Development of the Coding schemes

Two coding schemes were developed in order to understand verbal interactions. The first coding scheme provided an understanding of the metacognitive content of the interactions whilst the second one was used to code the transactive quality of the interactions.

When constructing a coding scheme for use in a content analysis, two different methods may be appropriate. As previously noted, predefined codings schemes are generally used. However, codes which are derived from the text might also be employed. Larkin (2009) in her study on metacognition and writing, compiled codes directly from the text.

Although the study was shaped by research on metacognition, the particular codes were grounded in the data to reflect the behaviours which were being displayed. These behaviours were then categorised under broader headings such as monitoring, control or

theory of mind. The alternative approach to coding is to use pre-defined codes. These

codes may be ones which have been derived specifically for the current research project, or they may be ones which have been used in previous research. The advantage of using previously published coding schemes is that comparisons may be made between studies. However, codes which are derived for a particular study, or indeed from a particular study have the advantage of providing codes which have contextual relevance.

In order to provide some continuity and allow comparison between studies, this study drew on previously published coding schemes. The empirical studies which were reviewed in the chapter on collaborative metacognition provided a starting point from which to find suitable coding schemes. In the following section I will provide details of the coding schemes used in order to fully understand the verbal data, starting with transactive and moving on to the metacognitive scheme.

Transactive Reasoning Coding Scheme

The coding scheme used to operationalise collaboration was taken from the Goos et al (2002) study which focussed on the transactive nature of interaction as an

operationalisation of collaboration. This scheme was chosen because it had been published previously in a similar study and also because the theoretical conceptualisation of

collaboration was similar to that in this study.

Transactive reasoning

The notion of transactive interaction was first described by Berkowitz and Gibbs (1983) who studied the reasoning abilities of children. They suggested that transactive discussion might be understood as ‘reasoning that operates on the reasoning of another’ (Berkowitz & Gibbs 1983, p402). This type of interaction might be thought of as a form of

developed by Kruger and Tomasello (1986) who proposed three types of transacts:

transactive statements, transactive questions and transactive responses. Transactive statements were defined as statements which represented a critique, refinement or

extension of an idea. Transactive questions were defined as requests for clarification, justification, or elaboration of the partner's ideas. Both transactive questions and statements were defined as being spontaneously produced. Transactive responses,

however, were defined as responses which occurred following a transactive question where an individual would give justification for their ideas or proposals (Berkowitz & Gibbs 1983, p683). Furthermore, these transacts could be self-oriented or other-oriented. Self- orientation refers to a statement, question or response made by an individual about his or her own utterance. Whereas other-oriented represents a statement, question or response made about an utterance of another.

Research in this area was initially conducted from a Piagetian perspective and sought to understand the relationship between transactive discussion and learning through the notion of cognitive conflict (e.g. Kruger 1993). However, a parallel field of research has been conducted from a Vygotskian perspective in order to understand social learning processes (e.g. Teasley 1997). Although these theoretical perspectives have differed, the concept of transactive discussion has remained constant. Teasley’s (1997) conceptualisation of transactive discussion was similar to that proposed by Berkowitz & Gibbs (1983) where a child would use their conversational turn to operate on the reasoning of others or

themselves. Nucci (2006) refers to the attempt of the speaker to extend the logic of or critique the prior speaker’s argument. Finally, Wahlstedt & Lindkvist (2007) suggested “a

turn is considered transactive if it extends, paraphrases, refines, completes, critiques an other’s reasoning or the speaker’s own reasoning” (p1078). Wahlstedt & Lindkvist

(2007) proposed a development in the understanding of the role of transactive discussion. When individuals work collaboratively towards a goal, they suggest that it is important that they are able to “support and use each other in a way that contributes to goal fulfilment” (p1078). They suggest that within the collaborative environment there is a social

obligation to engage in such a way that encourages collaboration.

This understanding of transactive discussion in a collaborative environment is congruent with the understanding of collaboration as being part of the activity of problem solving. By viewing transactive discussion in such a way we can understand the importance of the interactive nature of collaboration.

As previously mentioned, the coding scheme for the transactive contribution of talk was taken from the Goos et al (2002). This coding scheme is representative of the transacts which were suggested by Kruger and Tomasello (1986) which are statements, questions

and responses. The coding scheme can be found in Appendix A.

Metacognition Coding Scheme

The coding scheme for metacognition proved to be more difficult to produce. The

previously mentioned studies have operationalised metacognition in different ways and the operationalisation of metacognition was often more of a qualitative judgement rather than based on the use of a coding scheme. Three papers did provide some direction in the coding scheme: Artz and Armour-Thomas (1992), Goos et al (2002) and Hurme et al (2005) all provided clear operationalisations of metacognition. However, the purpose of those papers was to highlight instances of metacognition, although Artz and Armour- Thomas were also concerned with highlighting cognitive talk. Whilst one aim of the research in this thesis was to identify instances of metacognition, it was also important to understand the other types of talk in which the students and teacher engaged, particularly, in relation to being able to distinguish between cognitive and metacognitive and also on- task statements versus off-task statements. It was therefore necessary to employ additional codes.

Since the teacher joined the groups at various points, it was also necessary to differentiate the types of talk displayed at that time. The coding scheme for points when the teacher was present in the group was taken from a previously published scheme which had been developed specifically to understand the types of interactions by made teachers whilst working with groups (Lally & DeLaat, 2002, based on Anderson et al 2001). This coding scheme referred to the types of interactions that the teacher might make such as facilitating discourse, giving instructions or encouraging student contributions.

In order to understand the nature of student talk, codes were developed through the amalgamation of coding schemes used by Artz & Armour-Thomas, Goos et al (2002) and Hurme et al (2006) and the addition of a previously published coding scheme used to understand the types of talk displayed by students during collaborative problem solving (Lally & DeLaat, 2002 adapted from Veldhuis-Dermainse & Beimans 2000). A full breakdown of the coding scheme is provided in Appendix A, together with examples of

each type of utterance and reference to the research paper from which it was derived. Data were categorised under the main headings of cognitive, metacognitive, social, teacher

teaching and other. However, these were broken down further to provide more detailed

analysis of the talk. In doing so, it was hoped that the reliability might be strengthened (discussed more fully in the reliability/validity section) as a more detailed analysis provided less opportunity for ambiguity of coding.

Furthermore, a distinction was required to aid coding of metacognitive statements in relation to cognitive statements. This distinction is not often clear and a statement taken out of context might be seen as either cognitive or metacognitive. Therefore, in order to try and avoid the arbitrary use of inferences being made regarding what the student meant or how a student understood a situation, a distinction was used to refer to during the coding process. Although some of the previously mentioned studies provided a distinction

between cognition and metacognition, Teong (2003) has provided a clearer distinction which was adopted:

“metacognitive behaviours could be exhibited by statements made about the

problem or about the problem solving process while cognitive behaviours could be exhibited by verbal actions that indicated actual processing of information”

(Teong 2003 p141).