in the easy problem were
similar to those reported by the good students; there
was only a small differentiation toward a higher
feeling of difficulty and estimate of effort in the
difficult problem. However, fellow-students judg-
ments were not so optimistic; they predicted a mod-
erate feeling of difficulty as well as estimates of
effort and estimate of solution correctness in both
problems. Teachers judgments were inbetween the
students own and fellow-students judgments as
regards feeling of difficulty and estimate of effort,
but predicted a higher estimate of solution correct-
ness than fellow-students did. This probably re-
flects teachers beliefs or expectations that these
students have the capability to do well, despite
some difficulty they might have.
c) Finally, in the case of not so good students, a sig-
nificant discrepancy was detected in both problems
between students self-reported metacognitive
experiences, the judgments of fellow-students and
those of teachers. Students self-reported metacog-
nitive experiences were clearly highly optimistic as
compared to the judgments of the other two groups.
Fellow-students predicted quite high feeling of dif-
ficulty and moderate estimate of effort and of solu-
tion correctness. Teachers judgments were even
more pessimistic than those of fellow-students, pre-
dicting high feeling of difficulty, high estimate of
effort, and moderate estimate of solution correct-
ness.
These findings suggest, first, that the basis for judging
ones ownandanothers metacognitiveexperiences is dif-
ferent. Studentsself-reportedmetacognitiveexperiences
correlated with their performance; this finding suggests a
relatively accurate perception of their subjective states or
calibration of their judgments. Yet, their ranking of them-
selves as compared to that of their fellow-students was
based on their successful performance on easy tasks
rather than on difficult ones showing a self-serving bias.
Second, teachers based their ranking of students ability
and their judgment of students metacognitive experi-
ences on the basis of students achievement at school.
However, their ranking of students in the class seemed to
202 P. Salonen et al.: Social Interaction in Learning
European Psychologist 2005; 10(3):199208 2005 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
3 This information was given only to the researchers. Neither the identified students nor their fellow-students knew of this ranking.
take into consideration other criteria as well since the cor-
relation with students task performance was quite low.
Third, the discrepancy found between students judg-
ments of their own metacognitive experiences and teach-
ers judgments of students metacognitive experiences is
highest in the case of low achieving students. Teachers
believe that not so good students are aware of task diffi-
culty, they exert high effort, but still the outcome is not
satisfactory. However, the students themselves reported
exactly the opposite pattern of metacognitive experi-
ences. Thus, instead of awareness of ignorance, increase
of effort, and negative affect as teachers assumed, stu-
dents reported quite low level of difficulty, invested little
effort, and felt satisfied with their performance because
they thought it was correct. This suggests that teachers
perceptions of low achieving students were based on a
stereotype of a not capable student who, nevertheless, is
aware of his/her ignorance and is willing to invest effort.
This findingsuggests that teachersmetacognitiveknowl-
edge of their students maybestereotypical andofteninac-
curate, thus, leading to possible scaffolding mismatch.
If teachers realize the discrepancy between their own
judgments and low achieving students metacognitive
experiences, then it is plausible to assume that teachers
theory- or belief-driven assumptions can lead to perva-
sive dominance efforts, if the teachers main way of cop-
ing is to push through or defend their assumption. It may
also lead to teachers negative affect because the students
do not invest effort, as they should do. As a consequence,
learners sense of autonomy and of competence are
undermined, leading to learning avoidance, to escalating
negativity, or to opposition behaviors (Salonen, Lehti-
nen, & Olkinuora, 1998; Vauras et al., 2001).
It should be pointed out, however, that studies using
questionnaires cannot show how teachers actually re-
spond to individual students metacognitive experiences
and affect in a real learning situation. Therefore, we can
only assume howteachers respond to studentsperceived
metacognitive experiences. To get this kind of informa-
tion a different methodology is needed, namely, a micro-
genetic design.
Microgenetic Designs in Learning
Context
Microgenetic Analysis and Interpersonal
Coordination
Microgenetic designs (see Vygotsky, 1978) are targeted
to reveal fine-grained, micro-developmental changes
while they are occurring over real time and in the context
of social interactions (Lavelli, Pantoja, Hsu, Messinger,
& Fogel, in press). They look for recurrent interbehav-
ioral patterns, and interpersonal moment-by-moment
coordinations, and aim at revealing temporal synchron-
ies, sequences, reciprocities, complementarities, or sym-
metries in participants unfolding behavioral streams.
Microgenetic designs address dynamic and relational
invariance: Their basic units of analysis are the changing
relationships among individuals, and between individu-
als and their environments (Bakeman, Deckner, &
Quera, in press; Dumas, Lemay, & Dauwalden, 2001;
Lavelli et al., in press; Harrist & Waugh, 2002). We set
out to expand the microgenetic design in learning con-
texts on the basis of the coordination of behaviors pro-
posed by interpersonal theories.
Interpersonal theories have underscored the coordina-
tion of participants sociocognitive and affective behav-
iors. There is growing evidence that interpersonal pattern-
ingencompasses not onlycognitivecoordinations, but also
social control and role-taking processes, as well as affec-
tive and perhaps even motivational processes (see Reis,
Collins, & Berscheid, 2000; Thompson & Fine, 1999). If
participants negotiate each others cognitive-metacogni-
tive processes linked to communicative content, they are
said to be involved in the semantic (or content-related)
4
mode of coregulation. If they negotiate each others rela-
tional positions and affective responses, they are engaged
in the pragmatic (or command) mode of coregulation
(Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). Relational con-
trol is an instance of the pragmatic function of communi-
cation; it has been defined as a specific transactional pro-
cess, that of defining and negotiating interpersonal control
and, on another level, the distribution of power in a rela-
tionship, i.e., dominance and submission (Wuerker,
Long, Haas, & Bellack, 2002, p. 282).
Since Sullivans (1953) theorem of reciprocal emo-
tion, a growing number of theorists hold that affective
responses are also interpersonally coordinated. Nearly
all current interpersonal models (see Horowitz, 1996;
Orford, 1986) are based on two main dimensions or
themes: dominance (control)-submission and accep-
tance (love)-rejection (hate). Characteristic of the control
dimension is complementarity (i.e., dominance pulls for
submission), whereas the acceptance dimension is
characterized by symmetry (i.e., friendliness pulls for
friendliness). Empirical findings clearly show that
friendly-dominant behavior leads to friendly-submissive
behavior, and vice versa (Kiesler, 1996). However, hos-
tile-dominant behavior sometimes leads to more hostile-
dominant behavior (Orford, 1986).
P. Salonen et al.: Social Interaction in Learning 203
2005 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers European Psychologist 2005; 10(3):199208
4 One could extend the semantic, i.e., cognitive, coregulation to include metacognition as well, since coregulation presupposes awareness of
ones own and the others cognition.
The above presentation of relational control models
suggests that the scaffolding mismatch we discussed
above and its implications for students affect and moti-
vation can be partly caused by a lack of awareness of the
others (meta)cognition, and partly by dominance-re-
lated behaviors.
Metacognitive Coregulation and
Interpersonal Coordination
In social learning contexts, particularly in collaborative
learning, the participants are supposed to be engaged in
a coordinated, synchronous activity that is the result of
a continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared
conception of a problem (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995,
p. 70). Cognitive coregulation involves more or less con-
scious, continuous efforts by partners to coordinate their
language and activity with respect to shared knowledge
(see Roschelle & Teasley, 1995, p. 94). From the cogni-
tive-regulatory point of view, interpersonal negotiations
not only presuppose continuous mutual appropriation of
meaning, i.e., coordinated self-regulations, but also
other- and coregulations (e.g., scaffolding, guidance, and
explaining) aimed at maintaining and re-establishing a
common ground of understanding.
In ordinary learning situations, however, negotiating
partners regularly experience temporary imbalances or
perturbations based on insufficient understanding of the
others semantic intentions. Semantic misunderstand-
ings and the experienced lack of mutuality are often com-
bined with feelings of confusion and insecurity. Astrong
need arises in both partners for the re-establishing of so-
cial balance and mutuality (Cicourel, 1973). These com-
municative imbalances are dealt with at two main levels:
semantic and pragmatic (see Watzlawick et al., 1967).
Negotiations at the Semantic Level:
Metacommunicative Messages
On the semantic plane, participants may try to repair the
distorted interaction (a) through sharpening their own
cognitive strategies, metacognitive awareness, and self-
regulatory activity, and (b) through engaging in intensi-
fied coregulatory metacognitive activity in terms of
exchanging wonderings, questions, requests, prompts,
clues, explanations, and elaborations related to a partic-
ular content of communication. Evidently, this is where
perception of others metacognitive experiences comes
in. The latter class of behaviors, which both comment on
and manage the ongoing communication, can be charac-
terized as metacommunicative messages (Bateson,
1956). Contrary to the early conceptualizations of meta-
communicative messages as reflecting merely the prag-
matic component (Bateson, 1956; Watzlawick et al.,
1967), we hold that metacommunicative expressions
may also reflect the semantic component of communica-
tion and, thus, represent a genuine coregulatory meta-
cognitive activity. This interpretation is supported by the
referential communication literature (see, e.g., Plumert
& Nichols-Whitehead, 1996) demonstrating that copar-
ticipants (e.g., scaffolding adults and peers) use more or
less non-directive regulatory prompts to point out ambig-
uous messages in situations where they feel that the com-
mon ground for understanding is threatened. Since such
metacommunicative regulatory prompts are not aimed at
exerting power, but rather at re-establishing a common
ground for further understanding and coconstruction,
they clearly represent genuine metacognitive coregula-
tion. For example, A: I missed your point, please ex-
plain and B: Okay, Ill give you an example.
Negotiations at the Pragmatic Level
Often, the participants try to shape their interaction or
repair the communicative imbalance at the pragmatic
level. At this level, escalatory processes are typical. Feel-
ings of confusion, insecurity, and a lack of mutuality may
start with minor semantic or pragmatic misunderstand-
ings. Earlier, the participants may have unsuccessfully
tried to resolve the problem at the semantic level. For
example, with insufficient metacognitive coregulation,
they will be entangled with escalating mutual dominance
(e.g., directiveness, intrusiveness) and negative affectiv-
ity (Van Denburg & Kiesler, 1993). For example, A:
You are wrong! and B: You are not listening to me!
Our case study (Salonen, Vauras, &Iiskala, 2004) sup-
ported the applicability of the microgenetic design for
revealing the complex time-related interpersonal pat-
terns in a collaborative learning context. When applied
to interaction sequences while working on mathematical
word problems, we detected a rich variation in interper-
sonal behavioral patterns, and also found many of the
predicted multi-modal constellations of interpersonal
coordination. Each of the constellations fitted surpris-
ingly well into the theory-based, predicted patterns of
relational control, motivational orientation and affective
coordination. To illustrate these findings, we present
here
5
three extracts from two high-achieving, 4th-grade
students (Oiva and Joel) joint-problem-solving in one
204 P. Salonen et al.: Social Interaction in Learning
European Psychologist 2005; 10(3):199208 2005 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
5 Full extracts with coding signs and detailed interpretations associated with all communication moves are presented in Salonen et al. (2004).
problematic word problem, for which no straightfor-
ward mathematical solution could be found (see, e.g.,
Verschaffel, De Corte, & Lasure, 1994). Within a focal
episode (2 minutes at the end of a 20-minute problem-
solving session), we found seven dynamically differing
interaction patterns, manifesting diverse interpersonal
multimodal coordinations. Three of them are presented
here for illustrative purposes.
Example 1. The 1st (of seven) Transaction Sequence
Joel: I did it all, as usual (jokingly, glances at Oiva,
smiles)
Oiva (glances at Joel, gives a laugh; leans on Joels
arm, and Joel pushes Oiva away who retracts; Joel
looks at the screen)
Oiva: So, what did you say (questioningly, looks at
Joel, smiles)
Joel (gives a laugh): Didnt you listen at all (annoyed,
looks at Oiva)
Oiva: I did, I did (looks at Joel, smiles, and begins to
look at the screen)
All the dyadic patterns we observed represent strong
complementarity where Joel dominates and Oiva sub-
mits. The repetitive relational control pattern coincides
one-to-one with the pragmatic messages; no instances of
metacommunicative semantic mode messages, i.e.,
metacognitive coregulation, can be found. Joels domi-
nance is generally accompanied with smiling, but his
self-enhancing moves still indicate rejection and affec-
tive negativity. Oivas submitting responses have a pos-
itive tone. The boys show mutual non-task-orientation:
Joel consistently shows ego-defensive type ego-enhanc-
ing behaviors, whereas Oiva shows social-dependence
type appealing and adjusting behaviors. This sequence
exemplifies a pure pragmatic mode interaction where no
instances of metacommunicative semantic mode (i.e.,
metacognitive coregulation) can be found.
In the example below, relational control patterns indi-
cate structuring-symmetries (i.e., a participants structur-
ing move as a response to anothers structuring) and
weak complementarities with no intention to dominate
or to submit (i.e., one participants deference move to
anothers structuring or vv.). The boys show mutual task
orientation and mostly coordinated neutral affective
behaviors. The match between structuring symmetry,
metacommunicative semantic level regulation, mutual
task orientation, and neutral affective symmetry is al-
most perfect.
Example 2. The 4th (of Seven) Transaction Sequence
Joel: No but, it must come there, look (the boys look
at each other); think, fourteen times (looks at Oiva)
Oiva: No, it isnt needed (looks at Joel)
Joel: No but, fourteen divided (looks at Oiva) by four
(excited)
Oiva (looks at Joel): Yes, fourteen divided by four
Joel: Ninety-eight is no use (Oiva writes 14/4 on the
screen)
The last sequence (below) exemplifies complementary
relational control patterns extending from structuring-
submissive to dominating-submissive, where Joels
dominance continues. Affective coordinations vary from
neutral-neutral to positive-positive. Joel shifts to task-
orientation, while Oiva continues to respond in a depend-
ent, mindless manner. Oivas regression is indicated by
the continuing disorganization of his cognitive activity.
Example 3. The 7th (of Seven) Transaction Sequence
Joel: Yes, three times seven (looks at the screen, nods;
Oiva looks at the keyboard and writes # on the screen,
probably by accident; Joel looks at the screen, and
gives a quick look at the keyboard)
Oiva: It makes (glances at Joel)
Joel: Hey, its not any tick (looks at the screen, smiles,
and gives a laugh; Oiva erases # from the screen,
writes 2, probably by accident, then erases 2)
Joel: That isnt three, sorry but, and it isnt two (smiles
and looks at the screen; Oiva smiles and writes 3 * 7
on the screen)
In sum, among the seven sequences that we analyzed,
there were only two rather short episodes of genuine
metacognitive coregulation. The collaborative problem-
solving process was rather fragile when the boys faced
a difficult problem. Both relational control and motiva-
tional orientation were patterned in ways that did not
promote metacognitive coregulation. Although no esca-
latory competitive symmetries with negative affectivity
were found, there were other destructive patterns. In par-
ticular, not only strong relational complementarity and
unilateral task-orientation, but also mutual non-task-ori-
entation were actualized and readily sustained. The last
three sections showed how such destructive patterns
contributed to the relatively long-lasting disorganization
of joint activity. On the other hand, both boys demon-
strated the ability to recover from non-task-oriented
cycles and engage at intervals in mutual task-oriented
activity.
Conclusions
The aim of this article was to show that coregulation in
learning involves coordination of cognitive, metacogni-
tive, affective, and motivational processes, as well as
P. Salonen et al.: Social Interaction in Learning 205
2005 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers European Psychologist 2005; 10(3):199208
interpersonal and social control processes. To highlight
the importance of interpersonal processes we used two
independent studies as illustrations of two different
methodological approaches to the investigation of coreg-
ulation in learning. One methodology used question-
naires to reveal theory- or belief-driven regulation based
on interpersonal perceptions and the other used a micro-
genetic design. The questionnaire study elucidated the-
ory- or belief-driven regulation based on interpersonal
relations in this case teachers and peers perceptions
of students metacognitive experiences. The microge-
netic study elucidated evidence-based regulation as
manifested in a peer collaborative learning situation. The
advantage of the microgenetic design is that it can reveal
the dynamic interaction of cognitive and metacognitive
processes with social control processes as they take
place. From this point of view, the evidence from micro-
genetic studies can challenge inferences based on indi-
vidual difference methodologies, and so can advance our
knowledge of coregulation in learning situations.
On the basis of extant research and the evidence from
our study, we argue that theory-driven coregulation in
learning may lead to scaffolding mismatch for various
reasons. One possible reason is a lack of awareness of
the students actual metacognitive feelings and judg-
ments as they unfold in the course of learning. The neg-
ative implications of scaffolding mismatch can be found
in the cognitive as well as in the affective and motiva-
tional domains leading to escalating negative affect,
conflicts, lack of communication, avoidance of learn-
ing, etc.
Evidence-based coregulation, on the other hand, rep-
resents coregulation of learning based on task-process-
ing and partners ongoing monitoring and control of
their own and the others cognition, metacognition, af-
fect, and motivation. Presumably, this form of coregu-
lation leads to scaffolding match and to more flexible,
responsive, and sensitive teaching with better results for
the student. However, further research is needed to test
this assumption. Our study with collaborating peers
provides some evidence, but peer relations are different
from teacher-student relations, where there is asymme-
try in social status in the group as well as in the cogni-
tive and motivational background. This implies that in
asymmetrical relations, in which the probability of the-
ory-driven coregulation is high, we should try, first, to
differentiate the effects of theory-driven, nonflexible
regulation from the effects of evidence-based, flexible
regulation, and the possible shifts from one form of reg-
ulation to the other. Second, we need to differentiate the
effects of theory-driven or evidence-based coregulation
from the effects of interpersonal relations. In interper-
sonal relations relational control processes are operative
and they may facilitate or inhibit efficient cognitive,
metacognitive, and affective transactions. It is possible
that part of the negative effects of scaffolding mismatch
on students is caused by relational control processes
that are inherent in the interpersonal learning situation
rather than by theory-driven regulation per se. This is
an issue that should also be investigated in future re-
search.
It is worth noting here that theory-driven regulation
does not necessarily lead to scaffolding mismatch and
negative effects on students. As the Atras and Efklides
study (2004) showed, teachers judgments of good
and moderately good students metacognitive experi-
ences, although theory-driven, matched the students
own judgments of their metacognitive experiences.
Thus, in this case theory-driven regulation leads to scaf-
folding match rather than mismatch as it occurs with
students with learning difficulties. Therefore, we should
look at the interactions between the forms of regulation
and students ability or motivational background. Stu-
dents cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and motiva-
tional characteristics influence teachers or peers regu-
latory responses, while self- or coregulatory behaviors
of teachers and peers influence the students own meta-
cognition, affect, and motivation. Thus, affective ten-
sion and conflict can occur even in the relations of
good students with teachers, where there is usually
scaffolding match. Future microgenetic design research
could identify the factors that make a semantic or prag-
matic metacommunication mode salient, and the impli-
cations of shifts in the metacommunicative mode of
learning.
Another point that is worth noting was the absence of
negative affect in the two interacting peers in the Salonen
et al. (2004) study, despite the pragmatic mode of meta-
communication. This finding emphasizes the importance
of underlying positive affect as a shield against the neg-
ative effects of dominant behaviors in a partnership. Af-
fect seems to be another important correlate of coregula-
tion in learning. Dispositional student characteristics,
such as ability, personality, self-concept, or motivation,
as well as situational factors, such as task presentation or
feedback valence (Efklides &Aretouli, 2003; Efklides &
Dina, 2004), have significant effects on students affect
as they enter a learning situation (Efklides & Petkaki, in
press). The interaction of the coregulation form with af-
fect preceding, accompanying, or following learning is
another important aspect on the agenda of future coreg-
ulation research.
Finally, this article has tried to showthe importance of
social interaction processes in learning. We have sug-
gested a theoretical and methodological approach that
can contribute to understanding the complexity of the
coregulation processes involved in learning, and pointed
out the need for more integrative research in this area.
206 P. Salonen et al.: Social Interaction in Learning
European Psychologist 2005; 10(3):199208 2005 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Grants No. 47369 and
201782 from the Council for Cultural and Social Science
Research, the Academy of Finland, to the second author.
References
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Roth, G. (in press).
Directly controlling teacher behavior as predictors of poor
motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger
and anxiety. Learning and Instruction.
Atras, W., & Efklides, A. (2004). Metacognitive experiences and
judgments about others. Manuscript in preparation.
Bakeman, R., Deckner, D.F., & Quera, V. (in press). Analysis of
behavioral streams. In D.M. Teti (Ed.), Handbook of research
methods in developmental science. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative prob-
lem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9,
403436.
Bartsch, K., & Wellman, H.M. (1995). Children talk about their
mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bateson, G. (1956). The message: This is play. In B. Schaffner
(Ed.), Group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 145242). New York:
Macy.
Berliner, D. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert
teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35,
463482.
Bolhuis, S., & Voeten, M.J. (2001). Toward self-directed learning
in secondary schools: What do teachers do? Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17, 837855.
Butler, D.L. (1998). Astrategic content learning approach to pro-
moting self-regulated learning by students with learning dis-
abilities. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-reg-
ulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice
(pp. 160183). New York: Guilford.
Chambres, P., Bonin, D., Izaute, M., & Marescaux, P.-J. (2002).
Metacognition triggered by a social aspect of expertise. In P.
Chambres, M. Izaute, & P.-J. Marescaux (Eds.), Metacogni-
tion: Process, function, and use (pp. 153168). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Cicourel, A. (1973). Cognitive sociology. London: Penguin.
Doehler, S.P. (2002). Mediation revisited: The interactive organi-
zation of mediation in learning environments. Mind, Culture,
and Activity, 9, 2242.
Dumas, J.E., Lemay, P., &Dauwalder, J.-P. (2001). Dynamic anal-
yses of mother-child interactions in functional and dysfunc-
tional dyads: A synergetic approach. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 29, 317329.
Dweck, C.S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and
their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two per-
spectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267285.
Dweck, C.S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., & Enna, B. (1978). Sex
differences in learned helplessness: II. The contingencies of
evaluative feedback in the classroom and III. An experimental
analysis. Developmental Psychology, 14, 268276.
Efklides, A. (2001). Metacognitive experiences in problem solv-
ing: Metacognition, motivation, and self-regulation. In A.
Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and pros-
pects in motivation research (pp. 297323). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Efklides, A. (2003, August). Metacognition and affect: What can
metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process?
Keynote address at the 10th EARLI Conference, University of
Padova, Italy.
Efklides, A., & Aretouli, E. (2003). Interesting, difficult, or an
exercise for the mind? The effect of the affective tone of the
instructions on metacognitive experiences and self-concept. In
A. Efklides, A. Stogiannidou, & E. Avdi (Vol. Eds.), Scientific
annals of the Faculty of Philosophy, School of Psychology,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki: Vol. 5. Volume in memory
of M. Maniou-Vakali (pp. 287322). Thessaloniki, Greece:
Aristotle University Press/Art of Text.
Efklides, A., &Dina, F. (2004). Feedback fromones own self and
fromthe others: Their effect on affect. Hellenic Journal of Psy-
chology, 1, 179202.
Efklides, A., & Petkaki, Ch. (in press). Effects of mood on stu-
dents metacognitive experiences. Learning and Instruction.
Efklides, A., Samara, A., & Petropoulou, M. (1999). Feeling of
difficulty: An aspect of monitoring that influences control.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, XIV, 461476.
Efklides, A., &Tsiora, A. (2002). Metacognitive experiences, self-
concept, and self-regulation. Psychologia: An International
Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 45, 222236.
Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring A
new era of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psy-
chologist, 34, 906911.
Harrist, A.W., & Pettit, G.S., Dodge, K.A., & Bates, J.E. (1994).
Dyadic synchrony in mother-child interaction. Journal of Fam-
ily Relations, 43, 417424.
Harrist, A.W., & Waugh, R.M. (2002). Dyadic synchrony: Its
structure and function in childrens development. Developmen-
tal Review, 22, 555592.
Horowitz, L.M. (1996). The study of interpersonal problems: A
Leary legacy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 283300.
Kiesler, D.J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and re-
search: Personality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy.
New York: Wiley.
King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition
and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10,
5774.
Lavelli, M., Pantoja, A., Hsu, H., Messinger, D., & Fogel, A. (in
press). Using microgenetic designs to study change processes.
In D.M. Teti (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in develop-
mental science. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Lepola, J., & Salonen, P. (2003, August). A microanalytic model
for analysing sociocognitive, motivational, and affective pro-
cesses in parent-child scaffolding interaction. Poster presented
at the 10th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and
Instruction, Padua, Italy.
Lepola, J., Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2004).
Understanding the development of subnormal performance in
children from a motivational-interactionist perspective. In H.
Switzky (Ed.), International reviewof research inmental retar-
dation: Vol. 28. Personality and motivational systems in mental
retardation (pp. 145189). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Lories, G., Dardenne, B., & Yzerbyt, V.Y. (1998). From social
cognition to metacognition. In V.Y. Yzerbyt, G. Lories, & B.
Dardenne (Eds.), Metacognition: Cognition and social dimen-
sions (pp. 115). London: Sage.
P. Salonen et al.: Social Interaction in Learning 207
2005 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers European Psychologist 2005; 10(3):199208
McCaslin, M., & Good, T. (1996). The informal curriculum. In D.
Berliner &R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychol-
ogy (pp. 622672). New York: Simon & Schuster.
Meichenbaum, D., &Biemiller, A. (1998). Nurturing independent
learners. Brookline, MA: Brookline Books.
Meyer, D.K., &Turner, J.C. (2002). Using instructional discourse
analysis to study the scaffolding of student self-regulation.
Educational Psychologist, 37, 1725.
Orford, J. (1986). The rules of interpersonal complementarity:
Does hostility beget hostility and dominance, submission? Psy-
chological Review, 93, 365377.
Parent, S., Gosselin, C., & Moss, E. (2000). From mother-regu-
lated to child-regulated joint planning activity: Alook at famil-
ial adversity and attachment. Journal of Applied Developmen-
tal Psychology, 21, 447470.
Patterson, G.R. (1976). The aggressive child: Victimand architect
of a coercive system. In E.J. Mash, L.A. Hamerlynck, & L.C.
Handy (Eds.), Behavior modification and families: Vol 1. The-
ory and research (pp. 267316). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Plumert, J.M., &Nichols-Whitehead, P. (1996). Parental scaffold-
ing of young childrens spatial communication. Developmental
Psychology, 32, 523532.
Pomerantz, E.M., & Eaton, M.M. (2001). Maternal intrusive sup-
port in the academic context: Transactional socialization pro-
cesses. Developmental Psychology, 37, 174186.
Reis, H.T., Collins, W.A., &Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship
context of human behavior and development. Psychological
Bulletin, 126, 844872.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S.D. (1995). The construction of shared
knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. OMalley
(Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69
97). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Salonen, P., Lehtinen, E., & Olkinuora, E. (1998). Expectations
and beyond: The development of motivation and learning in a
classroomcontext. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on
teaching, Vol. 7: Expectations in the classroom (pp. 111150).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Salonen, P., Vauras, M., &Iiskala, T. (2004, September). Metacog-
nitive, motivational and affective coregulation in collaborative
learning settings: Amicrogenetic analysis of interpersonal pat-
terns. In M. Vauras (Chair), Motivation, affect, and self-regu-
lation: From early attentional processes to advanced learning
in socially challenging learning environments. Symposium
conducted at the 9th International Conference on Motivation,
Lisbon, Portugal.
Salonen, P., Vauras, M., &Volet, S. (2003, December). Preventive
supporting of student self-regulation and self-determination:
Principles for designing adaptive learning environments. Pa-
per presented at the INTERLEARN Conference, Helsinki.
Sullivan, H.S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry.
New York: Norton.
Thompson, L., & Fine, G.A. (1999). Socially shared cognition,
affect, and behavior: Areviewand integration. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 3, 278302.
Van Denburg, T., & Kiesler, D.J. (1993) Transactional escalation
in rigidity and intensity of interpersonal behaviour under stress.
British Journal of Medical Psychology, 66, 1531.
Vauras, M., Salonen, P., Lepola, J., & Lehtinen, E. (2001). Long-
term development of motivation and cognition in family and
school contexts. In S. Volet & S. Jrvel (Eds.), Motivation in
learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological
implications (pp. 295315). London: Pergamon.
Vauras, M., Iiskala, T., Kajamies, A., Kinnunen, R., & Lehtinen,
E. (2003). Shared regulation and motivation of collaborating
peers: Acase analysis. Psychologia: An International Journal
of Psychology in the Orient, 46, 1937.
Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., & Lasure, S. (1994). Realistic con-
siderations in mathematical modeling of school arithmetic
word problems. Learning and Instruction, 4, 273294.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D.D. (1967). Pragmatics
of human communication. New York: Norton.
Winsler, A., Diaz, R., McCarthy, E., Atencio, D., & Chabay, L.
(1999). Mother-child interaction, private speech, and task per-
formance in preschool children with behavior problems. Jour-
nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 891904.
Wuerker, A.K., Long, J.D., Haas, G.L., & Bellack, A.S. (2002).
Interpersonal control, expressed emotion, and change in symp-
toms in families of persons with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia
Research, 58, 281292.
About the author
Pekka Salonen is Senior Researcher at the Department of Teacher
Education and Center for Learning Research, University of Turku,
Finland. His research interests comprise motivational and emo-
tional processes and social interaction patterns in classroom in-
struction, small-group, and parental guidance settings.
Address for correspondence
Pekka Salonen
Department of Teacher Education
Center for Learning Research
University of Turku
FIN-20014 Turku
Finland
E-mail pekka.salonen@utu.fi
208 P. Salonen et al.: Social Interaction in Learning
European Psychologist 2005; 10(3):199208 2005 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers